TW*T Yanks!!!

[jenbstevieb]

Yanks are gits...at least the ones running the country and reading the news.

Jack Straw today gave the greenlight for one weeks holdup in any war prep and the idiot, fool yanks are now attacking the "Brits" for our reticence in attacking the "extreme threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his regime"

What? The? F*CK?

Old Jacky boy is just trying to forestall war for a while....friggin yanks are cowardly, bloodthirsty, oil obsessed maniacs! OMG!!!

I`m soooo mad! Friggin yanks!

btw......I`m married to an American and she feels pretty much the same too....she wasn`t even upset when I yelled "idiot yanks" at the TV earlier so it can be seen that not all Americans feel the same. What do you folk think? Are we stamping over a minefied wearing iron shoes or what?

[scimmy ben]

They just can't wait for the opportunity of some more blue on blues.

Ben

[AshT_200]

It's probably more to do with getting supplies to our boys out there.

It's been reported that at present, our armed forces in the gulf are receiving rations of three bowls of rice a day, some of them don't even have running water.

It's a travesty if our MOD are allowing them to survive like 3rd world residents.... even the iraqi's must be fed better.

The yanks have even started naming them the borrowers and the Flintstones.

Personally, I'm for the war - I'll stake my claim to some of that oil, so I can keep the 2***** on the road ;) :D

Seriously, we can' afford to let any Biological weapon get into the hands of terrorists.

It's been calculated, that if Smallpox was released in 3 major cities in the UK, 60% of the UK population would probably be infected.

Flat Variola Major (The Most Common Form) has a mortaility rate of 30% Haemorraghic Variola Major much higher Mortality Rate. So if Flat Variola Major was released in the UK in 3 cities, you could expect 20% of the UK population to die.

Currently (contradicting) David Blunkett, the UK has no plans to allow the general public to be vaccinated. Vaccination reduces the infection rate by 95%. Judging by the past Foot and Mouth Outbreak, we can expect the UK government to be totally incompetent if it came to a smallpox outbreak.

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union successfully weaponised a Smallpox / Ebola Hybrid Virus. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, where have these technologies gone to? It is believed by the Russians, that Iraq welcomed many of the Scientists and technologies in the 1990s.

[Will Taylor]

Yes. Lets address this indirect threat by bombing sanitisation plants, water purification centres, and sewage facilities. We can reduce terrorism by killing Iraqi civilians with the resulting typhoid and cholera, like last time round...

[AshT_200]

Or we could sit back, do nothing and wait for it to happen.

It's not a perfect world. Wish it was. :(

[gaz.thomas]

Does anyone here believe that the Iraqis have the necessary infrastructure to deliver any kind of chemical/biological attack on this country - or believe they would if they did? Surely the first threat would be to Israel (so that's why bush wants to go...) - and we all know they've got their own stash of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Gaz
-x-

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Does anyone here believe that the Iraqis have the necessary infrastructure to deliver any kind of chemical/biological attack on this country - or believe they would if they did? Surely the first threat would be to Israel (so that's why bush wants to go...) - and we all know they've got their own stash of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Gaz
-x-

Does Algeria?

I suppose it wasn't Ricin that they found at that flat then?

Have you any idea, how easy it is to deploy Biological weapons?

You can do it from an aerosol can.

Or do you really believe in the "It won't happen to me" mentaility.

The jews have been persecuted from day one. The moment they stand up for themselves and start kicking butt, People suddenly stand up and say "That's not right."

[Will Taylor]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Does anyone here believe that the Iraqis have the necessary infrastructure to deliver any kind of chemical/biological attack on this country - or believe they would if they did? Surely the first threat would be to Israel (so that's why bush wants to go...) - and we all know they've got their own stash of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Gaz
-x-

Yes, but thats OK because a lot of Jews were executed in the war, thus exonerating Israel from any future crimes... :rolleyes:

And as for the infrastructure to deliver these weapons, these illegal Samoud 2 long range missiles that the USA are jumping up and down about, they have a maximum range of about 80 miles. So not a direct threat at all.

The indirect threat from Iraq is that they will give WMDs to terrorists - which they won't, as the whole point about Saddam is that he likes to own the weapons, like hill billies and NRA nuts who love owning dozens of assault rifles...

Ash, I might have mis-understood your post, but the issue here is whether Iraq is the threat, not anti-Western terrorism in general.

Cheers,

Will

[Will Taylor]

Israel, in my opinion, are not standing up for themselves. They are aggressivly expanding their territory, using highly questionable methods, such as bulldozing palestinian villages with heavy armour.

[SpeedyPete]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Does anyone here believe that the Iraqis have the necessary infrastructure to deliver any kind of chemical/biological attack on this country - or believe they would if they did? Surely the first threat would be to Israel (so that's why bush wants to go...) - and we all know they've got their own stash of illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Gaz
-x-

I think its more the scare of supplying funds to guys over here already. Doesnt take much to kill lots of people (imagin setting of a toxic bomb in the tube!)


easy peasy and so many 'non-english' in the country who have nothing to lose...

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by Will Taylor


Ash, I might have mis-understood your post, but the issue here is whether Iraq is the threat, not anti-Western terrorism in general.

Cheers,

Will

I seem to remember Saddam doing cartwheels when the twin towers fell.

The jews have been persecuted long before WW2 and they'll be persecuted long after.

When you here fundamentalist's (Osama Bin Laden) ranting on about how they won't stop until the destruction of Israel.

Saddams response to the Gulf War.... fire scuds at Israel.

We put them there..... do we now turn our backs on them?

[gaz.thomas]

Please do not mistake my thread for anti-semitism and yes i'm fully aware of the logistics involved in distributing certain WMD.
My point is concerning the likelihood that these would be directed at us in the UK. Saddam has stated time and time again that the 'Zionist state' should be removed and he would be more than happy to do it. I'm of the opinion that he must therefore never have that capability. I don't think that the Texan idiot should have weapons of mass destruction either - but that's just me.
I'm sure that Saddam does have anthrax strains in his arsenal (just crying out for a joke isn't it...). He got these from the american government.

The way the US are dealing with this situation is a joke and if we are depending on the death of innocent Iraqi citizens to win this 'moral crusade' then we are fcuked.

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas

I'm sure that Saddam does have anthrax strains in his arsenal (just crying out for a joke isn't it...). He got these from the american government.


No he didn't, the Anthrax he has came from Russia.

Better to nip in it in the bud now, than to let it escalate into World War 3.

The US is the only Super Power left, I kow which side my bread is buttered on.

As for the Toxic Texan having WMD, why does any country need them?

I understand the arguments for defence blah blah blah, but we all know that unilateral disarmament of every state that has WMDs is not going to happen.

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
Please do not mistake my thread for anti-semitism and yes i'm fully aware of the logistics involved in distributing certain WMD.
My point is concerning the likelihood that these would be directed at us in the UK.

Hitler didn't threaten Britain directly. The rest is history.

[braz]

Even though the leaders are utter f--ckwits, they like over here were voted in by the public so what does that reflect.
All voters for bush and blair must be twats aswell:o

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by braz
Even though the leaders are utter f--ckwits, they like over here were voted in by the public so what does that reflect.
All voters for bush and blair must be twats aswell:o

No one foresaw arabs flying airplanes into the towers and the pentagon. I voted for Bush... you gonna call me a twat to my face? At least Bush will stand up for something, not cower and hide behind the mold that is Gore. Quite frankly I am for the war. Iraq has had 12 years(!) to comply. Now they want more and more time. He's had more than ample time to comply to the UN's decree. He has thumbed his nose at the UN and the world in general. THIS is the US's point. Media has made this a "war for oil", or a war to finish his father's business. This is all fueled off of the world's opinion that all Americans are nothing but bloodthirsty, greedy, bastirds. I'm an American... am I all that you say Americans are? You really think we enjoy sending off our loved ones to get shot at? You think we enjoy bombing small countries, and killing innocent people? If you do you are terribly mistaken. You need to formulate your OWN opinions based on FACTS. Not speculation.

Let me ask you this. If you are caught with possession of 100 lbs of illegal substance. Does the government give you 12 years to get rid of this? Hell no, they kick down your door and haul you off to jail.

This man, Saddam, is no different than Hitler. Do you suppose the UK should have done nothing in WWII either? This man gassed whole villages of his own people. He has no regard for international law and he needs to be removed. He is not fully cooperating with Blix and the other inspectors and is mearly sandbagging his own doom.

[Pete C]

Nismo_Freak, you've just said pretty much everthing I was thinking about this situation in one post :)

[GD1]

"This man gassed whole villages of his own people."

Yes he did and where was America and England when he did it? Was there any talk of invading and deposing him then?

No they were too busy funding his was against Iran.

War stinks. What gives America and England the right to dictate to any other nation unless there is a direct threat to our nations? Odd isnt it that as we march ever closer to war we find traces of ricin in flats, we hear of missile threats to aircraft, we see tanks outside our airports (what bloody good would they have done if a terrorist fired off a missile? Is the poor bugger likely to have launched it from the main entrance?

Perhaps I am being synical but I sometimes feel that we are being manipulated.

[Marky Boy]

Originally posted by GD1
"This man gassed whole villages of his own people."

Yes he did and where was America and England when he did it? Was there any talk of invading and deposing him then?

No they were too busy funding his was against Iran.

War stinks. What gives America and England the right to dictate to any other nation unless there is a direct threat to our nations? Odd isnt it that as we march ever closer to war we find traces of ricin in flats, we hear of missile threats to aircraft, we see tanks outside our airports (what bloody good would they have done if a terrorist fired off a missile? Is the poor bugger likely to have launched it from the main entrance?

Perhaps I am being synical but I sometimes feel that we are being manipulated.

Oi! Its not just England thats going into this. Its the UK. That includes Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland.

:D

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by GD1
[B]

Perhaps I am being synical but I sometimes feel that we are being manipulated.

You arer right, it's called spin.....

However...

People are calling it a war for oil.... If we wanted his oil, wouldn't we let him sell it, rather than sanction the crap out of them - which incidentally has failed to "contain" him.

Personally, I thinkwe haven't been told about the other threats, rather than them just appearing, just like we weren't told about the risk of BSE and them not doing enough or trying to cover up Foot and Mouth.

As for why I think we should go to war, I've already said my piece.

Some people have said... "Think of the people who ar egoing to be doing the fighting...." No disrepect to anyone in the armed forces, but why did they join up? To put out fires when the firemen are on strike?

And I didn't vote for Blair, but I have more respect for him now than I ever have, and you'll find that most Americans are backing Bush.

[gaz.thomas]

I guess I did'nt really make myself clear in the last couple of posts. I believe Saddam Hussein should be deposed. As do the majority of you guys. However, this must be done within the framework set out by UN resolution 1441. Yes we know he has chemical and biological weapons, yes we know that he must be hiding them somewhere, no that does not give us the right to bomb the sh1t out of the country.

Let the weapons inspectors get on and do their job. If and when they find something - then we get on and do what should have been done twelve years ago. We cannot simply decide that we don't want to wait for this process and go in anyway - that would make a mockery of the UN.

Of course we could send in special forces to take him out and save everyone a lot of hassle...ohh wait...we can't - because that would be breaching international law.

Nismo - I agree with pretty much everything you said - Saddam needs to go, but if we go to war on the back of suspiscion and rhetoric we are in trouble. I wouldn't be happy about being slapped in jail because you [B]think[\B] I have 100lbs of illegal substance. I'd expect you to prove it - but i'm fortunate enough to live in a society where I can expect that right.

We have enough justification for removing Saddam Hussein on the basis of the horrific human rights violations so why are we insisting on making this war about the flimsy (at best) WMD issue?

Gaz
-x-

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
I guess I did'nt really make myself clear in the last couple of posts. I believe Saddam Hussein should be deposed. As do the majority of you guys. However, this must be done within the framework set out by UN resolution 1441. Yes we know he has chemical and biological weapons, yes we know that he must be hiding them somewhere, no that does not give us the right to bomb the sh1t out of the country.

Let the weapons inspectors get on and do their job. If and when they find something - then we get on and do what should have been done twelve years ago. We cannot simply decide that we don't want to wait for this process and go in anyway - that would make a mockery of the UN.

Of course we could send in special forces to take him out and save everyone a lot of hassle...ohh wait...we can't - because that would be breaching international law.

Nismo - I agree with pretty much everything you said - Saddam needs to go, but if we go to war on the back of suspiscion and rhetoric we are in trouble. I wouldn't be happy about being slapped in jail because you [B]think[\B] I have 100lbs of illegal substance. I'd expect you to prove it - but i'm fortunate enough to live in a society where I can expect that right.

We have enough justification for removing Saddam Hussein on the basis of the horrific human rights violations so why are we insisting on making this war about the flimsy (at best) WMD issue?

Gaz
-x-

Er they have got evidence, it's called Al Samoud. Contravenes a previous UN resolution.

With Resolution 1441, Iraq was given a deadline. That deadline has now passed.

[gaz.thomas]

:o Fair enough AshT - I've not read the resolution so i can't really comment on the specifics - I was under the impression that we were looking for WMD but if Saddam has broken the deadline then I guess we've got all the evidence we need?
Do we need a second resolution now or can we use the breach of 1441 as a legitimate reason for invading?

Gaz
-x-

[AshT_200]

I believe that a second resolution needs to be passed before they can legitimately go to war..... however Blair and Bush at one time were saying they'd go to war with or without one.

[GD1]

Lets not forget folks, while we are talking about resolutions and missiles with an 80 - 90 mile range our governments are preparing to kill possibly thousands of innocent people.

Tell the families of those killed when an air raid shelter was bombed in the last lot that we are trying to make the world a safer place. Wars dont just kill soldiers and tyrants!

As for WMD I can recall America using them in the not too distant past.

[jenbstevieb]

Any of you people watch Fox News?

Last week on the O` reily Factor, Bill O` Reily said that since the States were putting a lot of dough into liberating Iraq, it would expect rights to mineral resources in return....live on internationational television....and America pretends this war is about a war on terror? Bullshit.....it is about Americas continuing struggle against the global energy crisis.

A friend of mine edits a newapaper in PA and feels pretty much the same....don`t get me wrong, I have more friends in the States than in the UK but America is just plain wrong on this one. Blix says many months of inspections are needed to produce a complete picture.....this man knows....he is there, Bush is not, Blair is not. What evidence can they possibly be aware of that Blix and his associates are not?

Attacking Iraq is nothing more than long term insurance and the hopeful creation of a western bastion in the heart of a largely Muslim sub continent......there is no danger other than to western economies and hey.....Queen Elizabeth burned thousands of her subjects at the stake and yet is sen as one of the greatest leaders in history......I don`t know what to make of it all, there are so many issues.

I just fel inside that this is wrong, WRONG!!

[GD1]

I just fel inside that this is wrong, WRONG!!

Here here...

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by GD1
As for WMD I can recall America using them in the not too distant past.

And I believe these ended 6 years of global war.

The inspectors job is not to find WMDs. There job is to inspect sites re: The dossier that Iraq produced.

And talking of American Economical interest. Aren't France just trying to protect the Billions of pounds worth of investment in Iraq?

[tim rome]

Originally posted by AshT_200
And I believe these ended 6 years of global war.

The inspectors job is not to find WMDs. There job is to inspect sites re: The dossier that Iraq produced.

And talking of American Economical interest. Aren't France just trying to protect the Billions of pounds worth of investment in Iraq?
very true, well said

[jenbstevieb]

France France....blah...etc.

OK, say France is only interested in economics (following the example of the good old USA). I fail to see how this net spreads to Germany and many of the other member nations who do not believe a war is justifiable at this time.....

There is little doubt that Saddam is a maniac but with the lifeblood of trade being drained from the arteries of Iraq, he simply does not have the money to do anything about it.

Mugabe is also a maniac....kills his own people and tells the UN flat out he sees no reason why he shouldn't AND if peacekeepers are posted in his country, he would take a pop at them too. Why was no action taken to introduce Zimbabwe to the wonders of democracy?

Double standards abound and too many people are either blind to the realities of it all, blinded by money or just blind angry and need to direct it at....something. Jeez, I`m depressed.....:(

[braz]

Don't start me on this line. What fffing right gives your beloved US the rights to dictate who does what in the world. YOu see yourselves as the global enforcer- well fuxck that. If I was in charge of Iraq I'd do exactly the same. Did you like getting bullied at school - I think not. Bush senior is obviously running your country. Freedom of speech as you put it,. I don't cower down from fu-ck all, and if i think someones a twat i'll call em a twat. As for blair he s taken it up the arse from bush if it was thatcher she would tel him to uck himself.Alcoholic president says it all. You cannot blame iraq for the plane business and use his weapons as an excuse. Osama's your man so deal with a problem at a time and keep your fingers out all those pies. :mad:

[tim rome]

if it was thatcher she would tel him to uck himself.

thatcher was the only european leader to allow ronnie regan to fefuel his f111's on route to bombing the sh*t out of Lybia.

so thatcher would be more pro war than even blair is

[SHELLAC]

Turned out,after the Iran/Iraq war.The USA(and to some extent the UK)had been supplying both sides with weapons.The idea of this of course was to try and burn out both sides...but.. and heres the scary part.When it looked like there might be a winner(Iraq,and remember that theres not SUPPOSED to be a winner).The USA supply Iraq with the information and equipment to manufacture Chemical weponry...
If you havent read it already,read Michael Moores book "Stupin White Men"
This book couldnt be released in the USA because of the government sitting on it
Constitution?Freedom of Speech?
My ar5e

[GD1]

And I believe these ended 6 years of global war.

I wasnt refering to Americas use of the atomic bomb. I was refering to their indescriminate use of agent orange during the Vietnam war. People are still suffering today thanks to that nasty! Not to mention napalm, depleated uranium shells etc.

Its not bloody right - its the innocent who will suffer.

[Kev]

Originally posted by GD1
War stinks. What gives America and England the right to dictate to any other nation unless there is a direct threat to our nations? Odd isnt it that as we march ever closer to war we find traces of ricin in flats, we hear of missile threats to aircraft, we see tanks outside our airports (what bloody good would they have done if a terrorist fired off a missile? Is the poor bugger likely to have launched it from the main entrance?

Perhaps I am being synical but I sometimes feel that we are being manipulated.

Exactly!

ALL the talk about facts is all bs, so who has the "facts"?
If u go to Iraq i could guarantee u the "facts" they see will be a hellish lot differant from the "facts" we see.

There are no facts, its all a complete manipulation, what we all see is a western PR war, as ash says, spin!

But the Spin has worked a treat or this thread would not be here.

Wat gives the USA and UK to dictate wat other countries should do?

They are trying to run the UN into following their lead rather than following the steps laid down.

Tell me who it is that "knows" that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons?
And if they do, so has pretty much every other country in the world probably.

There was all the talk 12 years ago about the Iraqi super gun, so how come they never found it, or did they, or was it never real.........................

Ive said it b4 and ill say it again, its all BS and not one of us is in a position to make a decision on wat is wat cos we all get our information from the news etc which is wat we are fed, not nessecarily(?) the "truth".

I now find it very convenient that osama and saddam are now linked together......... if there really is an osama and its not just a PR exercise to maybe convince the western world that there is an evil we can fight, rather than a couple of psychos who decided to crash planes into buildings.

This could go on forever.

My point here is we have no right to bomb another country, because we dont agree with them, and anyone who thinks its not to do with oil, really is kidding themselves.
As was said b4, if saddam is the character he is portrayed to be, and had the weapons he is supposed to have, we would all have been dead a long time ago.

Another war and peace effort by Kev:rolleyes: :(

My point i think is that no-one knows wats wat cos we all have to make up our minds based on the BS we are fed.

Kev

[GrahamB]

Good points Kev.

Has anyone actually found evidence of chemical weapons or WMD in Iraq yet???

or is the only foundation for war the fact that he has a dozen missiles with a range 12 miles over the allowable limit.

Remember Innocent until Proven guilty?????
(Its not for Iraq to prove its innocence)

God it's like going to WW3 just for having too many cigarettes when you go through customs.

Don't get me wrong, he is obviously an evil tyrant, but then the worlds full of them, and we seem to be doing nothing about them?

Anyone who believes that this has nothing to do with oil is talking bollox. Sadam is not a direct threat to the west at this moment nor will he ever be. He's a clever chap who should not be underestimated. However there are plenty of other nations out there who sponsor terrorism and we doing fook all about them.

If the US does manage to get its mits on the oil then it will give it great power in terms of the OPEC nations in the middle east and that is what Bush is trying to do.

If we go to war without a second resolution then, we have a serious global political problem which will effectively nullify the need for the UN (why bother if the US is going to do what the f@*k it likes whenever it likes. And I'm afraid that is not worth even considering)

And North Korea hasn't even started.... YET

[AshT_200]

Ok, to answer a few points.

Read Biohazard by Ken Alibek. He ran the Russian Biological Warfare program when it was the Soviet Union and stated that a lot of ex Soviet Bio and Chemo technology went to Iraq.
This happened after the Gulf War.

The Ricin technology originated from Russia.

Germany supplied the mobile Bio units to manufacture bacteria.

The Iraqi supergun parts that were found were actually parts for a Nuclear centrifuge, used in the manufacture of enriched Uranium for making Atomic bombs. (Remember the Matrix Churchill affair.)

Russia, Germany, France may well be against the war because of what might be found afterwards. France has been accused recently of breaking UN sanctions with the supply of Military hardware to Iraq since the original Gulf War. How much more have these countries done for Iraq?

I also notice that the "Human Shield" protestors are leaving Iraq. Shows how motivated they were.

A few historical points abut Israel. The West Bank was captured when Egypt massed troops on the border, preparing to invade. Israel removed the threat. This was when Egypt, Jordan and Syria were preparing to remove Israel. At the time the West Bank was part of Jordan. After the Israelis took the West Bank, the palestinians said thankyou very much for liberating our land to which the Israelis said.... no it's ours now.

Everyone whines when Israel launches airstrikes against Palestinians, but what about when the palestinian terrorists bomb innocent Israelis?


Also, it is not just Britain and America..... it is a coalition. Spain is voicing support as is Pakistan and a lot of other countries. If we are talking of what rights countries have..... what right does a ruthless dictator have to threaten the stability of the world by amassing WMDs that he has already proven that he is willing to use?

And it has already been stated that after the war, IRaq will come under administration by a UN led force until it is ready for a democratic government. The US and UK won't get their hands on the oil.

[tim rome]

Originally posted by Kev
Exactly!

ALL the talk about facts is all bs, so who has the "facts"?
If u go to Iraq i could guarantee u the "facts" they see will be a hellish lot differant from the "facts" we see.

There are no facts, its all a complete manipulation, what we all see is a western PR war, as ash says, spin!

But the Spin has worked a treat or this thread would not be here.

Wat gives the USA and UK to dictate wat other countries should do?

They are trying to run the UN into following their lead rather than following the steps laid down.

Tell me who it is that "knows" that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons?
And if they do, so has pretty much every other country in the world probably.

There was all the talk 12 years ago about the Iraqi super gun, so how come they never found it, or did they, or was it never real.........................

Ive said it b4 and ill say it again, its all BS and not one of us is in a position to make a decision on wat is wat cos we all get our information from the news etc which is wat we are fed, not nessecarily(?) the "truth".

I now find it very convenient that osama and saddam are now linked together......... if there really is an osama and its not just a PR exercise to maybe convince the western world that there is an evil we can fight, rather than a couple of psychos who decided to crash planes into buildings.

This could go on forever.

My point here is we have no right to bomb another country, because we dont agree with them, and anyone who thinks its not to do with oil, really is kidding themselves.
As was said b4, if saddam is the character he is portrayed to be, and had the weapons he is supposed to have, we would all have been dead a long time ago.

Another war and peace effort by Kev:rolleyes: :(

My point i think is that no-one knows wats wat cos we all have to make up our minds based on the BS we are fed.

Kev

couple of psycos in jets ??? interesting theory, would love to see your evidence

as for iraq not having weapons of mass destruction, this must mean that you believe that sadam has already destroyed them and just doesnt have the proof... he certainly had weapons of mass destruction because britain and america sold him sh1tloads of the stuff, so did france

[2BDFRNT]

AshT_200: The jews in Israel stole that land and deserve every inoccent shredding suicide bomb they cop, and Nismo_Freak: If you voted Bush, I have one thing to say to you, and I'd say it to your face, but being a Bush-votin Yank you probably carry a gun (Like all other pussy Seppo's), so here it is on the interweb: "TWAT....YOU ARE A TWAT"

I could completely shred apart all that Bush and his supporters stand for, but it would take me far to long, as meatheads like yourself dont listen to reason and are inflexible in your ideas. Plus I hope that in 5 years you will have been killed, either by an "SUV", by another angry stupid Yank with a boom-boom-stick, or in the backlash that WILL come from your stupid senseless war on Iraq. So a big FU(K YOU (UNT from the land-down-under!!!

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by 2BDFRNT
AshT_200: The jews in Israel stole that land and deserve every inoccent shredding suicide bomb they cop,

Could suggest that to the Aborigines that white Australians persecuted and stole their land. :rolleyes:

and Nismo_Freak: If you voted Bush, I have one thing to say to you, and I'd say it to your face, but being a Bush-votin Yank you probably carry a gun (Like all other pussy Seppo's), so here it is on the interweb: "TWAT....YOU ARE A TWAT"

I could completely shred apart all that Bush and his supporters stand for, but it would take me far to long, as meatheads like yourself dont listen to reason and are inflexible in your ideas. Plus I hope that in 5 years you will have been killed, either by an "SUV", by another angry stupid Yank with a boom-boom-stick, or in the backlash that WILL come from your stupid senseless war on Iraq. So a big FU(K YOU (UNT from the land-down-under!!!

My ears are open...... explain yourself.

You Australians are active in the Gulf as well.

[Mark]

If the job was done properly in the first place we wouldnt be in this mess, we dont need a war its a waste of time all you need is one team of crack troops to go in and take the fecker out, job done

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by Nismo Mark
If the job was done properly in the first place we wouldnt be in this mess, we dont need a war its a waste of time all you need is one team of crack troops to go in and take the fecker out, job done

Except that would be illegal. :)

[AshT_200]

Besides, it seems, that the UK and the U.S. could legitimately go in without a second resolution.

A resolution that was previously made, authorising war is still in effect.

[Martin T]

Originally posted by 2BDFRNT
AshT_200: The jews in Israel stole that land and deserve every inoccent shredding suicide bomb they cop, and Nismo_Freak: If you voted Bush, I have one thing to say to you, and I'd say it to your face, but being a Bush-votin Yank you probably carry a gun (Like all other pussy Seppo's), so here it is on the interweb: "TWAT....YOU ARE A TWAT"

I could completely shred apart all that Bush and his supporters stand for, but it would take me far to long, as meatheads like yourself dont listen to reason and are inflexible in your ideas. Plus I hope that in 5 years you will have been killed, either by an "SUV", by another angry stupid Yank with a boom-boom-stick, or in the backlash that WILL come from your stupid senseless war on Iraq. So a big FU(K YOU (UNT from the land-down-under!!!
Nice torrent of un called for abuse:mad:
I notice that whenever ppl say they have loads of arguments or whatever to support their point, when asked they dont have sh*t.
I also think Bush is a bit of a twat, and that this war is in part oil related, but I dont spew out verbal diahorrhea at anyone that disagrees with me. That last paragraph also makes you look like a hypocritical twat!:mad:

[Kev]

Originally posted by tim rome
couple of psycos in jets ??? interesting theory, would love to see your evidence

as for iraq not having weapons of mass destruction, this must mean that you believe that sadam has already destroyed them and just doesnt have the proof... he certainly had weapons of mass destruction because britain and america sold him sh1tloads of the stuff, so did france

Uve totally missed the point Tim.
He has weapons cos u know america and france sold him loads.
U DONT KNOW
Ur taking all the BS we are fed as fact!

U want to see my evidence, i have none, same way u and everyone else in this thread has none, all we all have is the BS/fact we are given.
And if u look at what i wrote, i didnt say it was what i believed, i said ,maybe, as in another alternative.
Ask me what i believe..............
NOTHING, not a bloody word from either side, its all BS

2dbfrnt, WTF????
Who gives u the right to come on and attack people for their beliefs or where they stay?
Ash made very good point, we will see what ur thoughts are on it when the aboriginees decide to suicide bomb all u lot down under!

As for the oil, pls ash dont tell me u honestly think its not to do with oil? and are u honestly saying that uk and usa will have no influence, i think not!!

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by Kev
As for the oil, pls ash dont tell me u honestly think its not to do with oil? and are u honestly saying that uk and usa will have no influence, i think not!!

No Kev, I don't think it is.... That's not to say that I am right.

I do believe for once, the sincerity of Tony Blair. This is the only time I have agreed with him, and TBH I'm not listening to Bush regarding this, I'm listening to the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell - who I believe are being sincere as well.

There's all this talk of Oil by people who don't know, that includes me as well, but tbh, the UK has it's hands on more oil than it can use...... BPs new deal in Russia has dealt with that. They are now able to tap into the Worlds largest resource of oil.

And the yanks have Alaska.

Remember the Toxic Texan wanting to start drilling in a Nature reserve.

Course the US and UK will have influence, as will every other country in the UN.

[GrahamB]

This isn't about supply of oil to UK and USA:rolleyes:

Its about OPEC if the west gets a hold in an oil producer in the middle east it will have more sway with OPEC in its messing with oil prices. Its got Fook all to do with quantity its a strategic move:o

OPEC has quite a sway in the global oil prices. This of course, the US would like more control over considering its probably the biggest consumer.

Its never been about supply of the stuff as Ash pointed out we've got tonnes of the stuff and so does the UK but then thats not what this is about.

So far I've seen no evidence of Saddam's Chemical Programme so we need some much better proof than saying 'Well he must have some' thats not proof thats speculation.

We need evidence before we can even consider going to war.

Nismo Mark,

Good point but how the hell do we take out Saddam when half the male population looks exactly like him???:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Nathan_200sx]

Right, I don’t usually get caught up in stuff like this cos no one is gonna agree so there's not usually a point in arguing over it let alone getting personal about someone in a different country.

In light of what kev says, and I do agree wholeheartedly with his media argument I'll put this into the debate. (that’s if it hasn’t already strayed from a debate) some proof not gathered from the media.

My manager, usually a no war type of person flew back from morocco the other week. While on the plane it turns out he was sitting next to an Iraqi Kurd so the inevitable happened and they started to talk about the current affair's with Iraq. The upshot was that the Iraqi couldn’t understand why there had been no action already. He didn’t care about bushes motives, he just wanted to "go home" you see he had to leave the country when he voiced his concerns about the mysterious illnesses that were happening to the people in his village. Also if your not actively promoting saddam and singing his praises from the rooftops you get a visit in the night from so not so nice people. Another striking point he mentioned was that far more people are dieing each day than bushes planes can kill, might be a bit exaggerated but a point that sticks in your mind. To be blunt Iraq has more humanitarian problems that Kosavo ever had yet no one stood against that. Yet just because Iraq has oil and the press play on this the willy liberals spout that this must be the ONLY reason were going to war we should turn our backs on the people who are out there in a worse situation than kosovo?
A question, why do you think those dumb **** in that human shield are coming back? maybe by being there they've seen the truth? I say they should stay there and we'll use them as target practice before we go in for real.

That was just what I heard, second hand from anti war type of guy who heard it from the mouth of an Iraqi. make your own judgments, should we ignore these people in case we get accused of profiteering?
Just a quick scenario for you to mull over and to try and explain how I feel. You have a big stick and some bloke with a little stick is knocking people about in his street, women,kids,old people. you also find out he's been supply little sticks to other streets, hell even yours. do you wait until someone with a little stick starts knocking about the people in your street, would you walk past the people in his street on the floor bleeding? No I wouldn’t, I take my big stick and wrap it round his head.

To end I am in no way trying to change anyone’s mind, you have an opinion and I have mine we live in a democracy where we can challenge our leader's. just remember those that don’t.

P.S I appologise for subjecting you to my appaling grammer, another reason I dont usualy post long winded posts ;)

[AshT_200]

Couldn't agree with you more Number 1. :)

[yeager]

Bush is a fool, sooner he is executed the better...

[tim rome]

Originally posted by yeager
Bush is a fool, sooner he is executed the better...
maybe. but the next president would still invade iraq, also if they had still been in power so would clinton, the other bush, regan, nixon and kennedy

[yeager]

Originally posted by tim rome
maybe. but the next president would still invade iraq, also if they had still been in power so would clinton, the other bush, regan, nixon and kennedy

*sigh* so true. The US government is so hypocritical its making me sick with anger. Before the first war in the gulf to *ahem* free Kuwait the US were happy to sell arms and advise Iraq in attempt to aid them in the war against Iran.

Is the US really a nation of peace ? A nation that emits more violent messages than anywhere else ? (Hollywood, NRA, you name it)

[Leon]

Not in my name.
That's my word on the subject, whatever the rights and wrongs that you guys are arguing (and I agree with many of your points, I just don't feel like typing out my anti-war essay - sorry).

Not in my name. I didn't vote for this Govt (Lib Dem - Horsham has about as much chance of going Red as I do of enjoying a night of passion with Ann Widdecombe - although Anne would be preferable to the last person who tried to pick me up).

I don't support the war as I feel it is a war of oil, munitions and now inevitability. Not in my name, you scum sucking undemocratic bastards.

[Nathan_200sx]

"not in my name" fredom for so many and you dont care? 12 years I've watched the documentories and seen how the sanctions that are desigen by the "UN" have failed. Sadam like any other despot has moved weath towards the elite of his cause (not unlike hitler) the rest have had to sufer and the "not in my name" brigade have used them as an asult on the peolple who want to do something. Do it in my name and I wont care! I would be proud to see happy people rejouise at the overthrow of a dictator who uses chemical weapons on his own people. still need proof? FFS what more do you need? he kills his own people what makes you think he give a shit about you? women kids old folks and the young and healthy have died to further his weapons testing...... no sadam doesnt have wmd so what the **** did he do to these people? a new kind of green fly killer gone mad? listen to the press, listen to the wooly cardi brigade! go over there and bring one of the poor ****ers back to hear there story! why do you think his elite brigade have the tag elite? it's because they are the only ones with an above 40% chance of not giving themselves up as soon as they see a UN solgier, probably because there whole family is behind bars as a deterant to them defecting.

I would not stand against such a war I will post why I feel in such a way incase others could pick holes in my argument. people are scared, people are dieing, save them and you say not in my name? what does it take? we like to belive we live in a humane sociaty. so what would you turn your back on to make you move? at the end of the day people have been killed for years and years with chemical weapons, it's on film, it's been in the news, what the hell do you think he's done with them? shoved em under his pillow? he needs taking out!!! being meek does not realy guarentee you the earth I'm afraid.

[TomM]

Ash: you said earlier that the existence of the Al Samoud missiles is evidence that could legitimately lead to war. i don't think it is, for two reasons:
1) If it was, they'd have gone to war already!
2) The Al Samoud missiles are not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. I believe this term largely refers to the payload (biological, chemical, nuclear) not any means of delivery.


Originally posted by AshT_200
Everyone whines when Israel launches airstrikes against Palestinians, but what about when the palestinian terrorists bomb innocent Israelis?
Mmmmmm... the very essence of terrorism is that it's the only way a small oppressed population can have an impact on a much larger oppressor. Sure, it's just as wrong for the Palestinians to kill Israelis as vica versa, but the methods used are somewhat different, which might explain the 'whining' you elude to.
Compare a suicide bomber to use of a helecopter gunship on unarmed civilians.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Tombs
.
Compare a suicide bomber to use of a helecopter gunship on unarmed civilians.

Yeah it says dont **** with me cos Im bigger, stop ****ing bombing my civilians and I'll stop bombing yours. if someone threw a stone at you wouldnt you throw a rock?

[TomM]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
Yeah it says dont **** with me cos Im bigger, stop ****ing bombing my civilians and I'll stop bombing yours. if someone threw a stone at you wouldnt you throw a rock?

Doesn't seem to work, does it?

[jenbstevieb]

While we wait, Saddam is killing more of his own....undoubtedly true. However, I refuse to believe that the threat Saddam poses to his psople or our own is in actuality the reason we will be a war by the end of next week.

There are many other enemies of humanity, both human and natural in origin that pose far greater a threat than this despot. When I started this thread, the point was that this concentration on the Middle East is economic, not moralistic in focus.

Saddam will get his, one way or another. I just think that the thousands of millions of dollars/pounds being poured into his downfall could be better used for more justifiable "liberations" elsewhere in the world.......how about the liberation of many african people from the ongoing threat of famine for example? I dare day that a few billion quid would liberate untold millions, with the emphasis being on construction, not destruction.

Sh*t.....I`m rambling aren`t I? Sorry.

[Kev]

Some good points there Nath, the stick analogy made me giggle:D :D :D

As Jen says its not really that peeps feel liberating iraq would be a bad thing, its just that the us and uk are not going in to save civilians, they are going in for the oil.

All imo obviously

[Steve(S14a)]

I think a lot of people are being too simplistic in their analysis of the threat that Saddam poses. Most are along either of these two lines:

1

"Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction or the capability to directly threaten us. Until he does we have no right to go to war"

2

"What right have the USA to tell other people what to do and who should or should not have weapons of mass destruction"


My views

1

As the man has the intent to harm us, do you wait until he can until you take action?
Isn't stamping out the flame better than trying to quell a blaze?
What a lot of people don't understand is what they cannot see.
A lot of the threat he poses comes from ways he can harm us indirectly i.e. state sponsored terrorism etc.

I don't think we are 'just' to go to war with him, but he does mean us harm and does pose a threat; whether directly or indirectly. So it's in our interest if he was removed.

War is a selfish act, it is all about protecting oneself and ones own interests and if everyone in the world was logical and reasonable, there would be no need for it. Unfortunately there will always be people for whom logic and reason do not restrain them.

2

OK. If you look at it that way then each and every country should be entitled to all the weapons they want. That would only be fair wouldn't it?
Then we could each have our nuclear missiles and no one would be stupid enough to use them.

Wrong.

Bush may not be the model man, but what keeps him from using his lethal arsenal is the American public. That's what keeps his power, or indeed that of any other leader of a democracy in check. No public support, no election etc. There is a 'balance' to the power.

Why a dictator is so dangerous is because there is no check on the power of someone that is solely in charge.
No one tells him what to do. No one questions his decisions. He has no one to answer to if things cock up.

Hence that man is inherently more dangerous.

[2BDFRNT]

Aborigine point well taken, I really cant defend it, cept to mention that Aborigines get all kinds of welfare benifits, in fact they get paid to go to school!!! But I didnt mean what I said about the jews, or rather I did but not as forcefully, I apologise. But must say I go to uni with heaps of jews and they whinge and whinge all day about the israel situation and refuse to accept that the land was stolen in the first place. Its plain to see that its gone too long for israeli jews to just leave, but peace has to be reached, without finger pointing, without focusing on suicide attacks and/or car bombs, looking back further than that to when the land was taken. The Israeli's need to lose their holier than thou attitude, or more generations will suffer the consequences. Of course it doesnt help that, due to their retarded voting system US candidates rely on money from wealthy jews to fund their campaigns, and therefore are of course to chickenshit to do anything but support the jewish side of the equation. Nuff said

But I stand by what I said to that Yank ******. Bush is out for revenge for his father, and secondly to prove that if you dont comply to what the Prez sez, you cop it. And I'm not talking about chemical weapons. 6 months prior to 9-11, the Prez was at Camp David with an al-Queda leader, plus an Iraqi buisnessman who has some political influence and a Texan oil company executive, discussing a new Middle East oil pipeline. The deal fell through because the Afgani and the Iraqi wouldnt take the US' terms. Then 9-11 happened. Some conspiracy theorists beleive the attack was led by the US, in an effort to have a reason for a new Gulf War. I find this theory shakey at best, with little but circumstantial evidence to back it up.

However the concept of oil control is a big factor, and coupled with Bush's desire to get one back at Saddam for old dad, it is turning the world situation decidedly dangerous. The US economy has been repeatedly shown by academics to prosper in a war situation and it has been suffering a downturn. These factors and more make it easy to see why the US would so desperatley want a war where other countries are trying to avoid it at all costs by giving Saddam time, and actually LISTENING to the reports of weapons inspectors.

I am also very aware there are Aussie troops in the area. And I hate it. So do all the other people who have marched against it. But our words fall on deaf ears, so hungry are our leaders for a free trade agreement with the US. But that is what you get when you vote for the Liberal party (Our Liberal part was originally a true liberal party, but is now Tory or Conservative, while the Labour party, founded by unionists has become the truely liberal party....confusing innit?)

Thanks to Bush we have more pressing issues in our own area, namely North Korea. George Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech really ****ed that one up, as Australia was establishing diplomatic dialouge with North Korea, and the North was opening up to the South, letting families reunite and people come and go more freely. But now they have retreated into their shell and are preparing war....*sigh*. He really ****ed it up bigtime....bigtime.

[AshT_200]

Originally posted by Tombs
Ash: you said earlier that the existence of the Al Samoud missiles is evidence that could legitimately lead to war. i don't think it is, for two reasons:
1) If it was, they'd have gone to war already!
2) The Al Samoud missiles are not 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. I believe this term largely refers to the payload (biological, chemical, nuclear) not any means of delivery.


No the Al Samoud Missiles are on the UN Banned List. Resolution 1441 does not just look at payloads, it looks at Manufacturing plants and delivery.

Latest news is that the inspectors have found drone planes, possibly equiped for the deployment of Bio and Chemical weapons - which was not on Saddams dossier :rolleyes:. Resolution 1441 states that it is Iraq to comply, not the inspectors to seek out and find.

[2BDFRNT]

More evidence of the absolute stupidity of the average American:

In a recent survey, CBS News found that 42% of Americans polled beleive Saddam Hussein is responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Bush has done something rather clever here. By constantly saying Saddam and September 11 in the same few sentences, he has created a correlation in the minds of those poor simple Americans watching him

And they are the "leaders of the free world"???? Gimme a ****in break!

[TAS]

Originally posted by Martin T
Nice torrent of un called for abuse:mad:
I notice that whenever ppl say they have loads of arguments or whatever to support their point, when asked they dont have sh*t.
I also think Bush is a bit of a twat, and that this war is in part oil related, but I dont spew out verbal diahorrhea at anyone that disagrees with me. That last paragraph also makes you look like a hypocritical twat!:mad:

Here, Here...
This is only a debate... and a chance to give your views and feelings on what "may" happen..
Just because someone disagree's with ya that doesnt give any1 the right to slag anyone off..... if so then its you that obviously has the problem.....
:mad:

[Martin T]

Originally posted by Tim Simpson
Here, Here...
This is only a debate... and a chance to give your views and feelings on what "may" happen..
Just because someone disagree's with ya that doesnt give any1 the right to slag anyone off..... if so then its you that obviously has the problem.....
:mad:
Did you read the torrent of abuse and personal attacks on Nismo Freak?
I slag him off because of his torrent of uncalled for abuse, not his views. Especially as to a point I agree with a fair bit of what he said, just not in as extreme a manner. (I think Bush is a twat and Israel is being too heavy handed. They do not deserve Suicide bombers, however)

Just for the record, here is what I was responding to:


Originally posted by 2BDFRNT
AshT_200: The jews in Israel stole that land and deserve every inoccent shredding suicide bomb they cop,

and Nismo_Freak: If you voted Bush, I have one thing to say to you, and I'd say it to your face, but being a Bush-votin Yank you probably carry a gun (Like all other pussy Seppo's), so here it is on the interweb: "TWAT....YOU ARE A TWAT"

I could completely shred apart all that Bush and his supporters stand for, but it would take me far to long, as meatheads like yourself dont listen to reason and are inflexible in your ideas. Plus I hope that in 5 years you will have been killed, either by an "SUV", by another angry stupid Yank with a boom-boom-stick, or in the backlash that WILL come from your stupid senseless war on Iraq. So a big FU(K YOU (UNT from the land-down-under!!!

Just so you read it this time, I've marked in bold the parts that were particularily offensive.

[Martin T]

Originally posted by 2BDFRNT
More evidence of the absolute stupidity of the average American:

In a recent survey, CBS News found that 42% of Americans polled beleive Saddam Hussein is responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Bush has done something rather clever here. By constantly saying Saddam and September 11 in the same few sentences, he has created a correlation in the minds of those poor simple Americans watching him

And they are the "leaders of the free world"???? Gimme a ****in break!
I could introduce you too quite a few dumb English people too, you know. Or from just about any nationality. There's a lot more government propaganda on American TV, while in Britain, its a lot more Journalist propaganda. George Bush has tried and failed to prove a link between Al Quieda and Saddam and failed to come up with any convincing evidence, but he's been telling poeple there is a connection all along, so its no surprise that 42% think there is.

edit: spelling:rolleyes:

[TAS]

I was meant to be agreeing with you but having a go.... LOL... :rolleyes:
this will prob explain the situation considering I have only had 1hr sleep..:eek:

I was agreeing with what you said about the response from 2BDFRNT....

D'OH :o

:D






Originally posted by Martin T
Did you read the torrent of abuse and personal attacks on Nismo Freak?
I slag him off because of his torrent of uncalled for abuse, not his views. Especially as to a point I agree with a fair bit of what he said, just not in as extreme a manner. (I think Bush is a twat and Israel is being too heavy handed. They do not deserve Suicide bombers, however)

Just for the record, here is what I was responding to:

Just so you read it this time, I've marked in bold the parts that were particularily offensive.

[Martin T]

Doh:o I didn't read your reply properly. I saw, but didn't absorb that here, here bit:o
And I've had plenty of sleep:rolleyes:

[TAS]

Originally posted by Martin T
Doh:o I didn't read your reply properly. I saw, but didn't absorb that here, here bit:o
And I've had plenty of sleep:rolleyes:

LOL...... what are we like.... :D

[Nelson]

Originally posted by Nismo Mark
If the job was done properly in the first place we wouldnt be in this mess, we dont need a war its a waste of time all you need is one team of crack troops to go in and take the fecker out, job done

Do you think that any leader would fear for his own life if he sent crack troops to take out another leader ? Maybe all leaders have a selfish interest in not going down that road ? Better to let the troops fight it out ?

[Martin T]

Yep - better to cost thousands of lives that Tony Blair risking his:rolleyes: The risk comes with the job. Selfish wine waiters!

[jenbstevieb]

Good point made about the inferred relationship between yosemite bin laden and the attacks of september 11th. However, it is slightly lost in the fact that both Colin Powell (thought he was smarter) and Bush (say no more) have stated that contrete linking evidence exists....just that its classified.

Sounds a bit like the concrete evidence that I overtook a 530i at 125mph last week...the driver knew, but sonce he was doing over the ton anyway, is he really gonna spill the beans?

Its this sort of implied relationship between Americas suffering and retaliation that scares me a bit.

[milo]

I was with it up until the word 'contrete' :D

[J..]

Anyone see that program the other day about when the Americans went into Somalia - apparently it went all to shit because they had to do the mission during the day so it could be put on prime time TV.
This isn't a slate at Amerians but at American leaders.
They did make a good film about it though - Blackhawk Down - not quite accurate though!

Have to say I'm pro war - I'd like to see the back of Saddam - I consider him a threat. I can't think of an alternative to war.
I know others have weapons of mass destruction - but I don't consider them a threat. And I know it should have happened 10 years ago...

Remember before WWII started no one would listen to Churchill when he said the Nazis were building up a huge hidden army. If only we did listen to him and build up our own forces instead of turning a blnd eye.

If only we took out the Taliban before September 11th...

[jenbstevieb]

Originally posted by J..
I'd like to see the back of Saddam - I consider him a threat. I can't think of an alternative to war.
I know others have weapons of mass destruction - but I don't consider them a threat. And I know it should have happened 10 years ago...

Remember before WWII started no one would listen to Churchill when he said the Nazis were building up a huge hidden army. If only we did listen to him and build up our own forces instead of turning a blnd eye.
If only we took out the Taliban before September 11th...

Kinda with you there.....as long as its justified. Regardless of the UN, this war has as it only foundation a legal technicality. Oh yeah, that`s the way to go....

Its not the end that I`m vehemently against, rather the means used to justify it. Bottom line is that Saddam is a damn site smarter than Bush (FFS, in an interview prior to election, Bush didn`t even know who the prime minister of India was) and knows how to meld both circumstance and media. Bush has no such skill. Playing cat and mouse in this fashion is all well and good but if we are to oust Saddam, lets make it about human rights rather than some (apparently non-existent) WMD.

Oh, and Blair is in a rathole too. Either he supports the war and continues the alliance between US and UK while sacrificing relations with the Euro lot or he sides with other EU members and shafts trading relations with the US....not a pretty predicament.... I don`t think Blair is a muppet, just that he`s screwed whichever way he jumps

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by 2BDFRNT
AshT_200: The jews in Israel stole that land and deserve every inoccent shredding suicide bomb they cop, and Nismo_Freak: If you voted Bush, I have one thing to say to you, and I'd say it to your face, but being a Bush-votin Yank you probably carry a gun (Like all other pussy Seppo's), so here it is on the interweb: "TWAT....YOU ARE A TWAT"

I could completely shred apart all that Bush and his supporters stand for, but it would take me far to long, as meatheads like yourself dont listen to reason and are inflexible in your ideas. Plus I hope that in 5 years you will have been killed, either by an "SUV", by another angry stupid Yank with a boom-boom-stick, or in the backlash that WILL come from your stupid senseless war on Iraq. So a big FU(K YOU (UNT from the land-down-under!!!

Your whole reasoning is full of what appears to be anger. You cuss about this and that, but if you want to get a point across back it up with FACTS.

BTW, your usage of poor language speaks volumes about your intelligence and character.

[Nismo_Freak]

I must say no one in the UK can mention a quest for oil in Iraq. To say otherwise would be to turn a blind eye on your own history.

When the middle east was sectioned off by the Allies, which caused a ton of issues, Britain was in charge of the area which is then and now Iraq. They forced Iraq to sell Britain oil at cut rate prices.

So now you know.

Also Saddam was raised and highly inspired by reading literatures from such "humanitarians" as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin while he was in jail for the attempted assassination of the Iraqi leader. He was a hitman at a young age in a political party that his brother later became the president of. His brother fell ill and Saddam took over.

I invite all of you to read into the sufferage of the Iraqi people and the tyrannical leader that is Saddam. Also, read about his elaborate security system. It will shed some light on why a small taskforce cant take him out.

You think the death of say 100 civilans is a tragedy? Let it be known that some 20,000 Iraqis die of hunger every year. This is the same circumstance as Somalia. The druglords were intercepting aid and distributing it to their troops.

Frankly I dont think we should go to war over oil or any of that crap. ESPECIALLY the threat to Israel (dont get me started on them). The only reason I am pro-war is that the people of Iraq suffer greatly under Saddam. They live their lives in sheer terror every day. Food is hard to come by and their isnt much running water. You gonna sit back and watch hundreds of thousands of innocent people die because some psychopath is their leader? I believe its a bit selfish and against our own morals to not do anything.

[jenbstevieb]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
To say otherwise would be to turn a blind eye on your own history.

Frankly I dont think we should go to war over oil or any of that crap. ESPECIALLY the threat to Israel (dont get me started on them). The only reason I am pro-war is that the people of Iraq suffer greatly under Saddam. They live their lives in sheer terror every day. Food is hard to come by and their isnt much running water. You gonna sit back and watch hundreds of thousands of innocent people die because some psychopath is their leader? I believe its a bit selfish and against our own morals to not do anything.

What? A voice of reason in Texas? Surely not;) ;)

Seriously though, you make some very good points. We have all done some pretty bad stuff in our respective histories. I think this is all the more reason to operate as much diplomacy as possible in all our current affairs and relations.

Looks like the UN vote is going to be pushed back another week which shows the general level of uncertainty surrounding this whole issue. There wasn an interview with Blair on TV last night during which he was questioned by an Iraqui exile. She said that Saddam needs to be deposed but she could not even begin to think about the possibilities or ramifications on the Iraqi people of armed action to remove him.

I tis not as clear cut as many pundits would have us believe. If there is no new resolution and we go in anyway...say we find nothing...no nuclear programme, no new chemical weapons. Regardless of the beneifts of deposing Saddam to all concerned, such an instance would effectively destroy the thin veil currently holding the UN together.......

[AndyT]

I think one of the biggest problems is that this is seen as a knee jerk reaction from the US after Sept 11. It is almost as if they didn't really care what happened in the middle east until then, as it has now affected them directly. Is it a Pearl Harbour all over again? Don't get me wrong, Sept 11 was a dreadful tradegy, but it has woken the sleeping giant again.
Attacking Iraq is going to kill thousands of innocent civilians, you can bet the Saddam has positioned them carefully, and probably get rid of Saddam from Iraq, but to where. Bin Laden is still on the loose somewhere, and no doubt plotting his next move.

Terrorism will never be irradicated, the people we think as terrorists do think themselves as terrorists, they are fighting for what they believe is right. To use the stick example. If all you have is little sticks and the "oppressor" has big sticks, you will have to hit from behind and run. You won't kill him, but you can inflict some pain, and if you keep inflicting pain maybe he will give in.
We in the UK can look very close to home for continued "terrorist" attacks. The IRA have been actively attacking "mainland" Britain for a long time, believing they were justified becuase we had the big sticks. Might I also add that most of the IRA's funding came from the US, thanks a bunch.

[SHELLAC]

Surely in WWII Germany had to invade Czechovslovakia and Poland before Britain would get involved,so we pretty much sucked there too.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
I must say no one in the UK can mention a quest for oil in Iraq. To say otherwise would be to turn a blind eye on your own history.



What we let you keep the usa didt we? ;)

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by SHELLAC
Surely in WWII Germany had to invade Czechovslovakia and Poland before Britain would get involved,so we pretty much sucked there too.

Actually ... Britain took a side before the incursions into the Czech area and Poland. The Czech's actually more or less became an ally of Germany out of necessity. Britain and France appeased Germany with the invasion of the Rhineland (now present day Deutsches Bundesland Saarland). The British didnt actually fight until the Fallschirmjaeger landed in Belgium, if I recall correctly. It was there that the Fallschirmjaeger encountered a very small British Expeditionary force. This was to help reinforce the "impenetrable" fortress located there and all throughout France.

[gaz.thomas]

I hate to say it Nismo but it would appear I am in political agreement with a Texan :eek: We in Britain are in an enormous glasshouse when it comes to ulterior motives for war - we spent the majority of the last two centuries carving up the globe and walking out just before the sh1t hit the fan. I believe there is more than enough impetus to go to war based on the horrific human rights violations that have taken place under the baath government in Iraq.
To a certain degree I admire the way Blair has tempered Bush's actions - I believe that the US would have gone to war a long time ago had it not been for Blair pushing for the UN route. However, to undermine the UN at this stage (ie. to go to war regardless of the Russian veto) would be to destroy the organisation. When it comes to international security I personally prefer a strong UN than an omnipotent US.

Gaz
-x-

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by Nathan_200sx
What we let you keep the usa didt we? ;)

Lol... you'd like to think that wouldn't ya!

You can have it back! HAHAHA.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by gaz.thomas
I hate to say it Nismo but it would appear I am in political agreement with a Texan :eek: We in Britain are in an enormous glasshouse when it comes to ulterior motives for war - we spent the majority of the last two centuries carving up the globe and walking out just before the sh1t hit the fan. I believe there is more than enough impetus to go to war based on the horrific human rights violations that have taken place under the baath government in Iraq.
To a certain degree I admire the way Blair has tempered Bush's actions - I believe that the US would have gone to war a long time ago had it not been for Blair pushing for the UN route. However, to undermine the UN at this stage (ie. to go to war regardless of the Russian veto) would be to destroy the organisation. When it comes to international security I personally prefer a strong UN than an omnipotent US.

Gaz
-x-

Its not so bad really lol. I see it the same way mate. Here's what a local baseball team had on their practice shirts:

T.E.A.M.
Together
Everyone
Acchieves
More

This is my opinion of the UN. Its an open forum where differences can be sorted via diplomacy and where resolutions can be easily made to seperate the burden of economic or staple aid. This allows the whole world to come together to solve problems. To get a third person view on aspects.

The UN can argue from many angles... the US or UK for that matter can argue only one angle.

Dont take this statement incorrectly:
There must always be a more powerful force to assume a leadership role; The US fills this gap.

Reasoning behind it:
Its often easier and more productive for one person to make their mind up and others follow than for everyone to devise their own plan and enact it. The quality control is in the "followers" commentary to the "leader". The "leader" must always be open to commentary. But its just that, commentary. It is up to the ability of the "leader" to injest that info and act correctly upon it. In the end you create an often good quality and quick reaction or result to a task/issue/problem.

[Nathan_200sx]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
Lol... you'd like to think that wouldn't ya!

You can have it back! HAHAHA.

Digging about I found this old email from november 2000 just after your elections ;) you still dont comply!!! cmon were getting impatiant ;):D:D

Now go fetch your Union Jack and fly it with pride :D:D:D

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to
govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over
all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she
does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for
the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world
outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need
for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A
questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you
noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules
are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then
look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at
just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise
your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same
twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you
know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up
"interspersed".

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on
your behalf.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It
really isn't that hard.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the
good guys.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen",
but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get
confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of
football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.
The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders
may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no
longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football.
Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult
game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby
(which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for
a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like
nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by
2005.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if
they give you any merde. The 98.85% of you who were not aware that there is
a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians
have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "shit".

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your
own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

[Nismo_Freak]

LOL... thats a funny funny email. Ever imagine if we would have lost the revolution how things would have turned out? Would have been rather interesting.

[AntS13]

You'd be able to drive skylines.:D

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by AntS13
You'd be able to drive skylines.:D

Ahhhhhhhhh.... you bastid! :D :D :D :p :p :p

[AntS13]

Let me think which would I rather a 1000BHP skyline or a ZO6 .
Hard decision that one.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Skyline wins. :p :D :D

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by AntS13
Let me think which would I rather a 1000BHP skyline or a ZO6 .
Hard decision that one.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Skyline wins. :p :D :D

R33 for me... parked next to my Z06 :P

[AntS13]

Originally posted by Nismo_Freak
R33 for me... parked next to my Z06 :P

Yeah allright .


BUT YOU CANT HAVE SKYLINES OVER THERE.

[Nismo_Freak]

Originally posted by AntS13
Yeah allright .


BUT YOU CANT HAVE SKYLINES OVER THERE.

www.skylinegtr.com you bastid!

Also, YOU CANT HAVE Z06s OVER THERE!!!!!

OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D