Dear American friends,
Your president is beginning to scare me. Can you please explain to me how destroying a country becasue it is manufacturing "weapons of terror" is not hypocritical?
Printable View
Dear American friends,
Your president is beginning to scare me. Can you please explain to me how destroying a country becasue it is manufacturing "weapons of terror" is not hypocritical?
Oh dear, this may be another flame fest in the making :(
He's isolating himself gaffs. Good news could be that the EU becomes the centre of diplomacy again, that many countries may favour us over the US now. :)
Anyway, I hope lapdog Tony won't hop on Bush's lap at the first whistle this time.
The US is in the business of defending itself and its interests.
Because of recent history (and not so recent - Pearl Harbour still exerts an effect on US politics) they are determined to get the first strike in this time...unfortunately they aren't willing to present any proof that the Axis of evil actually is planning any kind of strike against which we should prepare ourselves...
That said, if Sadam does get a nuclear weapon then the whole world will suffer because oil prices will go through the roof - even if the bomb isn't used - because there will be no guarantee of future supply.
It's all down to oil isn't it. If Iraq was not near oil (or near America) then this wouldn't be happening.Quote:
Originally posted by MerrionComputin
because oil prices will go through the roof
Let the flaming begin. I want to hear from anyone who agrees with this "let's pick one of our enemies and continue or war on terrorism".
Example:
Whit House released the names of the countries that could potentially cause a terroist threat recently:
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
Now, do those countries ring a bell? Could it be a list of countries the Yanks have had problems with in the past and NOT succeeded in controlling?
This is like the school bully telling his gang - your enemies are Big Jim, Tiny Trevor, and Wee Jimmy McGregor. Let's beat the crap out of them "for looking at me funny"...
What criteria are they using? Potential to make weapons of terror? Great! Lets nuke the French :D
Wassis about?
Anyone got a link?
Just look for any recent news story on American foreign policy...
Nope, Oil is not the issue here. Iraqi oil consititutes only 4% of all imported US oil (Canada contributes over 16%). That NOT including the oil the Yankies mine themselves...
Funny the oil issue came up - I only know the figures as I was stoned watching CNN last night....
Predictive striking? errrm, I'm not sure I want to live in a world where we predict potential dangerous hotspots....
He'd have to remove his tongue from Bush's arse first...Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Oh dear, this may be another flame fest in the making :(
He's isolating himself gaffs. Good news could be that the EU becomes the centre of diplomacy again, that many countries may favour us over the US now. :)
Anyway, I hope lapdog Tony won't hop on Bush's lap at the first whistle this time.
Can anyone spell Vietnam?
I think that the Brit government want to pull out (fnuk fnuk), but are in too deep now. I mean, it's us and teh US now. Noone else, right?Quote:
Originally posted by gravyboy
He'd have to remove his tongue from Bush's arse first...
With some difficulty but yes, I can :)Quote:
Originally posted by gravyboy
Can anyone spell Vietnam?
I'm afraid so but wouldn't it be grand that Tony told Bush, albeit just for once, "no can do mate, terribly sorry but there you are. Still, best of friends eh"Quote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
I think that the Brit government want to pull out (fnuk fnuk), but are in too deep now. I mean, it's us and teh US now. Noone else, right?
They didn't list Vietnam as a threat, and I'm not sure they are (isn't tourism the fastest growing economy there?)Quote:
Originally posted by gravyboy
Can anyone spell Vietnam?
My knowledge of the period is sketchy....but wasn't the threat then some perceived Communist domino effect - on central asian nation will lead another into communism?
Swap Terrorism for Communism and the whole thing feels like a freshly dyed jumper that you have actually had for years....
I'd love to see that happen. Unfortunately, wee Tony has got his head wedged so firmly up Bush's arse that anything he says is too muffled to hear. :(Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
I'm afraid so but wouldn't it be grand that Tony told Bush, albeit just for once, "no can do mate, terribly sorry but there you are. Still, best of friends eh"
While Iraqi oil is a trivial amount, Saudi oil is the power driving the US economy (and much of the world economy...)
Until a long term alternative to an oil based economy exists or the Caucasus fields overtake the Arabian in production, countries in that part of the world will excert an undue influence on world politics.
i remember someone saying the US has enough oil to use, but they want to use up everyone elses, then charge exorbitant prices once it runs out.
Well, at the rate you boys are buying up yer SUVs, it won't be long....Quote:
Originally posted by nabeels786
i remember someone saying the US has enough oil to use, but they want to use up everyone elses, then charge exorbitant prices once it runs out.
Merrion: I'll see if i can get the figures, but I think the Saudis only contribute abuot 14% of imported oil - 45% of imported oil comes from the rest of the world (UK etc) and Canada have the largets at 16%...
But I don't think this is about oil. I think this is about a schoolkid who has owned his gun for many years now, and is itchin to use it....
... or the US need a success after 9/11....
For more on US hypocrisy and arrogance, see my thread (which links to Galah) about the ICC, and the US attempts to exempt themselves from any war crime trials.
-RJ
Newspaper this morning says Iraq has about 10%, but that with a nuke, they will attempt to exert control over the rest of the region.
but 10% of what? Total oil used by US or Imported by US....Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Newspaper this morning says Iraq has about 10%, but that with a nuke, they will attempt to exert control over the rest of the region.
i personally dont see any reason for Bush attacking Iraq... I bet his dad use to read him stories of evil Saddam and good america instead of ones like the 3 little pigs.
as far as i can see the logic is as follows, Iraq may or may not have nuclear capability in the near future, if they do, they have the ability to wipe out most of the middle east if they so want to, as they don't have many friends if any in that area. as to wether america is right to go into them hammer and tong, is another matter ...
Bloody hell, I don't know. :p
Probably 10% of world reserves.
It's quite apparently a risk they're willing to take. If they don't, and Iraq gets and uses nukes, we'll all look like dicks. But if they do, they've lost alot of confidence and respect around the world, and risk that this may happen in the future.Quote:
Originally posted by Ianpbaker
as far as i can see the logic is as follows, Iraq may or may not have nuclear capability in the near future, if they do, they have the ability to wipe out most of the middle east if they so want to, as they don't have many friends if any in that area. as to wether america is right to go into them hammer and tong, is another matter ...
Of course, considering the control the US has over the world economically, and various other issues (such as the ICC thing) and the fact they are the most powerful nuclear nation, I see no reason why we shouldn't take a preemptive strike against the US, just in case.... :rolleyes:
Iraq = 5x (th/st/rd) state . . . .
Saddam is killed . . . so what sooner or later the guy'll topple of this mortal coil anyway, all we'll do is accelerate that.
Should Saddam fall, it's not the end of the current Iraqi regime - so we (the royal we of course, who knows who'll be involved) have to carry on ripping the guts out of the country until all that is left is a shell. THEN we (the royal one) will be morally obligated to replace the existing infrastructure, and rehome the populace or we'll be little better than the regime we replace . . . . But that's not going to stop Mr. Bush . . . . oh no, we have to rid Iraq of nuclear capability.....so that someone else can have it for next years invasion.....
Not sure if that made any sense, but it was just a train of thought.....
Another one is the comparison to Chancellor Hitler prior to WW1....Hitler (contrary to popular belief) was not always so fervently anti-semitic. Before WW1 he was more moderate...however as we all know Germany lost the war and the golden cow that Herr Hitler had pinned his hopes on had failed to deliver. Hitler was now seen as supporting a lost cause, and so he turned on the Jewish population as a selfserving argument for why the war had been lost....
Dubya was attacked...the attackers were known....The USA had wanted to go further in the Gulf War (Desert Storm etc.) but the coalition was against it - rightly so as Middle Eastern politics are a murky affair at the best of times - so the US feel similar to Hitler (note: I said similar - not exactly) in that the horse they were championing was balked and when 9/11 came around there was a championing & self-serving argument to attack Iraq....
Again just a train of thought....
There's a way where there is no risk - don't ****ing mess around threatening "potential terrorists"!Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
It's quite apparently a risk they're willing to take. If they don't, and Iraq gets and uses nukes, we'll all look like dicks. But if they do, they've lost alot of confidence and respect around the world, and risk that this may happen in the future.
They should have finished it off during the Gulf war, but they didn't. Now the Yanks are paranoid (as they will be with Afghanistan when the Taliban (or the like) reclaims power). They should put their toys back in their plan, and start a war on, I dunno, Patriotism or something....
Exactly.Quote:
Of course, considering the control the US has over the world economically, and various other issues (such as the ICC thing) and the fact they are the most powerful nuclear nation, I see no reason why we shouldn't take a preemptive strike against the US, just in case.... :rolleyes:
the possibility is unlikely... it seems Bush is keen on eliminating enemies that probaby don't even exist... What clinton did in office is probably unforgivable... but at a time like this... I would rather have Clinton than Bush in the white house.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I don't know if someone has already raised this point, but on the same grounds, what if the Islamic (read: enemies of the US) countries decide to wipe out the US? After all it's the first nation that's started producing the weapons of mass destruction, and still holding arguably the biggest cache of such weapons. And it's the only one that has yet used a mass destructive weapon. Bush's statements about Iraq will only provoke such action from these nations.
.
Oh I think I would always choose a bush, nicely trimmed and sweet smelling.:)
doesn't what lie withn matter the most?Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Oh I think I would always choose a bush, nicely trimmed and sweet smelling.:)
Not if the outside is ugly and smelly it doesn't!:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
doesn't what lie withn matter the most?
did quite get u thereQuote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Yeah, he at least fu_cked just a woman :rolleyes:
And btw, no need to take it personally. We have our own versions of the likes, only we don't have enough nuisance value yet internationally :rolleyes:
.
does that explain your signature?Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Not if the outside is ugly and smelly it doesn't!:rolleyes:
i is finkin' dat dem wurld ladas shuld sit at dis 'uge desk fing, and skin up wiv da herbal remedy, aiii
*** yuQuote:
Originally posted by Ali_G
i is finkin' dat dem wurld ladas shuld sit at dis 'uge desk fing, and skin up wiv da herbal remedy, aiii
yous is me main man, aiiiii ;)
say wha?Quote:
Originally posted by Ali_G
aiiiii
Ahh, you never fail to entertain me Yash ;)