TheQuiltedLlama

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.quote> What solid evidence do you have for that?? Please remember that one million marching in London does not represent a majority of over 60 million people, also remember that the government was voted back into power despite the opposition to war.. I supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.quote> Would you have supported the Iraq war had you know that Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction? I can't be sure that the majority of people were actually against the war, but it was a pretty small margin, but I know there is quite large amount of people who have the opinion that had they know that government was lying to win support, they would not have supported the Iraq war. I would say one of the biggest demonstrations ever, although not solid evidence, is a pretty good indication that the public does not support it. I would have supported regime change in Iraq, but this was not the way to go about. I believe the Iraq war was always about the oil. I still support it and will always support the troopsquote>I support the troops in Iraq as are doing their best to contain a disaster created by the government, but in my opinion the troops shouldn't be there.

Originally posted by: GingerBlokey Originally posted by: DuskTrooper Hey, you folks SUPPORTED this war before it began. You made the choice(even though you have no "real control"), so you need to deal with the irony of the consequences, and the entire situation. Be careful what you ask for; you may get it.however:SUPPORT THE TROOPS!quote> Which folks? My impression of this forum is being quite liberal. I know I certainly was against the war, in fact I was on the anti-war march through London back in 2003.quote> As was I, among at least 1 Million others. It seems to me the majority of the public in Britain at the time was against the war and this is while the government was feeding us lies to try and gain support for the war. For all the talk of liberating the Iraqi people, you must remember that the stated reason for going to war was because Saddam had 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Now we know there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Iraq is a shambles and more and more troops and civilians die every day. It's hardly a surprise that support is so low.

Originally posted by: pagenotfound could somebody make traffic generator lots... but for trains?quote> Click

Go Barnsley! We can't have another one of them soft southern teams winning.

Originally posted by: Tarkus < Exhibit A--Weird armadillo tank thing. Have had it since I joined. I've gotten plenty of "what is that?!" responses out of it. manticorefan knows what it is, though. -Tarkusquote> Your user name does rather give it away.

How it is now: I'm currently just looking around for adverts to finish of the station, meanwhile here's something new: (Which is based of this) I created the statue by getting free model of a random person and then modifying until it looked vaguely like it should for each person in the statue.

UK Poles attack Daily Mail 'bias' Daily Mail: one of the stories the paper claimed gave a fair view of Polish workers in the UK The Federation of Poles in Great Britain has "reluctantly" filed a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission accusing the Daily Mail of defaming Polish residents in the UK. In its letter of complaint to the PCC the federation accused the Daily Mail of printing articles that gave rise to "negative emotions and tensions between the new EU immigrants and local communities". But the Daily Mail has strongly rejected the complaint, with a spokesman telling MediaGuardian.co.uk that it is "not in any way anti-Polish" and pointing out that the paper ran plenty of positive stories about people from Poland. The FPGB letter, sent last month, also complained about 50 Daily Mail headlines it said all displayed anti-Polish sentiment. FPGB claimed that the paper has a deliberate policy aimed at encouraging discrimination against immigrants and in particular Poles and their families. However, a spokesman for the Daily Mail dismissed these claims. "If you take the balance of articles published by us the Polish migrant has not been identified as a hate figure and we have often and continuously drawn attention to the benefits Britain has and does derive from the skills that immigrants bring us," the spokesman said. The federation is the largest of the organisations representing Poles in the UK. "We reluctantly complained because we prefer to sort out our own problems. But we have been paying for our pride, and we have run out of patience," an FPGB spokesman told MediaGuardian.co.uk. Jan Mokrzycki, the chair of the FPGB, told Polish media: "It was the headlines which were the most offensive, using emotive anti-Polish language. "Poles seem to be unable to please the Daily Mail whatever they do. "On one day you get a headline 'Poles flood into England' implying the country is drowning in immigrants, and the next day you get 'Poles desert England' as if we are abandoning them. "Poles are not totally innocent, no society is totally innocent, and if a Pole does something wrong then he or she should have to face the music. "But when you get a series of articles and none of the headlines shed a positive light, and all shed a negative light by using this sort of terminology then it is fair to say we can complain about bias. Mokrzycki said the Daily Mail had refused to respond to earlier complaints direct from the federation, which had now been forced to act through the PCC. But a PCC spokesman said it had been unable to assess the complaint and had requested more information from the federation and was awaiting a response. The Daily Mail spokesman said the paper was not against any ethnic group. "We do reserve the right to criticise bogus asylum claims, benefit cheats, tax dodgers and militant fanatics no matter where they were born," he added. "The Mail is entitled to run stories about immigration, the more so as the last ten years have witnessed immigration on a scale at a vastly increased rate than at any time in this country's history since and including the Norman invasion of the 11th century. "We have run articles praising the skills of Polish workers and pointing out that many employers prefer their work ethic to the lack of commitment of British workers. We have run stories pointing out the areas in which Polish workers have been exploited. We have run pieces pointing out that Polish children are generally better behaved in our schools than British children. We have run letters pointing out th

People who think The Daily Mail is a serious newspaper.

I thought I would provide you with a small selection of stories concerning poles. I found all of these within a matter of seconds just by searching 'Immigration' and 'Poles' on the Daily mail website. Do a search yourself and you will see how obsessed the Mail is with polish people. 'Immigrants here for good': Half of Poles plan to stay in UK One in five of UK home buyers are Polish One in every four Poles in Britain plan to stay for life, says survey The Polish baby boom: Fears for NHS and schools as 1,000 Polish children are born EVERY month

Wow! excellent update. Gotta love a good ol' revolution.

Scipio: Wow! they are excellent, much better than anything I could have made anyway. Heres some SC4 preview renders:

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 Plus, waterboarding has done alot to help give us information.quote> I don't quite understand this, surely any information obtained by torture is extremely unreliable? People being tortured will say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear.

I was on Question Time the other night, unfortunately I didn't get say anything but if you want to see me be on TV anyway those in the UK can watch it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b00937yl.shtml At 16 minutes in my sister says something about the Lisbon treaty and you can see me to her left.

And what's more, he's probably the best mayor London has ever had. As for Chávez, for all his faults, he has at least begun to steps to reduce the massive divide between the rich and the poor in Venezuela.

I added some more details: and started doing some lighting:

Originally posted by: Yoman3I also find it interesting that Death Row prisoners cost more than regular ones. I don't see why thats so...inefficient, all you have to do is take the person out back and shoot him....well at least once all the appeals are done. quote> The appeals are the expensive part, legal costs need to be paid for the defense and prosecution and while all this goes on, which can take many years the inmate must be held in prison. So on top of the large legal costs, there is a also be up to 10 years prison costs. If the legal costs and time is reduced then there is an ever increasing chance of the state executing someone innocent. Therefore, I don't think there would be a more efficient way of doing it without risking innocent lives.

aah yes, the ol' Victoria Bypass trick. I think you made a vital error there though, you left Northern line wide open allowing me to jump to Elephant & Castle.

No, no. Someone could create a 3d Model, sell it off to this company who could then render the model. Nothing created with EA's tools has been sold, which means it won't be any more illegal and anything else on the STEX.

The question of the Death Penalty came up on Question Time the other day, and I remember a member of the audience raising the point that it is actually cheaper too keep a person in prison for life than go through all the legal costs of using the death penalty. Now, personally, I am horrified that someone would consider only the costs when deciding weather to kill someone or not. But this is a good point, because the legal costs cannot be reduced without increasing the chance that sooner or later the state will kill an innocent person. Incidentally, this issue is the only one which all of the panel members agreed on.

You may not like his policies, but you gotta love Boris Johnson, even if you wouldn't vote for him.

There is a good reason why The Guardian is such a good newspaper. The Guardian Media Group is controlled by an organization called the Scott Trust. The Scott Trust is a non-profit organization which was set up to ensure that The Guardian would continue to be independent. The Trust was created in 1936 to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian. Its core purpose is to preserve the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity, while its subsidiary aims are to champion its principles and to promote freedom of the press in the UK and abroad.quote>From the Guardian Media Group website. This means The Guardian isn't controlled by share holders and is not at risk from a takeover by Murdoch, or any other large Media company.

What annoys me that people think that the Daily Mail and Express are 'real' newspapers. At least people who 'read' the Sun know they are reading crap. Originally posted by: belfastuniguy British press has always been geared toward specific groups in society and as long as we have quality media such as the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The Economist and various others then we shall continue have proper journalism in British society.quote> Britain has some of the best news sources in the world, its such a shame a large number of people choose to get their news from the tabloids.