Comment deleted by Site Moderator

So not providing someone with a service due to their ethnicity is wrong but it's ok not to employ someone because of their ethnicity

-

Exactly. Employ whoever you feel comfortable working for your business, but don't deny people a service based on ethnicity

If you build up a business it should be up to you who you employ. I don't agree with the government having a say in that.

However, if you make the decision to work in a certain sector then you shouldn't be allowed to withhold that service based on race as the market you're offering it in is multi-ethnic.

Two entirely separate issues.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

French does think that the UK should just go out and take over countries and take all their natural resources so I wouldn't be surprised if he did think that way.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

if you believe it is acceptable in any situation to say x, y and z can't have a job because of their race, it is shocking

-

I disagree.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 minute ago
French does think that the UK should just go out and take over countries and take all their natural resources so I wouldn't be surprised if he did think that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We shouldn't take them over - that's financially nonviable these days. However, raiding them for resources? There's merit in that. Imagine the financial benefits if we controlled more natural gases and fossil fuels?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- A terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by He's French, He's Flash... (U9335)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by kneerash-23 Cara Gold (U6876)
posted 1 minute ago
French does think that the UK should just go out and take over countries and take all their natural resources so I wouldn't be surprised if he did think that way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We shouldn't take them over - that's financially nonviable these days. However, raiding them for resources? There's merit in that. Imagine the financial benefits if we controlled more natural gases and fossil fuels?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And the lives it could potentially cost?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What about them?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Well, I just wondered if you thought that the lives that would be lost, both British and foreign is worth losing for the financial benefits.

-

Look. I'm under no illusion that the 'war on terror' was anything other than a smash and grab for Iraqi oil. I'm fine with that - it benefits this country. I'd much rather the government said "we are going to invade Kuwait because we need their oil" than "We are going to remove this despotic regime because they're nasty, the people are suffering and it's the right thing to do."

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Look. I'm under no illusion that the 'war on terror' was anything other than a smash and grab for Iraqi oil. I'm fine with that - it benefits this country. I'd much rather the government said "we are going to invade Kuwait because we need their oil" than "We are going to remove this despotic regime because they're nasty, the people are suffering and it's the right thing to do."
====================



If this were true why did we pull out of the first Iraq war?

Also how do you explain that we and the US have spent far more on the war than we would have made from oil?

Lastly do you have any citation that we have made money from the oil?

comment by Robbing_Hoody - putting the bureaucracy into footballism since 1979 (U6374)
posted 27 seconds ago
Look. I'm under no illusion that the 'war on terror' was anything other than a smash and grab for Iraqi oil. I'm fine with that - it benefits this country. I'd much rather the government said "we are going to invade Kuwait because we need their oil" than "We are going to remove this despotic regime because they're nasty, the people are suffering and it's the right thing to do."
====================



If this were true why did we pull out of the first Iraq war?

Also how do you explain that we and the US have spent far more on the war than we would have made from oil?

Lastly do you have any citation that we have made money from the oil?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a former para friend who was paid tens of thousands of £ a week by BP to guard their oil convoys in Iraq.. Someone did well out of it

It is what it is. That's just how the world has always been: Those who can, take!

Oh your friend privately employed.

Anything a little more concrete?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I couldn't actually care less why the war in Iraq was fought. My point was, I'd prefer this Government to wage war for resources than some fantastical notion of righteous liberation.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Wouldn't you?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Greatteamswinit4times- A terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 5 seconds ago
I would actually prefer that it didn't happen at all.

Wouldn't you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but I don't live in a fantasy.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator