Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy in Pakistan.
11 December 2010, 08:09 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
War is war irrespective of whether some corrupt bureaucracy endorses it, or if other nations do. Whether a war is just or unjust is not a question of being a popularity contest with regimes of dubious virtue.
People like you who rail against the coalition for taking down Saddam, should ask what is was about Saddam that was worth protecting?
11 December 2010, 08:32 PM
#122
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WWII was NOT about regime change, it was about stopping Germany invalding one country after another, stopping the spread of fascism and all that went with it. That it ended up as regime change is a by product whereas your chums the Americans went into both Iraq and Afghansitan to effect regime change becuase they basically didn't like the ruling regime and nothing more. Playground stuff frankly. The fact they have f**Ked up so monumentally is the icing on the cake. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic... a bit like you!!
11 December 2010, 08:44 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No you didn't, you just did what you always do, which is write something (usually ill informed right wing crap) and then state it as beaing an argument and/or fact and then shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you firstly by claiming they ofer no argument, then by calling them a liar, then a hypocrite and finally an anti-Semite.
WWII was NOT about regime change, it was about stopping Germany invalding one country after another, stopping the spread of fascism and all that went with it. That it ended up as regime change is a by product whereas your chums the Americans went into both Iraq and Afghansitan to effect regime change becuase they basically didn't like the ruling regime and nothing more. Playground stuff frankly. The fact they have f**Ked up so monumentally is the icing on the cake. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic... a bit like you!!
WWII was NOT about regime change, it was about stopping Germany invalding one country after another, stopping the spread of fascism and all that went with it. That it ended up as regime change is a by product whereas your chums the Americans went into both Iraq and Afghansitan to effect regime change becuase they basically didn't like the ruling regime and nothing more. Playground stuff frankly. The fact they have f**Ked up so monumentally is the icing on the cake. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic... a bit like you!!
11 December 2010, 08:46 PM
#125
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 December 2010, 08:48 PM
#126
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And thank you for once again ignoring anything presented to you and writing what you want as if it was fact which illustrates further exactly the point I made. You really think you are clever and that people can't saee you for what you are don't you? I pity you 
11 December 2010, 09:00 PM
#129
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I showed that WW2 was also about regime change. We didn't just defeat **** Germany militarily and contain it, but we actually took down the **** regime and either jailed them or hung them.
I am NOT saying and never was that WW2 and Iraq are parallels like you seem to think.
Saddam was more than just 'no liked' he had a history of belligerent behavior including invading Kuwait, and he brutally oppressed sections of his population including nerve gassing villages, employing professional rapists, and his sons had a penchant for power tools.
He was an obscene despot but somehow you - and other like you - want to defend him?
ON WHAT BASIS?
There was clearly a moral cases to be made for regime change just like **** Germany.
11 December 2010, 09:05 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not comparable moral duty wise to **** Germany in any way, shape or form- Iraq weren't occupying half of Europe for a start, in fact they weren't occupying anywhere.
I wouldn't mind so much, but as a country they are actually worse off now thanks to your buddies
11 December 2010, 09:11 PM
#131
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not defending him as well you know, but it was not our war to fight.
Not comparable moral duty wise to **** Germany in any way, shape or form- Iraq weren't occupying half of Europe for a start, in fact they weren't occupying anywhere.
I wouldn't mind so much, but as a country they are actually worse off now thanks to your buddies
Not comparable moral duty wise to **** Germany in any way, shape or form- Iraq weren't occupying half of Europe for a start, in fact they weren't occupying anywhere.
I wouldn't mind so much, but as a country they are actually worse off now thanks to your buddies
You say it was not 'our war to fight' yet you and Mus etc seem to have decided to appropriated the Palestinans' cause for yourself etc.
I guess I am playing Devil's advocate here but you seem to have a double standard.
11 December 2010, 09:22 PM
#132
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post a link to the post here please. If you can't then retract that.
It's like you calling me a liar, a hypocrite and an anti-Semte with absolutely no evidence.
No wonder people here don't like you.
11 December 2010, 10:18 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Tony, why do you do this? Where did I say anything about appropriating the Palestine cause?
Post a link to the post here please. If you can't then retract that.
It's like you calling me a liar, a hypocrite and an anti-Semte with absolutely no evidence.
No wonder people here don't like you.
Post a link to the post here please. If you can't then retract that.
It's like you calling me a liar, a hypocrite and an anti-Semte with absolutely no evidence.
No wonder people here don't like you.
12 December 2010, 07:16 AM
#134
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony, why do you do this? Where did I say anything about appropriating the Palestine cause?
Post a link to the post here please. If you can't then retract that.
It's like you calling me a liar, a hypocrite and an anti-Semte with absolutely no evidence.
No wonder people here don't like you.
Post a link to the post here please. If you can't then retract that.
It's like you calling me a liar, a hypocrite and an anti-Semte with absolutely no evidence.
No wonder people here don't like you.
Mus does, yet by your measure on Iraq it's not 'his fight'?
Did you support sanctions against South Africa in the days of Apartheid? That was not 'our fight' either?
12 December 2010, 10:12 AM
#135
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was countering Leslies general point that regime change was somehow 'wrong' per se.
I showed that WW2 was also about regime change. We didn't just defeat **** Germany militarily and contain it, but we actually took down the **** regime and either jailed them or hung them.
I am NOT saying and never was that WW2 and Iraq are parallels like you seem to think.
Saddam was more than just 'no liked' he had a history of belligerent behavior including invading Kuwait, and he brutally oppressed sections of his population including nerve gassing villages, employing professional rapists, and his sons had a penchant for power tools.
He was an obscene despot but somehow you - and other like you - want to defend him?
ON WHAT BASIS?
There was clearly a moral cases to be made for regime change just like **** Germany.
I showed that WW2 was also about regime change. We didn't just defeat **** Germany militarily and contain it, but we actually took down the **** regime and either jailed them or hung them.
I am NOT saying and never was that WW2 and Iraq are parallels like you seem to think.
Saddam was more than just 'no liked' he had a history of belligerent behavior including invading Kuwait, and he brutally oppressed sections of his population including nerve gassing villages, employing professional rapists, and his sons had a penchant for power tools.
He was an obscene despot but somehow you - and other like you - want to defend him?
ON WHAT BASIS?
There was clearly a moral cases to be made for regime change just like **** Germany.
The **** regime having got control in their own country decided that they wanted to rule the whole of Europe, adding Russia as they went, and threw in a gross version of ethnic cleansing on the side.
Why on earth should we declare war on Germany other than to defend our own country and to stop the *****' evil designs in which we were also included of course. Should we have stood by and watched our own demise approaching?
Trying to twist that to suit your feeble arguments about regime change is sheer and utter nonsense. That has never been accepted as a valid reason to attack another country as in Iraq. It it happens as a by product of a war as in the overthrow of the ***** that is of course acceptable, but that war was entered into as I said above for the fully legal reasons of self defence, in just the same way as Iraq was threatened before because of its designs on Kuwait. Did Bush the elder depose SH after that exercise? He could have quite easily of course. As before-that battle was not entered into for the purpose of regime change but to save Kuwait. Perfectly acceptable reasons there.
Bush junior and Billy Liar desperately wanted to attack Iraq for commercial reasons and were scrabbling for a good excuse at the time. So they fiddled the intelligence, lied to us all about WMD, and fell back on the regime change excuse when they could find no other one. Simply not a good enough internationally legal reason for attack.
You would do well to sort your ideas out before you shoot your mouth off in your ill thought out way as in so many of your previous posts.
Les
12 December 2010, 11:43 AM
#139
true but would you sit round a table and talk if someone wanted to take over part of your land / property i for one wouldnt if i owned a country estate or farm and pikeys wanted to move in the last thing i would do is talk to them . people like that dont see reason so whats the point in talking same with dictators and countries run by them
12 December 2010, 01:58 PM
#141
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t is really a bit of a puzzle how your mind works at times. Are you deliberately trying to invent reasons to disgree all the time. You are entering the realms of fancy!
The **** regime having got control in their own country decided that they wanted to rule the whole of Europe, adding Russia as they went, and threw in a gross version of ethnic cleansing on the side.
Why on earth should we declare war on Germany other than to defend our own country and to stop the *****' evil designs in which we were also included of course. Should we have stood by and watched our own demise approaching?
Trying to twist that to suit your feeble arguments about regime change is sheer and utter nonsense. That has never been accepted as a valid reason to attack another country as in Iraq. It it happens as a by product of a war as in the overthrow of the ***** that is of course acceptable, but that war was entered into as I said above for the fully legal reasons of self defence, in just the same way as Iraq was threatened before because of its designs on Kuwait. Did Bush the elder depose SH after that exercise? He could have quite easily of course. As before-that battle was not entered into for the purpose of regime change but to save Kuwait. Perfectly acceptable reasons there.
Bush junior and Billy Liar desperately wanted to attack Iraq for commercial reasons and were scrabbling for a good excuse at the time. So they fiddled the intelligence, lied to us all about WMD, and fell back on the regime change excuse when they could find no other one. Simply not a good enough internationally legal reason for attack.
You would do well to sort your ideas out before you shoot your mouth off in your ill thought out way as in so many of your previous posts.
Les
The **** regime having got control in their own country decided that they wanted to rule the whole of Europe, adding Russia as they went, and threw in a gross version of ethnic cleansing on the side.
Why on earth should we declare war on Germany other than to defend our own country and to stop the *****' evil designs in which we were also included of course. Should we have stood by and watched our own demise approaching?
Trying to twist that to suit your feeble arguments about regime change is sheer and utter nonsense. That has never been accepted as a valid reason to attack another country as in Iraq. It it happens as a by product of a war as in the overthrow of the ***** that is of course acceptable, but that war was entered into as I said above for the fully legal reasons of self defence, in just the same way as Iraq was threatened before because of its designs on Kuwait. Did Bush the elder depose SH after that exercise? He could have quite easily of course. As before-that battle was not entered into for the purpose of regime change but to save Kuwait. Perfectly acceptable reasons there.
Bush junior and Billy Liar desperately wanted to attack Iraq for commercial reasons and were scrabbling for a good excuse at the time. So they fiddled the intelligence, lied to us all about WMD, and fell back on the regime change excuse when they could find no other one. Simply not a good enough internationally legal reason for attack.
You would do well to sort your ideas out before you shoot your mouth off in your ill thought out way as in so many of your previous posts.
Les
Anyway you are not being consistant. You are saying that regime change for the ***** was ok but for Saddam was wrong....I don't understand the moral distinction and I don't think you do. Seems some evil dictators get a pass from you and other don't?
12 December 2010, 07:41 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can a man who opines British 'independence' as the reason for resisting a united Europe, claim that the lack of a UN mandate made the liberation of Iraq illegal? This, I might add, is the same man who's opposed to Scottish independence. The very same man preaches religious tolerance when Islamism is attacked yet seems to be backing an evil tyrant for his capacity to control sectarian violence, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Saddam's Sunni minority brutally suppressed the Shia majority who are now rising up!
Was the intervention in former Yugoslavia acceptable because it had a UN mandate? Or, would you claim the intervention was folly because the first elected president of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic, was shot down in the street by the alliance of mafiosi and ethnic fascists who constituted the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic? After all, that wouldn't have happened had Milosevic remained at the healm.
Afghanistan. Right or wrong? Is your evasion a welcome sign that you acknowledge the complexities of this region's politics? Understanding, perhaps, that criticising the Allies is easy, but offering workable solutions is not?
In Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps in my lifetime Iran and Pakistan, we are fighting for very large principles and for extremely high stakes. And yes, part of the proof of this is the horror and terror and misery involved. This does not, however, mean we isolate and retreat. Just ask Maggie.
Was the intervention in former Yugoslavia acceptable because it had a UN mandate? Or, would you claim the intervention was folly because the first elected president of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic, was shot down in the street by the alliance of mafiosi and ethnic fascists who constituted the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic? After all, that wouldn't have happened had Milosevic remained at the healm.
Afghanistan. Right or wrong? Is your evasion a welcome sign that you acknowledge the complexities of this region's politics? Understanding, perhaps, that criticising the Allies is easy, but offering workable solutions is not?
In Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps in my lifetime Iran and Pakistan, we are fighting for very large principles and for extremely high stakes. And yes, part of the proof of this is the horror and terror and misery involved. This does not, however, mean we isolate and retreat. Just ask Maggie.
12 December 2010, 07:52 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 December 2010, 07:55 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can a man who opines British 'independence' as the reason for resisting a united Europe, claim that the lack of a UN mandate made the liberation of Iraq illegal? This, I might add, is the same man who's opposed to Scottish independence. The very same man preaches religious tolerance when Islamism is attacked yet seems to be backing an evil tyrant for his capacity to control sectarian violence, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Saddam's Sunni minority brutally suppressed the Shia majority who are now rising up!
Was the intervention in former Yugoslavia acceptable because it had a UN mandate? Or, would you claim the intervention was folly because the first elected president of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic, was shot down in the street by the alliance of mafiosi and ethnic fascists who constituted the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic? After all, that wouldn't have happened had Milosevic remained at the healm.
Afghanistan. Right or wrong? Is your evasion a welcome sign that you acknowledge the complexities of this region's politics? Understanding, perhaps, that criticising the Allies is easy, but offering workable solutions is not?
In Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps in my lifetime Iran and Pakistan, we are fighting for very large principles and for extremely high stakes. And yes, part of the proof of this is the horror and terror and misery involved. This does not, however, mean we isolate and retreat. Just ask Maggie.
Was the intervention in former Yugoslavia acceptable because it had a UN mandate? Or, would you claim the intervention was folly because the first elected president of Serbia, Zoran Djindjic, was shot down in the street by the alliance of mafiosi and ethnic fascists who constituted the legacy of Slobodan Milosevic? After all, that wouldn't have happened had Milosevic remained at the healm.
Afghanistan. Right or wrong? Is your evasion a welcome sign that you acknowledge the complexities of this region's politics? Understanding, perhaps, that criticising the Allies is easy, but offering workable solutions is not?
In Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps in my lifetime Iran and Pakistan, we are fighting for very large principles and for extremely high stakes. And yes, part of the proof of this is the horror and terror and misery involved. This does not, however, mean we isolate and retreat. Just ask Maggie.
The Left is supposed to be about using coercion to correct injustice and fight oppression....a moral duty to help victims etc....to 'cross to the other side of the road'. You had the Balkans as you outlined also the South Africa of Apartheid etc...the Left screamed about not intervening in Rwanda FFS, blah blah blah about Israel-Palestinians etc...siding with the latter.
Suddenly with Iraq though, Saddam was 'ok' and Bush is the devil for invading.
Crazy hypocrisy.
12 December 2010, 09:36 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's basically completely dishonest of the left to oppose the invasion of Iraq on moral grounds or to use the 'meme' of 'illegal invasion' as a moral attack.
The Left is supposed to be about using coercion to correct injustice and fight oppression....a moral duty to help victims etc....to 'cross to the other side of the road'. You had the Balkans as you outlined also the South Africa of Apartheid etc...the Left screamed about not intervening in Rwanda FFS, blah blah blah about Israel-Palestinians etc...siding with the latter.
Suddenly with Iraq though, Saddam was 'ok' and Bush is the devil for invading.
Crazy hypocrisy.
The Left is supposed to be about using coercion to correct injustice and fight oppression....a moral duty to help victims etc....to 'cross to the other side of the road'. You had the Balkans as you outlined also the South Africa of Apartheid etc...the Left screamed about not intervening in Rwanda FFS, blah blah blah about Israel-Palestinians etc...siding with the latter.
Suddenly with Iraq though, Saddam was 'ok' and Bush is the devil for invading.
Crazy hypocrisy.
The left should be celebrating this, but no. Bush was at the helm. Thus, the focus is placed entirely upon oil production and corporate gains. The fact that these things, alongside geo-political strategic advantage, strengthen the American lead Western hegemony hurts these people so much that they would choose savage dictatorship instead. The hatred of a perceived hawk so strong that they'd choose to walk by on the other side and abandon their socialist credentials simply to spite a man they don't like. It's churlish, it's irrational and worst, it's self-centered.
13 December 2010, 01:32 PM
#147
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are forgetting the we were not attacked in WW2, we had signed up to a pact with Poland and it was POLAND who were attacked not us.
Anyway you are not being consistant. You are saying that regime change for the ***** was ok but for Saddam was wrong....I don't understand the moral distinction and I don't think you do. Seems some evil dictators get a pass from you and other don't?
Anyway you are not being consistant. You are saying that regime change for the ***** was ok but for Saddam was wrong....I don't understand the moral distinction and I don't think you do. Seems some evil dictators get a pass from you and other don't?
Are you actually able to read and understand a post by someone else?
You just have not realised what I said. Try reading the post carefully, assimilating what I said and comparing it with your post above!
You are also putting words into my mouth which I never said.
We declared war on Germany because of the undertaking we made in partnership with France over the defence of Poland before they attacked that country. When requested to leave Poland Hitler declined, so we declared war on Germany. That is a legal response.
Did you not realise that the Germans bombed all those cities in the UK. Have you not seen the newsreels and the subsequent pictures of the dreadful atttacks on this country with the loss of so many civilian lives? Have you forgotten the Doodlebugs and the V2 rockets?
Do you know anything about the history of WW2?
As far as regime change is concerned, once again you betray yourself. We attacked Germany in defence of our own country as well as the other countries under threat or already occupied by the German forces, as did most of our allies. When it was obvious to Hitler that the game was up, he topped himself before the Russians reached him. Not surprising really! Now it is pretty obvious that regime change was forced by Hitlers suicide in the first place rather than any other reason, we certainly did not have a hand in his demise in the bunker. All down to him at the time.
How he would have fared at the Nuremberg war trials is a matter of speculation of course, I would not have given much for his chances personally! Difficult to get away with murdering 6 Million Jews amongst others.
What you said in your post about my attitude to regime change is utterly wrong of course.
Now if you read this carefully, more than once if you need to, maybe you will realise that your earlier post was a load of old cobblers! Check it out if you don't know the history and are not prepared to believe me.
Les
13 December 2010, 02:48 PM
#148
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you actually able to read and understand a post by someone else?
You just have not realised what I said. Try reading the post carefully, assimilating what I said and comparing it with your post above!
You are also putting words into my mouth which I never said.
We declared war on Germany because of the undertaking we made in partnership with France over the defence of Poland before they attacked that country. When requested to leave Poland Hitler declined, so we declared war on Germany. That is a legal response.
Did you not realise that the Germans bombed all those cities in the UK. Have you not seen the newsreels and the subsequent pictures of the dreadful atttacks on this country with the loss of so many civilian lives? Have you forgotten the Doodlebugs and the V2 rockets?
Do you know anything about the history of WW2?
As far as regime change is concerned, once again you betray yourself. We attacked Germany in defence of our own country as well as the other countries under threat or already occupied by the German forces, as did most of our allies. When it was obvious to Hitler that the game was up, he topped himself before the Russians reached him. Not surprising really! Now it is pretty obvious that regime change was forced by Hitlers suicide in the first place rather than any other reason, we certainly did not have a hand in his demise in the bunker. All down to him at the time.
How he would have fared at the Nuremberg war trials is a matter of speculation of course, I would not have given much for his chances personally! Difficult to get away with murdering 6 Million Jews amongst others.
What you said in your post about my attitude to regime change is utterly wrong of course.
Now if you read this carefully, more than once if you need to, maybe you will realise that your earlier post was a load of old cobblers! Check it out if you don't know the history and are not prepared to believe me.
Les
You just have not realised what I said. Try reading the post carefully, assimilating what I said and comparing it with your post above!
You are also putting words into my mouth which I never said.
We declared war on Germany because of the undertaking we made in partnership with France over the defence of Poland before they attacked that country. When requested to leave Poland Hitler declined, so we declared war on Germany. That is a legal response.
Did you not realise that the Germans bombed all those cities in the UK. Have you not seen the newsreels and the subsequent pictures of the dreadful atttacks on this country with the loss of so many civilian lives? Have you forgotten the Doodlebugs and the V2 rockets?
Do you know anything about the history of WW2?
As far as regime change is concerned, once again you betray yourself. We attacked Germany in defence of our own country as well as the other countries under threat or already occupied by the German forces, as did most of our allies. When it was obvious to Hitler that the game was up, he topped himself before the Russians reached him. Not surprising really! Now it is pretty obvious that regime change was forced by Hitlers suicide in the first place rather than any other reason, we certainly did not have a hand in his demise in the bunker. All down to him at the time.
How he would have fared at the Nuremberg war trials is a matter of speculation of course, I would not have given much for his chances personally! Difficult to get away with murdering 6 Million Jews amongst others.
What you said in your post about my attitude to regime change is utterly wrong of course.
Now if you read this carefully, more than once if you need to, maybe you will realise that your earlier post was a load of old cobblers! Check it out if you don't know the history and are not prepared to believe me.
Les
War can be just even if it lacks 'legality'...or whatever 'legality' actual means? Do you know? Presumably you are talking about whatever international law is being used?
If we had not be signed up to a pact with Poland, presumably you would still be screaming about an 'illegal war' with Germany 1939-1945?
At the very least you should acknowledge there was a moral case for getting rid of Saddam.
17 December 2010, 01:29 AM
#149
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We just need to make sure they know Susan Boyle is one of the 72, and M.A.D. becomes a deterrent again
17 December 2010, 10:44 AM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
true but would you sit round a table and talk if someone wanted to take over part of your land / property i for one wouldnt if i owned a country estate or farm and pikeys wanted to move in the last thing i would do is talk to them . people like that dont see reason so whats the point in talking same with dictators and countries run by them