Yawn, Yawn, Yawn.

You just can't accept it can you. The Iraqi people voted in huge numbers. The horse you people had backed (the scum of the B'ath party and a few mad Muslims extremists) were rejected.

You were wrong, utterly wrong, completely wrong, stupidly wrong, naievly wrong.

You look foolish and now you're falling back on the usual last defence of the discredited,

"It was all a concipracy" Don't tell me, Mossad ? The CIA ? Bilderburgers ?

Let's see if Iraq becomes genuinely free after the elections shall we. What do you think the chances of the troops ever leaving is?

Exactly - Yawn Yawn.
Just the usual pro-war tactics of smearing the anti-war side by claiming that it supported torture etc etc.

Oh we were so stupid not to believe the lies about weapons of mass destruction. Oh looks like we got that wrong then given all the Nukes, Bio weapons found (not). God I was so naive. Talking of which, Blair must have been telling the truth all along.

There weren't really thousands of people killed unnecessarily - troops (no one counting them) and civilians (not many counting them either).

Or almost the entire population of Fallujah forced to become refugees so that their houses could be destroyed - and they all did it so willingly.

And the US didn't really set up the reconstruction using their own corporation$ (as predicted). It has all been so free and democratic.

Strange how all those who were pro-war are now suddenly supporting the idea of freedom and democracy. Tomorrow they will forget it again as the IMF continues imposing it's frree market rules on Iraq.

On the news tonight the newsreaders were banging on about how much the Iraqis were lovin' it. They should people celebrating in the streets, apparently happy just to have voted and not worrying too much about who won (they don't know yet).

I found myself thinking, how representative were those scenes of the Iraqi people? I'm sure there are people celebrating, but is this the majority of Iraqi people or what? It's very hard to tell if what the news is showing us is representative or if it's just the small minority that they choose to focus on.

One newsreader proclaimed that "The Iraqi people have defied the insurgents, by voting". Defied the insurgents? Makes it sound like "the Iraqi people" just want those tiresome insurgents to bugger off and let the Americans and British get on with illegal occupation. Is that *really* how they feel? Maybe opinion is divided. I'm sure there are people glad to have got rid of Saddam. After all, he was pretty nasty. But it's very hard to know WHAT is going on. What IS naive is blind faith in what the news is telling us. We CAN'T trust the news.

What we can say about these elections is that it's unlikely that any candidates who oppose occupation were able to make it onto the lists. The UK and US authorities would not allow that. THE MOST IMPORTANT thing to remember is that the "freedom" to choose economic policy is non-existant. Iraq's economy is to be run by the IMF for the forseeable future. This means cutting back the wellfare state, mass privatisation, opening up the economy to western multinational corporations, and it means a minimum of workers rights. It also means it will be hard to regulate business to protect the environment. In short, neo-liberalism is being imposed on the Iraqi people, corporate globalisation is being forced onto Iraq, and there is nothing that these elections can do about it.

What can the Iraqis do??

Can what can we do to help them??

"What we can say about these elections is that it's unlikely that any candidates who oppose occupation were able to make it onto the lists. The UK and US authorities would not allow that."

Any evidence for that? And how would they stop them?

If a new Iraqi Govt says thanks guys, now you will please leave? What happens next? Either the US and UK do leave, or the whole business truly is revealed as a complete sham, in which case the US has no credibility anywhere.

And the Iraqi Government can say no thanks to the IMF if it wants to. The IMF can't force loans onto it.

Mass privatisation. Always held up as a bogyman. Twenty years ago British electricity was privatised, gas was privatised, BA was privatised, British telecom was privatised. Which of these services has suffered? Prices in real terms have come down. Service is vastly improved. Who now would want to nationalise BT or BA? What would be the point? Name one state where the likes of telecomms are in state hands and are thriving.

Well you've either od'd on Horlicks or you've been watching too much corporate TV.
The elections in Iraq might well have been a great success for the kind folks who now have control of the oil fields
but time will tell if the people of Iraq will really get a share , exxon have just announced that, apart from the 100.000 or so that were murdered for oil in Iraq, that they have also made a killing ($25 billion) on the strength of the over infalted oil prices.
Most the price hikes in the last couple of years were due to "uncertainties" caused by the war in Iraq.
No shortage of oil, the price just doubled nothing uncertain about that!
I think you'll find that the new found democracy in Iraq will mean even bigger profits for oil and other speculators and some hard times for ordinary Iraqies. Ruled over by a US puppet regime consisting of elite gang of thugs who will naturally control the media and have a slice of all the best assets, gas guzzling SUV's and all the other capitalist trimmings while the rest of the population lives in virtual slavery, any trade union leader and dissident students that didn't yet get their brains blown out can expect the same as the Colombian Coke Cola workers get at the hands of the U:S backed death squads. Any iraqies that have illusions about taking up their rights to peacefull protest should take a look at what happens to demonstraters back home in Ameri-caca after a few doses of mace and pepper spray and a good kicking from fascist thugs (the cops) i guess you kinda get discouraged.
Anyone who skips paying their bus fare is a fucking terrorist these days.

Maybe they'll even be able to kid the Iraqie people into going for the old Left / Right scam so successfull in the EU and the US I don't see why not it seems to work so well over here. Well what ever as long as there are two factions and anyone who steps out of line will soon be dealt with by high tech US gestapo led secret service.
Who's next for liberation, Iran or Syria or both, I bet they can't wait.
I can remember the terrible war between Iraq and Iran, when tens of thousands from both sides died many in the swamps between the two countires in an golden era for the arms industry when Saddam was the darling of the western media who made very little of the fact that he used chemical weapons, supplied to him by god fearing christians and the worlds arms dealers fell over each other in the rush to supply both sides with top quality killing machines. Sure the elections were a big success, it's business as usual ....

Indeed election day in Iraq was a historic day in the world of comedy em i mean peace and stability thats right.
Even though the new Iraqi govt can make no changes to the contracts won by the multinationals (mainly us but also from other countries), Even though it has to allow the US to build 14 permanent bases all over the country, even though whoever did not register for this election will not be allowed to vote in the next one I must still say the elections were a success. Now the BBC and all the other dumbass chanels can push the govts agenda further with no fear and hide even more truths in order to make every1 believe iraq is now a happy democracy. Just like afghanistan, of course Karzai was a good product of the democracy put in place by the US (Just coz he also happened to be an ex employee of an american multinational which happened to get a major contract when he was installed as prime minister doesnt mean a thing)
Wake up fools theres no democracy here and theres no democracy in Iraq or any other Nation. I'd like to see the US declare war on the also disgusting and oppressive regime of saudi arabia and israel(which by the way has broken a hell of a lot more than 12 UN resolutions) But of course bbc documentaries dont promote the filth of those regimes. Only of the Taliban and Iraq because it suits them that way. Those who supported these elections either go back to sleep orget informed.
Victory to the Iraqi Resistance. Down with the Fascist Governments of the US/UK/and all else who took part in one way or another in this farce called operation iraqi freedom.

In Ukraine, a high voter turnout of over 90% in some areas was presented by the media as evidence of manipulation. Am I really expected to believe 94% of expats voted?

"Twenty years ago British electricity was privatised, gas was privatised, BA was privatised,"
Sceptic you seem to have a very poor grasp of economic history. Read this(and if poss the book by the italian guy ): http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/pdf/news464.pdf
Disclaimer: A snake in the grass I may be but I'm no grass. Honest!

Who objected to the Iraqi elections ?

The vast majority of the Iraqi people ? No they welcomed it and is some places took huge personal risks to participate.

The religious extremists whose support in Iraq is so small ? Yes because they knew their plan for an Iranian style theocracy has no popular support

The remnants of Saddams regime ? Of course, they have no where to go, no friends in the wider Iraqi community.

The European Left and Activist movement ? Fine friends you people keep !!!



Always remember those who kill, maim, rape and threat to prevent democratic elections, why do they need to do this ?

productivity:

try:

 http://www.ukprivatisation.com/Chapter5.htm#Table5.4

or maybe:

 http://www.ukprivatisation.com/Chapter5.htm#Table5.7

or

 http://www.ukprivatisation.com/Chapter5.htm#Table5.10

But let's not worry ourselves about little things called facts and figures.

Just a couple of points.

1 the majority of the iraqi people didnt even vote. They estimate 60% of registered voters. The most optimistic number being 8mill in a country with 26million people. Saythere are 5 million children still 13 million people who could have voted didnt. That is an optimistic look at things. So you cant say that the Iraqi people wanted the elections.
2ndly anyone who opposed the occupation of Iraq was not allowed to run for electoins, I know how the americans conduct business coz this isnt hte 1's time they hold 'democratic elections' in a country. Have a look at the ones in afghanistan, yugoslavia, and countless other countries. Its no coincidence that when america says jump to these govts they say how high. THeyre in charge of whose on top and if they dont like them they replace them. Why dont they tackle dictatorships such as Kuwait, Saudi arabia? Who violate Human rights abuses on a daily basis and are 'undemocratic' But who cares, TEXACO and Shell are allowed in there. Same as Israel. Over 60 UN resolutions violated and theres a big threat of the extermination of the palestinian people. But were pals with Israel so who cares. They gave Saddam the weapons to kill hte Iranians and hten used them as an excuse to go into Iraq.
"Always remember those who kill, maim, rape and threat to prevent democratic elections"
Thats why we wont forget the US led coalition.

Just a couple of points.

1 the majority of the iraqi people didnt even vote. They estimate 60% of registered voters. The most optimistic number being 8mill in a country with 26million people. Saythere are 5 million children still 13 million people who could have voted didnt. That is an optimistic look at things. So you cant say that the Iraqi people wanted the elections.
2ndly anyone who opposed the occupation of Iraq was not allowed to run for electoins, I know how the americans conduct business coz this isnt hte 1's time they hold 'democratic elections' in a country. Have a look at the ones in afghanistan, yugoslavia, and countless other countries. Its no coincidence that when america says jump to these govts they say how high. THeyre in charge of whose on top and if they dont like them they replace them. Why dont they tackle dictatorships such as Kuwait, Saudi arabia? Who violate Human rights abuses on a daily basis and are 'undemocratic' But who cares, TEXACO and Shell are allowed in there. Same as Israel. Over 60 UN resolutions violated and theres a big threat of the extermination of the palestinian people. But were pals with Israel so who cares. They gave Saddam the weapons to kill hte Iranians and hten used them as an excuse to go into Iraq.
"Always remember those who kill, maim, rape and threat to prevent democratic elections"
Thats why we wont forget the US led coalition.

Victory to Nasser, vistory to the viet cong, victory the Noreiga, victory to the IRA, victory to Dubcek, victory to Castro, victory to Gaddafi, victory to afganistan warlords, vicroty to the iraqi resistance, blah, blah and more pathetic blah.

Some people will support the most conspicuous enemies in the most alienated fashion when faced with a someone who appears to fight 'yankee imperialism'.

And as for those asinine fools who parade the iraqi elections as if they were the definitive point in the war, then it must be supposed that these elections are little more than a PR act, a false dawn, as was the spectacle of the toppling of saddams statue, the assimilation of Al Sadr into the establishment, the capturing of Hussein or the systematic destruction of falluja. Those who praise the elections as the first step to freedom (or even as freedom itself) are clearly ignoring the fact that whoever takes control shall be expected to firstly rule with an iron fist over all dissent and recalcitrant workers in order to provide a comfortable environment for investment and keep down wages and workers autonomy.

And in response to the individual who pontificates about the wonders of privatisation it should be stated that the state and private institutiond are happily coexisting in the same bed. The states is the representative of capital, its faithful guard dog (whether they provide greater services ie are more effective in the reproduction of capitalist relations is both a moot point and fairly irrelevant). They are able to create better relations with unions as a subordinate and passive body, they lead the way in progressing the class struggle from the capitalist perspective (in terms of stripping sick pay, monitoring workers, supporting temporary work, shoterning lunch breaks, increasing mechanisation, causing divisions). Every 'consumer' is a worker. There has been little time in british history whee the majority of labour has been employed by the state and when it has been it has been the case that the capitalists are employed in government. Capitalism is the employemtn of people as a class in a commodity relation, whoever implements this arrangment is irrevelant.

Yes, indeed, you're quite right. I mean, look what capitalism has done for Britain over the past 100 years.

Decreasing sick pay ... I mean, sick pay in 1905 was terrific, wasn't it?

Old age pensions ... well, I mean compared with 1905, they're dreadul, aren't they?

And look how working hours have reslly really increased since 1905 .... not.

Increasing mechanisation. Yeah, right on. Really, really dreadful. I mean, they don't make handcrafted Rolls Royces these days. Or handcrafted cars at all really. That's why they're so expensive, and none of the workers in Britain can afford them.

Unlike the socialist paradises of ... err ...

... social justice and the struggle for it with the system such action seeks to moderate ...

Still, crow away.

And as for the civilising effects of amerikan freedom and democracy ... if the dead could speak ... or if you asked those fighting for social justice in countries where the yankke $$$ makes the running (and the bombing, maiming, assassination, infiltration and division) ...

Think of all those countries where American troops have marched in the last 50 years, like France or Germany, Japan or South Korea, the Phillipines; or places where US troops are curently stationed, like Britain. Serfs, all of them, aren't they. Look at the daily assassinations on our streets in Britain.

Unlike of course, North Korea, where the yankkkkies were heroically repulsed. Land of freedom and liberty! Or perhaps Vietnam - the triumph of freedom. Makes you wonder why those millions of boat people [remember them?] wanted to leave, really. Poor deluded folk.

And think of that that arch imperialist organisation NATO, with all its massive social injustices, when all those countries in Eastern Europe had the freedom and solidarity of the Warsaw Pact. And now those pesky democratically elected Governments want to join NATO? No gratitude, some people.

Sceptics forgeting other places where amerikkan troops have been placed. In countries like britain etc theyre only there to get easy acces to targets near there eg yugoslavia in 99 afghanistan, what bout the phillipines? Nicaragua? Puerto Rico? Youre forgeting all the coups that have been staged by the US arent u? But fools like you have a selective memory. So let me remind you. Chile, Nicaragua, Georgia, Cuba (before 59) afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Syria, Iran, Brazil, Argentina, the list can go on but i dont want to tire myself. Look up the facts before you speak so that you dont expose yourself. As for my previous comment about victory to the Iraqi ressistance. Id say that about any occupied nation such as the french, Greek, etc ressistance during the second world war. Even though the govts put in place afer the 2nd world war were imperialist like hitlers, when one defends his territory from foreign aggression then no matter what theyre beliefs you must support them. Back to sceptic now who would prob privatise his own mother and call it a success. YOur dumbass democratic UK govt during privatistion was ersponsible for the oppression of unions and strikers who opposed this. Your democracy is no different to Saddams, or the USAs/UKs as long as you dont disagree with us you're free to say whatever you like. Theoraki agori mou, have a look at cubas development over the past 50 years and then judge Castro, because if you think he doesnt have the support of the Cuban people in this then you need to open a history book or 2.
I want to end with a little story to demonstraet the american mentality of democracy and honesty. During the bay of pigs. THe american govt issued a statement saying that hte polio vaccines given to cuban children in the form of a lollipop by the revolutionary govt there, contained a drug which automatically turned the children into communists, thus this should be stopped and cuba must be invaded. GOD BLESS THE USA, at least they are a good comedy value.

Yugoslavia in 99. Wanted to leave Milosevic in power, did you? After all, what's a little ethnic cleansing between friends?

Most of the others you refer to were during Cold War times - in war, you can choose yr frinds but not yr allies. After all, didn't we ally ourselves with the greatest mass murderer of the 20th Century - Stalin?

Oh, and there were no strikes against privatisation. I think you're thinking of the miners' strike, which was over a very different issue.

"Even though the govts put in place afer the 2nd world war were imperialist like hitlers, when one defends his territory from foreign aggression then no matter what theyre beliefs you must support them." Wonderful. So that's why the Wehrmacht fought so hard for Hitler? Befiel ist befiel. Jawohl!

"as long as you dont disagree with us you're free to say whatever you like." That's why all the protest marches are banned in London - not.

"judge Castro, because if you think he doesnt have the support of the Cuban people in this then you need to open a history book or 2." Oh, right. That's why we see all those emigres doing their utmost to escape Cuba on the flimsiest of rafts, prepared to die rather than stay in Cuba. No one knows how much popular support Castro has - he's never dared to put it to the test in an election.

"THe american govt issued a statement saying that hte polio vaccines given to cuban children in the form of a lollipop by the revolutionary govt there, contained a drug which automatically turned the children into communists" Don't believe it. Give me the original etxt of the statement.

You're just one innacuracy after the other arent you sceptic. 1 Yeah Stalin was the biggest mass murderer of our times, you know why. coz some dumb western Historians swore to Robert Conquests book about Stalin and used his figures as a bible to what happened in the USSR. Who was Robert Conquest? The same man who in his study had a portrait of Hitler. So let me see. Hitler good. Stalin Bad. You should look up on some new research been done about the famine and how Stalin in fact was responsible for lowering hte number of dead rather than increasing it. And of course talking about mass murderers lets not forget Churchill, who was responsible for the death of countless of Indian people, starting the Greek civil war and sending British troops to slaughter Greeks, the attempt to exterminate the Gypsies in England. I too believe Stalin was a Murderer but no more than Churchill, Chamberlain, Atlee, etc. As for terror. No need to look far, look at the UK, have you read about the terror laws? what about people watching you? theres a camera in every corner, this country is one Big Brother or should i say Big MAMA. Semi knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge at all and this is what you have. Semi knowledge on issues which has immediately formed an opinion for you.
On the US propaganda towards Cuba issue. read the book revolutionary Cuba (written by an american) and maybe ul find out a thing or 2 about more than just that. As for emigration from cuba, since Castro opened the borders, 1% of the population has left. Coincidently 1% of hte Cuban population controlled the wealth (factories, brothels, casinos, farms) before the revolution, during the placement of the US backed dictator Batista, which you can find out about again by picking up a book or 2. As for the Strikes in hte UK during the 80's, What the hell are you on sceptic, are you really trying to say that there was only a miners strike?! where do you get your information from. the 1mill people anti war protest in london couldnt be stopped, but in a so called democracy when 1 fiftieth of the population marches in the streets about something then as a democratic govt you owe it to your people to listen. Even though most people didnt want this war he blair showed what a dictator he was. I dont think you can get much better documentaries then Farenheit 9/11 to show you the real reasons for the war. But even say if the majority of british wanted the war, I can tell you that the majority of Iraqis living in Iraq didnt. By hte way, 16 more people have already died in Iraq today, 2 US and 14 Iraqi soldiers. This may be a battle between foreign oppression or local oppression, but it was started by the foreigners and at the moment we are seeing an illegal occupation, following an illegal war, (not that any war is legal) The Iraqis have been condemned to suffer under another dictatorship, be that by the US/Uk coalition or the religious extremists. as for the need to get rid of Saddam to make the Iraqis safer, well.....Iraqi people are now 58 times more likely to suffer a violent death than was the case before the US/UK invasion (according to a report in 'The Lancet'). Thanks for that Clare

Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces
accounted for most violent deaths"

"The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death ... The risk of death from violence in
the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."

Saddam was bad, occupation is worse.
Thank you too Stato
Free Palestine, Screw Western Imperialsm, were not the civilised world, were the barbarians.

All the advances in the condition of the working class have come not from the kind hearts of industrialists but through compromises on their behalf, taken in order ot placate a working class that at every moment forces capitals hand. This constant conflict between one class which seeks to further mechanise, control and exploit people as commodities and the working class which seeks primarily in relation to this process, to extend its freedom, limit the number of working hours and ultimately gain autonomy from this class altogether (thus leading to its abolition). Class struggle is the engine of history. This is what is known as dialectics.
North korea is a state capitalist state, as is cuba and as was the soviet union, class struggle remains or has existed in one form or another in all these places.
It is only through the struggle of the working classes that we can hope for further such progressions of the lessening of the working day and eventually its abolition in its entirey in its current form.

Gulags and purges are just figments of one man's mind. Yeah.

 http://www.endgenocide.org/genocide/soviet.html

 http://www.faits-et-documents.com/bilan_communisme/famine_1921.htm

Just as starters.

I'd forgotten that Churchill started the Greek civil war. So have the Greeks. Because he didn't.

Chamberlain? Attlee? Linked with Stalin? Ah, well, the author must be a happy man. Ignorance is such bliss.


As for Cuba - what sort of country is it that has to keep its citizens in by force? The last such I can recall is East Germany - or perhaps Northern Korea.

Oh, I'll agree improvements don't come from the kind hearts of industrialists. That's we have a Government to regulate things. Judging by the progress in Britain over the last 100 years, it's been a highly successful combination.

Is it your opinion that the government is a mediator between the capitalist class and the working class?

If you take a look at the history of class struggle you'll most probably find a picture that portrays the government as more than little one sided in their mediation (and governments the world over), the only time a government has made legislation to curtail the profitability of companies is when the power of the working class has been expressed to such an extent that the survival of the system depends upon the capitalist class making a compromise. Most of these compromises are then reconsidered and attempts are made to withdraw them. Foe example it can be said that keynesian economic policy was more benevolent (welfare based) than monetarism, in keynesianism wage demands were linked to increases in productivity (a response to working class militancy), however the workers found wasy around this using other sorts of resistance, as this situation became untenable, monetarism more prevalent, leading to assaults on trade unions by the government. Throughout history governments (i'll stick to the one here)have been an integral part of the capitalist structure, in fact most (if not all) arose from the capitalist revolutions, parliament is intrinsically part of the capitalist order. Throughout the last 200 years there have been myriad examples of legislature being reeled off to combat working class organisation and autonomy, strike acts, riots acts, MI5 have been used to break strikes,the police have been used to break strikes, parliament has attempted to styfle class warfare by integrating it into parliament.The state is the pillar of capitalist accumulation, Thatcher talked of the withering of the state yet the state was at its busiest during her reign, primarily because of the incredible need for more police to control the rioters and striking workers.
It is true that the government has had to make concessions, but these are always forced upon it, if the government was a true mediator then we would be living in a very diferent world right now (maybe one without government) government and capital are mutually dependent upon each other. However the relations within the system structure society, parliament is a product of cpaital hence how can it ever be a mediator.

1) on the issue of the Greek Civil War, i could point you to any book on it but try Inside Hitlers Greece by Mark Mazower, It beautifly describes the loving relationship held by the Nazi Occupiers and the British Govt which co operated in order to target the rising Greek Communist movement. It then goes on to talk about how the British invaded Greece after teh war and fought on the side of the 20% (clear minority monarchist/nationalists in the country against the communists) Nazism is bad for Churchill but not as bad as communism you see, even if its a popular revolution in the country its taking place.

2) as for Castro not letting anyone out. The borders have been opened for well over 2 decades now and anyone who wants to leave does. Just coz the free democratic news channels talk about a person dying in hte process of trying to leave Cuba on a raft once every 3 or four years doesnt mean its a phaenomenon. It just hurts them that the cuban people dont desire to leave Cuba.

3) I never denied the gulags happened but recent figures (ever since the soviet archives were made open to the public) show far fewer people were placed in gulags, and most of tehm were arrested during the Civil war fighting against the revolution. I cant say i still agree with the idea of a Gulag but this definately doesnt place Stalin too high in my murderers list.

4) Privatisation has done great things for England, thats why the welfare state is collapsing, Hospitals are closing, playing fields are being sold off, you can walk teh streets on hte most remote village and see homeless people, trains are going to hell, jobs are being cut here and there and are only being filled up on a temporary or part time basis which is why labour brag about lowest unemployment in 26 years, oh and incase u forgot. The British work the longest hours in Europe. On the whole a very successful policy...... For the rich who just became richer. Shell announced Profits of 7 bill today, i wonder who keeps that money??????

We'll agree to disagree about Greece. Then, if it had gone communist, it might have joined all those happy joyful people in East Germany, Poland, Chezslovakia, Hungary, and all the others so pleased to live under Stalin's thumb.

2.5 million is the figure for Cubans in America. That's a lot of capitalists out of 11 miliion. A bit more than 2%, as well. Nearer 20%.

Land of freedom:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1940648.stm

"the welfare state is collapsing" - that's news to a lot of people
"Hospitals are closing" - where?
"you can walk teh streets on hte most remote village and see homeless people" Well, no, you can't. Lived here for 20+ years and never seem one round here. They must g out of their way to avoid me.

"trains are going to hell" - well, that's true, since they've been renationalised. the subsidy now amounts to 55% of the ticket price.

subsidy's are paid to trains coz the private sector wanting to maximise its profits dont see it fit to spend much on tracks and trains only to increase ticket prices and make money. look at the crash in 2000, have a look at the causes. maybe 2.5 million cuban americans live in the states but u gotta take into acocunt the ones that left say 30 40 yrs ago and have a family now, thats got to be some multiplier effect.

As for what Greece would end up like had britain not intervened, thanks for the warning but we dont need the brits to tell us (violently as it turned out) whats best for us, that was hitlers reasoning when he went into austria, the sudetenland, and then the rest of czechoslovakia.

ok i take your point britain doesnt have a homeless crisis

i know u know better but for some reason you choose not to claim it

Investment in the railways when it was publicly owned was minimal. The safety record under private ownership was much the same as under public. Look up train crashes for the last 50 years.

The odd thing is that people say: oh! There are hoemless people in a capitalist country. Capitalism is wicked! What they don't do is look at the homelessness in non capitalist societies.