View Full Version : Sign the petition to prosecute blair for war crimes
sweetheart
01-May-07, 05:56
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Have you got a petition to sign to bring Al qaeda terrorists to trial? :roll:
What a stupid petition, as if you could ever get anything like that done. There are dozens of leaders of other countries that need to be charged for far worse war crimes.
Now if it were a petition to recall our troops then I would sign that.
What a stupid petition, as if you could ever get anything like that done. There are dozens of leaders of other countries that need to be charged for far worse war crimes.
Yes, like this one http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/kucinich-takes-steps-to-impeach-cheney.html
sweetheart
01-May-07, 12:25
So other countries did it, and blair was just a leaf in the wind; the primary
global salesman of what has become the iraq genocide, the main apologist
who explained and put a face on what bush was simply to crude to give
any reason for... blair.
Bush is another thread/cheney, and the attack they planned with their
saudi buddies on 9/11 to give themselves unlimited power and license. This
crime needs be persecuted in due consequence.
Each country has to clean its own house, agreed, but this being the country
where blair has done the dirty, where we are all party to a genocide,
then here is where he needs go down.
Al queda exists because of american/british crimes in the middle east, if
they were figthing that, they would stop with the crimes, and people who
wanted it stopped, would demand an end to the crimes. That's why this
is such a stupid petition, because it would involve people snapping out of
their collective brainwash that a genocide and occupation of iraq is still ok
and lets send in the royals... to something more honourable.
j4bberw0ck
01-May-07, 16:51
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
Who's doing the the killing out there? Answer - Islamic insurgents. Who's breaking the Iraqi infrastructure every time someone makes a bit of it work? Islamic insurgents.
All that Spartist claptrap about "war criminals" is infantile and pointless. The criminals here are the insurgents, funded by Iran / Syria and some Saudi elements, who deliberately target civilians in a desperate attempt to prevent democracy being established in Iraq - democracy is regarded by them as heretical and anti-Islamic.
I blame Michael Moore for this thread!:D
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Oh my what is the world coming to????
I cannot understand why anyone wants to punish Mr Blair. All he did was his best and that is all any of us can do. He commited no crimes like the crimes of al quida or what ever they are called. I call for this thread to be removed by the adminastrator please.
I blame Michael Moore for this thread!:D
A simple case of right and wrong Rocco.
How do we bring children up to believe it's wrong to break the law, wrong to take what you want by force, when our leaders who should be setting an example do just that.
America and Britain invaded Iraq so we would have a permanent military force in the heart of the Middle East to control the worlds oil supply, oil the western world is addicted to. There is no difference between that and a drug addict mugging a defenceless old lady, if one is wrong then so is the other.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Can I suggest that you get a life?
Do you really know what genocide is? Are you suggesting that the UK is commited to a policy of genocide?
I dispair of some people - I really, really do.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
j4bberw0ck
01-May-07, 18:25
Gee whiz j4bberw0ck do you ever stop to think about the claptrap you keep sprouting, Al Qaeda didn't invade Britain, Britain invaded Iraq, your argument just fell flat.
Ah. So let me see; Al Qaeda didn't exist before the invasion? Also, the original poster said that Al Qaeda came out of crimes committed by Britain and America in the Middle East. No, they didn't; they came from Saudi Wahhabis with a very strange take on religion. Also, you'll notice I didn't mention the invasion of Iraq, or Al Qaeda's attack** on US territory in September 2001.
No, I don't think you can say my argument fell flat because of the ignorance of the original poster.
** Sorry, I was forgetting. That was the CIA or George Bush or some neo-con group that flew the aircraft and planted bombs in the basement on the WTC. The poor Islamists on board were just victims of British and American crimes.
A simple case of right and wrong Rocco.
How do we bring children up to believe it's wrong to break the law, wrong to take what you want by force, when our leaders who should be setting an example do just that.
America and Britain invaded Iraq so we would have a permanent military force in the heart of the Middle East to control the worlds oil supply, oil the western world is addicted to. There is no difference between that and a drug addict mugging a defenceless old lady, if one is wrong then so is the other.
Radical Islam and Al Qaeda would exist ven if there was no oil Fred - although I do admit it clouds the issue significantly.
Fraser Macleod
01-May-07, 18:27
The petition is pointless simply for the fact that even if Blair were to go to trial for War Crimes he would be found innocent by any judge, not becuase what he did was the right thing to do; unfortunatly he suffers the Illusion that what he the correct course of action to be undeniably right; but because he believes he can justfy his actions and because he pales in comparision to any dictator. After all just look at Pol Pot who had half of cambodia taken out to the killing feilds and ordered his militia to tie plastic bags around their head because it was a cheaper method of killing that bullets. Or what about Robert Mugabe? would your time not be better spent talking out against him before everyone in Zimbawe starves?
Yes Bush and Blair (or Blair and Bush if you prefer) have done wrong, and yes Guantanamo Bay is still in operation and we do still have brave troops serving in Iraq. But please bear in mind our servicemen and women are not told to target cilvilians and they are not told to strap explosives to themselves. I would prefer Britains troops to be in britain with their families, but surely its worth the risk if it stops Innocent Iraqis, whose lives are worth just as much as mine or as any soldiers, from being killed because they are sunni muslims instead of shia by insurgents.
Ciao Fraser
The petition is pointless simply for the fact that even if Blair were to go to trial for War Crimes he would be found innocent by any judge, not becuase what he did was the right thing to do; unfortunatly he suffers the Illusion that what he the correct course of action to be undeniably right; but because he believes he can justfy his actions and because he pales in comparision to any dictator. After all just look at Pol Pot who had half of cambodia taken out to the killing feilds and ordered his militia to tie plastic bags around their head because it was a cheaper method of killing that bullets. Or what about Robert Mugabe? would your time not be better spent talking out against him before everyone in Zimbawe starves?
Yes Bush and Blair (or Blair and Bush if you prefer) have done wrong, and yes Guantanamo Bay is still in operation and we do still have brave troops serving in Iraq. But please bear in mind our servicemen and women are not told to target cilvilians and they are not told to strap explosives to themselves. I would prefer Britains troops to be in britain with their families, but surely its worth the risk if it stops Innocent Iraqis, whose lives are worth just as much as mine or as any soldiers, from being killed because they are sunni muslims instead of shia by insurgents.
Ciao Fraser
A wee bit confused there at the end Fraser. The insurgents are generally Sunni - when you hear of any suicide bombs etc, then they are Sunni. Any attacks that involve militias, and gunfire are usually Shia - normally in retaliation against suicide bombs in marketplaces etc. The Shia have totally different objectives than the Sunni insurgents.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the war, but what I will say is that Is all too easy for us to sit here and say what Is right and wrong on the reasons for invading and that Tony Blair is a criminal for taking us too war, but the fact is he had a massive decision to make, and was backed by most top politicians at the time, who we rely on to make those types of decisions. I know I wouldn't like to try and explain to one of our soldiers that they are over In Iraq fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies!
Maybe you know some other facts that I dont about why we invaded and that is why you beleive so strongly in your views but like most I dont know all the facts so will not be signing any petition that calls Tony Blair a criminal!
I am dumbstruck by the number of people who think that any petition raised will have an effect.
Whilst not arguing about the principles of those concerned do they not look further than the ends of their noses?
Impeachment of Mr Blair has been seriously considered and not proceeded with as under the rules of our democracy it was blatantly obvious that such an act would not command the support required to be able to implement it.
Whether or not we agree with the actions our politicians take, whether we feel them to be misguided or even downright stupid there are ways and means to show our displeasure and roads that can be followed albeit they often meander off in diverse directions as this thread seems to have done!
Did some one mention elections later this week?
We have a first past the post system so your vote does count if you don't like what you see then go to the poling booth and register your displeasure and at the same time reflect on the fact that you have that right which is denied to so many millions in this world.
No offence intended to any one but just felt I had to interject on this.
umm i was under the impression genocide was what hitler did to the jews?
as far as im aware the US and UK are not rounding the iraquis up, putting them in consentration camps, and summilarly executing everyone they find?
genocide, i thought was the complete anihalation of a race, not the casulties of war, which by the way was instigated by al queda but has indeed gotten way outta hand.
i agree bush is a complete idiot, and if he could be charged with criminal stupidity he would be on death row right now!
blair has stradled that fence so long and hard he must have one heck of a splinter up his......
unfortulantley, they will never be able to treaty a peace with the extremists.. all they care about is their ideals.. and do not care about the way they do it.
we are all western devils and deserve to die in their eyes.
they do not teach tolerance or peace even though mohamad did.
they are so stuck on their power trip for teh glory of allah.. they can not see that they are wrong in their extreme views.. the same as some in the western world can not see how much hatred and prejudice color their judgment.
I am not going to be drawn into a debate on the war, but what I will say is that Is all too easy for us to sit here and say what Is right and wrong on the reasons for invading and that Tony Blair is a criminal for taking us too war, but the fact is he had a massive decision to make, and was backed by most top politicians at the time, who we rely on to make those types of decisions. I know I wouldn't like to try and explain to one of our soldiers that they are over In Iraq fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies!
The only reason he was backed by Parliament was because he lied to them, he told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us at 45 minutes notice when he knew that wasn't true.
Our soldiers are fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
Good one quirbal I am with you 100%
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
Yes Al Qaeda would exist because America created them, armed them, trained them and financed them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, then when they got back from doing the CIAs dirty work in the Balkans they found a load of American military bases in Saudi Arabia and weren't too happy about it.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
Who are these "radical Islam" you're talking about? Before we invaded Iraq they were a few small independent terrorist groups scattered around the Middle East, we united them in a common cause, gave them a common identity, swelled their numbers a thousandfold and more, we created Al Qaeda.
** Sorry, I was forgetting. That was the CIA or George Bush or some neo-con group that flew the aircraft and planted bombs in the basement on the WTC. The poor Islamists on board were just victims of British and American crimes.
Let's have an independent inquiry and find out.
Can I suggest that you get a life?
Do you really know what genocide is? Are you suggesting that the UK is commited to a policy of genocide?
I dispair of some people - I really, really do.
You want to campaign against genocide then shout about Dafur, or cast your mind back several years to Saddams treatment of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.
I wonder how that would go down in court if the drug addict who mugged the old lady was caught and stood trial. "Call that grievous bodily harm? What about Jack the Ripper? All I did was break a few bones.
Your argument is illogical, there are a lot of wrongs in the world none of which make invading Iraq right, a crime is a crime and this is one we can do something about.
Oh my what is the world coming to????
I cannot understand why anyone wants to punish Mr Blair. All he did was his best and that is all any of us can do. He commited no crimes like the crimes of al quida or what ever they are called. I call for this thread to be removed by the adminastrator please.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.I don't think we need any politically biased one sided lectures either from you or any other "activists" on what our obligations are or what demands we should or should not make concerning justice.
Anybody else suspect that these kinds of threads are more concerned with Political Posturing than anything resembling even a vague connection with "Justice"?
umm i was under the impression genocide was what hitler did to the jews?
as far as im aware the US and UK are not rounding the iraquis up, putting them in consentration camps, and summilarly executing everyone they find?
Just because it doesn't get onto the Blair Bush Corporation News doesn't mean it's not happening. Estimates are around a million dead and over two million displaced since we invaded.
I've been reading a blog written by an Iraqi girl since the invasion, here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#863393721364 5733275#8633937213645733275) is her latest entry.
I wonder how that would go down in court if the drug addict who mugged the old lady was caught and stood trial. "Call that grievous bodily harm? What about Jack the Ripper? All I did was break a few bones.
Your argument is illogical, there are a lot of wrongs in the world none of which make invading Iraq right, a crime is a crime and this is one we can do something about.
Did you read my post or did you misunderstand it?
I take it you know what genocide is? Are you seriously suggesting that the UK government has a policy of genocide?
Are you suggesting that UK troops are actively engaging in genocide? Are you seriously? To suggest that Blair is guilty of genocide is to suggest that UK soldiers are actively carrying out this policy. Shame on you that you can even suggest that.
I am not suggesting that Iraq is right or wrong, what I object to is UK forces serving in Iraq not getting the support they deserve from idiots who twist facts to fit their own agenda.
UK forces are not commiting genocide in Iraq, they are not responsible for the secterian hatred that is happening - no more so than they were responsible for what happened in Ulster. That is where most of the deaths are coming from - Iraqis killing Iraqis.
UK or for that matter US and any other country who contributes troops to the UN force in Iraq are NOT carrying out genocide - if you believe they are then get yourself a dictionary.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
Oh come on Fred, yes we might of made a mess in Iraq, but do you really know what hitler, and for that case Stalin did to Poland and its population?
stivagorm
01-May-07, 20:58
Bring back Maggie Thatcher !!!!
Just because it doesn't get onto the Blair Bush Corporation News doesn't mean it's not happening. Estimates are around a million dead and over two million displaced since we invaded.
I've been reading a blog written by an Iraqi girl since the invasion, here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#863393721364 5733275#8633937213645733275) is her latest entry.
How many of them were killed by the Insurgents? How many are moving because of the secterian violence?
Did you read my post or did you misunderstand it?
I take it you know what genocide is? Are you seriously suggesting that the UK government has a policy of genocide?
I'm suggesting that the Shia malitia are being armed and trained by somebody and are backed by American and British soldiers.
Are you suggesting that UK troops are actively engaging in genocide? Are you seriously? To suggest that Blair is guilty of genocide is to suggest that UK soldiers are actively carrying out this policy. Shame on you that you can even suggest that.
Suggest that Iraq would be a lot easier for us to control if the Sunni population weren't there any more? Seems obvious to me.
I am not suggesting that Iraq is right or wrong, what I object to is UK forces serving in Iraq not getting the support they deserve from idiots who twist facts to fit their own agenda.
UK forces are not commiting genocide in Iraq, they are not responsible for the secterian hatred that is happening - no more so than they were responsible for what happened in Ulster. That is where most of the deaths are coming from - Iraqis killing Iraqis.
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
UK or for that matter US and any other country who contributes troops to the UN force in Iraq are NOT carrying out genocide - if you believe they are then get yourself a dictionary.
The Sunni population of Iraq are being eradicated and Bush and Blair's decision to invade was the cause.
Oh come on Fred, yes we might of made a mess in Iraq, but do you really know what hitler, and for that case Stalin did to Poland and its population?
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
How many of them were killed by the Insurgents? How many are moving because of the secterian violence?
There were no insurgents, no sectarian violence before we invaded, we caused it.
Yes we did commit a crime, we invaded another country which was no threat to us, that is illegal under international law. We did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland and everyone seemed to think that was a crime.
Okay then maybe we should just let them do what ever they want but when you are on a plane or a bus or a train and they do to that train etc just what america and uk are trying so hard to stop come back and say this again. Opps u wont be able to? Ud be gone.
I don't think we need any politically biased one sided lectures either from you or any other "activists" on what our obligations are or what demands we should or should not make concerning justice.
Anybody else suspect that these kinds of threads are more concerned with Political Posturing than anything resembling even a vague connection with "Justice"?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
I'm suggesting that the Shia malitia are being armed and trained by somebody and are backed by American and British soldiers.
And your proof is? Are you really sure about that? What about this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6203727.stm ? Yes there are problems, but of least the US and UK are working to solve the corruption and problems in their approaches.
Suggest that Iraq would be a lot easier for us to control if the Sunni population weren't there any more? Seems obvious to me.
Why?
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
Psssibly 5th October 1968 was the start of the troubles - UK troops were dispatched on 14th August 1969
The Sunni population of Iraq are being eradicated and Bush and Blair's decision to invade was the cause.
Right, I see - so as long as the Sunnis are ok you can kill as many Kurds and Shias as you like? That seems to be case following your logic and is blatently not true.
Fred, answer me this, there are broadly three areas in Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd. How are they fairing? The Kurds are trying to make the best of it and prospering. The other groups are too busy fighting each other and the US/UK troops. Any wonder they are suffering - anybody who tries to improve the infrastructure is either killed or threatened by the local malitia.
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
And the rest - if you are suggesting that is all that was carried out by the Nazis and the Reds then read on mate!
There were no insurgents, no sectarian violence before we invaded, we caused it.
How much do you know about the Shia/Sunni split and its history? Are you blaming the US for the last 13 hundred years of conflict?
What is the Marsh Arabs take on this statement? Are they not Shia and was there not a genocidal purge against them by the Sunnis during the 1990s?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
So far, out of 38 39 40 41 42 replies, 13 14 15 16 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?
Okay then maybe we should just let them do what ever they want but when you are on a plane or a bus or a train and they do to that train etc just what america and uk are trying so hard to stop come back and say this again. Opps u wont be able to? Ud be gone.
Al Qaeda had no connection to Iraq.
Are you suggesting that because there are a few Muslims who are terrorists we are justified in invading any Muslim country we want to?
There are white terrorists too you know.
So far out of 38 replies 13 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?
Ask sweetheart.
If we didn't let evil criminals like Blair get away with it we wouldn't be needing the inquests or the hospitals.
How much do you know about the Shia/Sunni split and its history? Are you blaming the US for the last 13 hundred years of conflict?
What is the Marsh Arabs take on this statement? Are they not Shia and was there not a genocidal purge against them by the Sunnis during the 1990s?
In Iraq pre invasion there was no sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia lived side by side, they inter married freely, nobody even asked if you were Sunni or Shia.
And the rest - if you are suggesting that is all that was carried out by the Nazis and the Reds then read on mate!
I have read on, did you know that in the months after VE day 3 million Germans were killed, one million servicemen and two million civilians?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.
Right, so you cannot see the problem Fred?
By suggesting that Blair is guilty of genocide, you are suggesting that UK forces are guilty of carrying out genocide.
Friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives of people in Caithness are serving in Iraq, and you are thereby suggesting that people who live and work in our community are carrying out genocidal policies.
Still have a problem seeing why people object to the petition?
wavy davy
01-May-07, 22:53
My tuppenceworth.
Blair colluded with Bush to invade Iraq on grounds that they both knew were false. The former head of the CIA (forgotten his name) came out recently and said that planning the invasion started right after 9/11. 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to finish what his Dad had started, regardless of the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with said event.
The bloodshed in Iraq would never have happened if not for the invasion. Granted, Saddam did his share of bloodletting but never managed anything approaching the current level and the majority of people led pretty happy existences. I visited Iraq in 1999 (admittedly briefly) and couldn't get over how friendly and happy the people were.
Yes, the insurgents are doing most of the killing, but this would never have happened if not for the totally forseeable vacuum created by the invasion and the subsequent disbandment of the army and police force. Oh, and you don't have to be a psychology major to figure that the Sunnis might just be a touch peeved when they were dislodged from power.
Bush and Blair twitter on about Iraq now being a democracy, as if that justifies the debacle. I don't think that many Iraqis would support that particular view. Democracy doesn't have a great record of export sales success.
I've read Burke's (excellent) book but the fact remains that US/UK middle east policies, particularly that relating to Iraq, has galvanised radical Islam and advanced its development by years if not decades. You've only got to travel in the Middle East these days to feel by people's attitudes how badly Britain's reputation has deteriorated.
As an ex soldier I'm tremendously proud of our forces but for the life of me can't fathom what good they are doing there, other than to bolster Blair's denial.
Should a person whose lies and desire for self advancement have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people be prosecuted. Not a daft question but it won't happen.
connieb19
01-May-07, 22:53
So far, out of 38 39 40 41 42 replies, 13 14 15 16 are attributable to fred. That gives the "fredclique" over a third of the posts in here...
We can always remove all the replies and lock the thread (as was the inquest thread) to prevent further hijacking of sweethearts topic?if there is no clique then who is this "we" you are speaking about who will lock or remove threads?
:confused
Fred, answer me this, there are broadly three areas in Iraq - Sunni, Shia and Kurd. How are they fairing? The Kurds are trying to make the best of it and prospering. The other groups are too busy fighting each other and the US/UK troops. Any wonder they are suffering - anybody who tries to improve the infrastructure is either killed or threatened by the local malitia.
And so long as the Shia and Sunni are fighting we have a good excuse for keeping a huge military presence in the Middle East which was the purpose of the exercise in the first place.
There are people in Washington ... who never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they're looking for 10, 20, 50 years in the future ... the reason that we went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base in the Gulf region, and I have never heard any of our leaders say that they would commit themselves to the Iraqi people that 10 years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq. -- former President Jimmy Carter, Feb. 3, 2006
@connieb19
If sweetheart wishes their thread to be cleaned of all the posts after their OP and the thread locked to keep it to the point then I'm sure "we" as the Mods would oblige. That is the "we" I meant. Not the Royal "we", or the imaginary Clique "we" or any other "we" you might wish to introduce.....
I have read on, did you know that in the months after VE day 3 million Germans were killed, one million servicemen and two million civilians?
Oh yes, East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia...... would you like me to go on mate?
15 million ethnic germans repatriated to what was left of Germany?
Hundreds of thousands of multiple rapes of fefmales from seven to eighty.
Wilhelm Gustloff? Ever heard of that Fred? Greatest maritime disaster ever.
In the words of a German survivor 'It was our holocaust, but nobody cares'.
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Jeemag_USA
01-May-07, 23:11
Here we go again…….whilst there can be no argument that the West (well some of the West), invaded Iraq, radical Islam and Al Qaeda were well established prior to this. For anyone who is not offay with the aims and goals of radical Islam then I recommend that they read Jason Burke’s excellent book Al Qaeda The True Story of Radical Islam.
If the USA/UK never invaded Iraq/Afghanistan the West would still be under attack from radical Islam.
There were 172 militants arrested in Saudi last week – and a significant cache of arms, explosives and money seized – the targets were Saudi military, commercial and industrial facilities.
The west is still and has been under attack by radical islam since USA/UK invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been attacks in the UK, Europe and Australasia or wherever its called now. Al Qaeda has targeted new countries to its east and in Europe to set up bases and plan, just because their attacks are further apart than the ones of armies of democratic governments does not mean that UK/USA has halted them, in fact they have made them more likely in the future and encouraged mor young poeple to join up with islamic extremist groups. That argument carries no weight I am afraid.
Insurgents in Iraq and remaining Taliban who are holding out in Afghanistan and Pakistan are continuing to attack western targets in those countries as well as the people of those countries, and these attacks are steadily increasing since the invasion of those countries. No progress is being made anywhere. Iraq has a flimsy cooked up democratic government that can be overthrown by in fighting or sectarian domination, and as soon as UK/USA pull out that is exactly what will happen, if they stay the same amount of people will die. UK/USA forced themselves into a catch 22 no win situation by thinking they don't need to listen to the UN or anyone else.
For some unknown reason some poeple fail to grasp that both operations are a complete and utter failure and have tooken the threat of terrorism in this world to all new heights, and I think that can be called "denial".
And this petition is also nonsense, getting back to the subject at hand! How about a petition to set up a global operation to remove peoples heads from their backsides and think for themselves instead of following crazy cooked up battle plans that in the minds of select politicians are financially beneficial to themselves and their countries business interests. If you think its a cool idea to sign this petition, and you voted for Blair in the last election, then you too need to go on trial. So think about the old saying "People in glass houses" ;)
Right, so you cannot see the problem Fred?
By suggesting that Blair is guilty of genocide, you are suggesting that UK forces are guilty of carrying out genocide.
Friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives of people in Caithness are serving in Iraq, and you are thereby suggesting that people who live and work in our community are carrying out genocidal policies.
Still have a problem seeing why people object to the petition?
The post I read only asked for people to sign a petition regarding Blair, nobody else, you are the one accusing the friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives not Sweetheart.
Jeemag_USA
01-May-07, 23:18
In Iraq pre invasion there was no sectarian violence, Sunni and Shia lived side by side, they inter married freely, nobody even asked if you were Sunni or Shia.
And now they are arguing about the 12 foot walls they are building around Sunni areas to keep them apart from Shiites. SO how are we helping Iraq progress, are we turning them into Belfast or Berlin?
How come they suddenly need to build walls around township areas?
The post I read only asked for people to sign a petition regarding Blair, nobody else, you are the one accusing the friends, colleagues, neighbours and relatives not Sweetheart.
Fred, how can Blair be responsible for genocide? Surely someone is carrying out the act of genocide? If not UK forces then who?
wavy davy
01-May-07, 23:19
Quirbal said
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Aye, but isn't it roughly the same logic as Iraq. If the Germans/Americans/Brits hadn't started the killing, the subsequent bloodshed wouldn't have happened.
Fred, how can Blair be responsible for genocide? Surely someone is carrying out the act of genocide? If not UK forces then who?
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
The west is still and has been under attack by radical islam since USA/UK invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, there have been attacks in the UK, Europe and Australasia or wherever its called now. Al Qaeda has targeted new countries to its east and in Europe to set up bases and plan, just because their attacks are further apart than the ones of armies of democratic governments does not mean that UK/USA has halted them, in fact they have made them more likely in the future and encouraged mor young poeple to join up with islamic extremist groups. That argument carries no weight I am afraid.
The figures are due to be published this week, they will show a 30% increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0428TerrorReport0428.html
North Rhins
01-May-07, 23:29
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
Jeemag_USA
01-May-07, 23:29
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
How can you not see it happening to Al Qaeda? It is happening to Al Qaeda over a long period of time, they have prosecuted and imprisoned many, some of whom they have had to release because they were wrong, thats what Guantanamo Bay is for? They just caught another top Al Qaeda guy in the last couple of weeks, what do you think they are doing with them, giving them some money and sending them to the Bahamas?
Jeemag_USA
01-May-07, 23:33
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
In all the time I have been on here I have watched Fred regularly take a vitriolic battering from you and many others, its so easy to all tuen your attention towards him, he has a right to say what he wants to say and so do I, but I don't need to pigeonhole you to make my point. I seem to remember someone being censored and warned over the last couple of weeks for their contribution to the forum and it wasn't fred. You might not like Fred but he gets steam rollered every time he comes in here, but he doesn't falter, he is using his right of free speech, and from what I have seen in the last 6 months or so on here, he does it with a certain amount more decorum than plenty others. Vitriolic is most certainly not a word I would associate with Fred.
Edit: Also I might add this is your first post in this thread, it does not relate to the subject matter, you didn't respond to the idea of the petition and just made a plain attack on the character of another community member, is that called being a well intentioned orger, lead by example as they say. Technically your post should be deemed as breaking the forum rules....again.
"Trolling"
This describes various practices including, starting a thread with a view to raising the tempers of others, bringing back to the top old threads that have died out naturally with a pointless quip, needling other members into a pointless argument. Accusations of trolling will be based on our own view of posts and the initial reaction by our members.
Quirbal said
Yes Fred, whilst the western allies might have a something to answer for the Red Army liberating Eastern Europe were as bad as the Nazis.
Aye, but isn't it roughly the same logic as Iraq. If the Germans/Americans/Brits hadn't started the killing, the subsequent bloodshed wouldn't have happened.
Well yes it's exactly like Iraq, the initial crime of starting a war of aggression is the cause of all the other war crimes.
It was Germany's initial acts of aggression which led to the other crimes so their leaders were tried at Nuremburg and hung. It was Blair's initial act of aggression which led to the other crimes in Iraq and if it was justice for the Germans it would be justice for him.
wavy davy
02-May-07, 00:28
We’ve just had a couple of weeks of good humoured banter, a bit of news of what’s happening in Caithness and Scotland as a whole, we’ve even managed to have a laugh now and again. Then what happens, someone, probably well intentioned, posts a thread which involves the ‘I’ word, yep that’s right, Iraq. Suddenly, from wherever he has been hibernating comes dear old Fred. The oracle, the fountain of all knowledge, the righter of all wrongs. Once again we are subjected to the same vitriolic detritus which we had been so blessedly spared of late.
Never mind they were a pleasant couple of weeks while they lasted. :~(
You knew what the thread topic was - if you're so concerned about the "I word" - why bother looking and posting?
Jeemag_USA
02-May-07, 00:43
A much more important thing than a petition to punish a prime minister who was voted in by a majority of the British public, would be for people to start learning from History rather than dwelling on it. History is a very important source of education, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the main cause of problems in the world for centuries has been the very poor foreign policy of many so called democratically elected governements. Every action has a reaction, you could spen hours analysing why the middle east is such a hot spot, but I can garauntee you after analysing it you can't just say they started it all themselves. Many different European governments and the US government have latched on to powerful figures in many different middle eastern countries and tried to use them to their best advantage, and it has all revolved around money, I won't say oil for now because oil means money, its money is what its all about. The same governements will change alliegance at the drop of a hat, depending where the most moolah can be made and this causes people to enact retribution. You cannot as a government raise people up to help your plans and then beat them down when the time suits and expect no adverse reaction. You have to have a broad minded view of all of the history behind things, as people you have to look at the past and stand up for what you think is right, hassle your politicians, let yourself be heard, make sure you have an active role in making sure the wrong lessons learned in history do not repeat themselves. If Blair is single handedly to blame then a large majority of the electoral role in the UK is also to blame. Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
I seem to remember someone asking people to sign a petition for inquests into killed servicemen and we left it alone. I remember someone asking people to sign a petition to bring back military hospitals and we left it alone.
Sweetheart asks people to sign a petition to bring a war criminal to justice and the clique are in there arguing against.Curioser and curioser fred. Is that the Royal “We” or the Pressure Group “We”?
sweetheart
02-May-07, 06:57
Gee whiz..... sometimes I despair. Sweetheart, do you really and truly believe Al Qaeda exists because of "British and American crimes in the Middle East?" They exist because they're committed to the overthrow of the West and Western values, and they'd laugh at your ignorance while they shot you.
.
Who's doing the the killing out there? Answer - Islamic insurgents. Who's breaking the Iraqi infrastructure every time someone makes a bit of it work? Islamic insurgents.
All that Spartist claptrap about "war criminals" is infantile and pointless. The criminals here are the insurgents, funded by Iran / Syria and some Saudi elements, who deliberately target civilians in a desperate attempt to prevent democracy being established in Iraq - democracy is regarded by them as heretical and anti-Islamic
I'm afraid that's not in keeping with the truth. The sunni and shiite civil war
is exacerbated by a mostly shiite administration that is governing in a
winner take all approach that creates an insurgency on behalf of the
repressed sunnis.... even mainstream media knows this, they're not
insurgents but rather jacobites, IRA, UDP... internal political forces seeking
self determination rather than an imposed occupation.
I'm sure you're aware of the longer history of british genocide in iraq,
and this chapter is following on that ugly stink that was not prosecuted then,
so it seems any british prime minister can lie and decieve to murder iraqi's
and its all ok, but when some local iraqi political groups oppose their
genocidal invaders, i'm supposed to be afraid here in north scotland and
send my babies to die in asian deserts... bollocks.
Al queda is nothing compared with the terror of our security forces, and the
mass murders they've inflicted... AQ is a bit player, heck, without the
US military's demolitions expertise they would have failed to take down the
towers and bush's saudi buddies wouldn't have given him the causus belli
of the unquestioned 9/11.
And worst of all, blair has crap military advisors who are probably replacing
steel in battle tanks with wood given how steel melts so readily from jet
fuel, a highly weak metal for any military needs. Or, they've loaded Jp4
jet fuel in to all british anti-tank munitions so that it will melt any steel
down to the ground in 1/2 an hour... crap advisors.
Well, since bliar's crap advisors are not worthy of a place in any government,
let alone a military, these disgraceful sods have bought the american CIA
false flag operation hook line and sinker... that they even today pretend
that the war was a noble cause and that boys are not being pissed away
in to the desert for a crime... a crime.
If you lie to an old lady and steal her pension, you'll get a stint in the dock.
If you lie to a whole country and murder a million people, people will
apologise for you and white wash war crimes rather than deal with the
very real responsbility they bear in the support of those war crimes and criminals both.
I wont be signing any petition because my opinion of Tony Blair is flavoured by the idea that he is basically a good man. I'm grateful to Fred though, for keeping the org alive with alternative views.
Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
The next stage of the plan is to hit Iran. Wipe out their defences with air attacks then take the oil producing regions which border with Iraq. The only thing that can stop them is public opinion.
I wont be signing any petition because my opinion of Tony Blair is flavoured by the idea that he is basically a good man.
He's caused the deaths of a million people with what he knew was an illegal act, he lied to Parliament and the British people to make it look legal at the time.
How many lives does "being a good man" excuse? How much pain and suffering? Do you think a vicar who murders a young girl should be excused because he is a good man?
There is a lot of evil in this world and every perpetrator has a family, every rapist has a mother or children who think they are a good man, who refuse to believe they committed the crime despite the evidence, their loyalty is greater than their reason, that is the state the country is in with Blair.
Face facts, he is not a "good man", his actions prove that.
Curioser and curioser fred. Is that the Royal “We” or the Pressure Group “We”?
That is those who oppose the war in Iraq, those who see an Iraqi death as being as great a tragedy as a British death, an Iraqi life as having the same value as a British life.
Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
Dusty.
[QUOTE=fred;218688]
What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars.
QUOTE]
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm
Dusty
The problem is RELIGON, oil is a currently convenient excuse to prolong the argument.
As soon as we can all agree to get rid of ALL religons, these types of problems will also go.
Yasser Arafat said "Basically we kill each other to see who has the best God" or something along those lines. He could see the futility but felt he had to continue with the offensive.
Dusty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
Dusty.
And your point is?
[
http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm
Dusty
And your point is?
The problem is RELIGON, oil is a currently convenient excuse to prolong the argument.
Rubbish.
The world is full of countries with different religions, loads of countries a greater threat, plenty of countries with worse human rights records we invaded to put military bases in the centre of the major oil producing region of the world.
Religion is the convenient excuse.
Fred,
You asked "Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?" and I offered the link to illustrate that in some instances they did.
You stated "What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars." and I offered the link to illustrate that the problems that contributed to the carnage in Ireland have been in existance a lot longer than thirty five years.
The Muslims have been pursuing a goal of making their religon THE major world religous force as their teachers have decreed the Koran states.
This has been occurring since the 10th Century with massacres occurring intermittantly.
Many other cultures also indulge themselves in religous warfare and in all of them, a faction may be found that co-exist peacably. It is the extremists who foment the discontent under the guise of religous teachings so religion is the problem.
The Muslim religion will remain a problem as long as the fanatics are feeding the gullable masses with fundamentalist clap-trap. The Mulims are now where we were 700 years ago with regard to religon (even their calander says so) and until they fast forward into reality it will ever be so.
Dusty.
Fred,
You asked "Did they round people up and imprison them without trial? Did they torture them? Did they carry out reprisals against civilians to deter resistance?" and I offered the link to illustrate that in some instances they did.
Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
You stated "What happened in Ulster was because on the 30th of January 1972 26 civil rights protesters were shot by members of 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment. Yes, we even have form for starting civil wars." and I offered the link to illustrate that the problems that contributed to the carnage in Ireland have been in existance a lot longer than thirty five years.
That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII. All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
The Muslims have been pursuing a goal of making their religon THE major world religous force as their teachers have decreed the Koran states.
This has been occurring since the 10th Century with massacres occurring intermittantly.
Many other cultures also indulge themselves in religous warfare and in all of them, a faction may be found that co-exist peacably. It is the extremists who foment the discontent under the guise of religous teachings so religion is the problem.
The Muslim religion will remain a problem as long as the fanatics are feeding the gullable masses with fundamentalist clap-trap. The Mulims are now where we were 700 years ago with regard to religon (even their calander says so) and until they fast forward into reality it will ever be so.
Dusty.
You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
It's a lame excuse, very lame, can't even struggle to its knees. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest, that is why we invaded, no other reason.
There are many aspects of Fred’s argument/opinion that I agree with, however there is a lot of misinformation, ill-conceived ideas, simplistic representation and erstwhile propaganda (that is not exclusive to Fred by the way).
Sunni & Shia may have lived side by side, however like elsewhere in the middle east it is not always in harmony, and there is little inter-marriage between the “religions”. One of the great fears BEFORE the war was that there would be a push by the Shia population for power and this would spread down through Kuwait, into the Saudi Easter Province and into Bahrain. I have seen no evidence that the UK/USA would back such a move as there is significant opposition from its “allies” in the region.
There is no doubt a lot of underhand and dirty tricks going on by Intelligence (sic) agencies – the latest appears to be murmurings of Al Qaeda operations/training in Iran…….anyone who knows anything about Al Qaeda/Iran knows this simply will not happen. One of the stated objectives of A Qaeda is to sort out the Shia……..but they can wait till the Infidels are sorted out.
Fred, asked who these radical Islamists are – well there are quite a few and I have neither the time not the inclination to list something that others can discover with a modicum or research – I have already listed a book which is a good starting point.
To blame the troubles/conflict in Northern Ireland on the actions of the Para’s is niave as always there are two sides to an argument and to get an understanding of why things occur you need to listen to/seek information from both sides.
porshiepoo
02-May-07, 18:18
A much more important thing than a petition to punish a prime minister who was voted in by a majority of the British public, would be for people to start learning from History rather than dwelling on it. History is a very important source of education, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the main cause of problems in the world for centuries has been the very poor foreign policy of many so called democratically elected governements. Every action has a reaction, you could spen hours analysing why the middle east is such a hot spot, but I can garauntee you after analysing it you can't just say they started it all themselves. Many different European governments and the US government have latched on to powerful figures in many different middle eastern countries and tried to use them to their best advantage, and it has all revolved around money, I won't say oil for now because oil means money, its money is what its all about. The same governements will change alliegance at the drop of a hat, depending where the most moolah can be made and this causes people to enact retribution. You cannot as a government raise people up to help your plans and then beat them down when the time suits and expect no adverse reaction. You have to have a broad minded view of all of the history behind things, as people you have to look at the past and stand up for what you think is right, hassle your politicians, let yourself be heard, make sure you have an active role in making sure the wrong lessons learned in history do not repeat themselves. If Blair is single handedly to blame then a large majority of the electoral role in the UK is also to blame. Using a petition as a head hunting tool is not going to solve anybody's problems is it?
Hear hear!
Personally IMO I think that if mothers ruled the world there'd be none of this - problem solved. :lol:
Well yes it's exactly like Iraq, the initial crime of starting a war of aggression is the cause of all the other war crimes.
It was Germany's initial acts of aggression which led to the other crimes so their leaders were tried at Nuremburg and hung. It was Blair's initial act of aggression which led to the other crimes in Iraq and if it was justice for the Germans it would be justice for him.
No Fred, not quite right - this particular petition is trying to get Blair tried for Genocide. This would be Count IV of the Nuremburg Indictments.
If you read the Nuremburg war trials you will see that those found guilty on Count IV were done so because they gave either direct orders to or turned a blind eye to the actions of their troops ie German troops.
I have stated that if Blair is to be tried for genocide then UK troops (those who Blair has direct control over) must be carrying out these acts. I cannot believe that they are doing this and therefore Blair is not guilty of genocide.
The many problems Iraq currently has can be solved, but it takes all sides to come together.
It is notable that one area of Iraq - the Kurdistan area is being regenerated and the conditions of the population are improving by the day. In the Shia and Sunni areas this is not happening.
Could this be due to the more peaceful nature of the area?
No Fred, not quite right - this particular petition is trying to get Blair tried for Genocide. This would be Count IV of the Nuremburg Indictments.
Have you read the petition?
Have you read the petition?
Yes, not much to it I am afraid is there.
(1) Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
(1) No fred, what I'm doing is attempting to offer some guidance as to a direction to where your question regarding what Hitler and Stalin did in respect of rounding up and carrying out reprisals may be found.
(2) That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII. All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
(2) I was under the impression that the punitive terms of surrender imposed on Germany by the Allies was in great part to blame for the exaggerated economic depression (at a time of depression globally) that aided Hitler's rise to power and that Hitler's expansionist ambitions led to the Second World War, so, I think that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was at the very least, a massively important causal factor if not the direct cause.
Ireland's problems stem from the taking over of their land by the English and them doling it out to favoured families over years and years. The Loyalist/Unionist thing came later as a result of the foregoing.
(3) You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
It's a lame excuse, very lame, can't even struggle to its knees. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest, that is why we invaded, no other reason.
(3) There are none so blind as those who won't see.
It is not possible to make sense to someone who will not concede that there might be some truth in another's argument.
There are not a few Muslim fanatics, they are in the majority and yes, they do wish to impose their religion on us, it's what they believe the Koran tells them to do. Ignore them at your peril for their invasion is already under way by the looks of things.
I don't recollect mentioning Iraq or Al Qaeda?
I don't think I offered religion as an excuse, rather I ventured that it was the reason for the ills.
By the way, I agree that we invaded Iraq to protect the supply of oil but that too may be construed as a religious crusade if you believe the "For God and Country" hype which is similar to what was also trotted out at the time of the Falklands conflict.
Anyway, I have now made my last post on this subject.
Dusty.
There are many aspects of Fred’s argument/opinion that I agree with, however there is a lot of misinformation, ill-conceived ideas, simplistic representation and erstwhile propaganda (that is not exclusive to Fred by the way).
Sunni & Shia may have lived side by side, however like elsewhere in the middle east it is not always in harmony, and there is little inter-marriage between the “religions”.
Well now I have it from a number of sources inside Iraq that there was, including one reporter who's mother was Sunni and father Shia.
However if you feel that may be propaganda then how about the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-5.html)?
We Know Iraqis Can Live Together Peacefully. Iraq is a nation with many ethnic, religious, sectarian, regional, and tribal divisions - and before Saddam, Iraqis from different communities managed to live together. Even today, many Iraqi tribes have both Sunni and Shia branches, and in many small towns with mixed populations, there is often only one mosque, where Sunnis and Shia worship together. Intermarriage is common, with mixed families that include Arabs, Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Turkmen, Assyrians, and Caldeans.
I thought those troops that were accused of torture at abu graibh were tried and found guilty of war crimes? I can't see that happening to members of Al quaeda.:mad: I can't see that happening to the Iranian General who now wears a bravery medal and who held a gun to our illegally kidnapped troops.
You are right, they probably wont be brought to trial.
However the first part of your argument shows what is best about Britain. We often stand up for what is right, and if we get it wrong we show the world we practice what we preach. Even if it means admitting that some of us have done something wrong - we do so and we face the consequences.
My only wish is that Blair and Bush would show even a fraction of the courage those troops you spoke of showed and do the same.
Then you were agreeing with me that what the coalition is doing in Iraq is the same as the Germans did in Poland.
I suggest a bit of research is required before making a statement like that
That's like saying that Britain being at war with Germany from 1914 to 1918 was what caused WWII.
I doubt you will find many historians who wolud question the role the Treaty of Versailles was of least partialy to blame for WWII.
All countries have a history of unrest, the latest unrest was sparked by Bloody Sunday, the underlying cause has always been the persecution of Catholics by the Loyalists.
Untrue, I believe that the latest troubles were sparked of by a march in Londonderry in 1968 and not Bloody Sunday.
You are making no sense whatsoever. Nobody denies there are a few Muslim fanatics in the world same as any other religion but what are they going to do? Invade Britain and America, overthrow the governments and impose their religion on us?
The problem is Fred they are pushing their fundamentalism into others faces and carrying out attrocities.
And that has nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq, there was no link whatsoever between Iraq and Al Qaeda, that was another lie.
Agreed, there was very little love lost between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and it's neighbours have a lot of the rest,
Correct
that is why we invaded, no other reason.
Thats a matter of opinion.
You are right, they probably wont be brought to trial.
However the first part of your argument shows what is best about Britain. We often stand up for what is right, and if we get it wrong we show the world we practice what we preach. Even if it means admitting that some of us have done something wrong - we do so and we face the consequences.
My only wish is that Blair and Bush would show even a fraction of the courage those troops you spoke of showed and do the same.
There was a time Tristan, however Blair isn't too interested in justice or he wouldn't have dropped the investigation into the British Aerospace bribery allegations. That sent a message to the world that Britain isn't interested in law and order and considerably lowered our standing.
It would appear that the Petition has so far reached the grand total of less than 1,500 signatures despite the fact that it is being run by the leader of the "Stop the War Coalition".
To put it in perspective, there is more support for a Petition to end the 10 MPH speed restriction for boats on Lake Windermere.
It would appear that the Petition has so far reached the grand total of less than 1,500 signatures despite the fact that it is being run by the leader of the "Stop the War Coalition".
To put it in perspective, there is more support for a Petition to end the 10 MPH speed restriction for boats on Lake Windermere.
Yes, I think that says it all.
Yes, I think that says it all.
Come off it the petition doesn't end till 22 December, plenty of time yet.
Well now I have it from a number of sources inside Iraq that there was, including one reporter who's mother was Sunni and father Shia.
However if you feel that may be propaganda then how about the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-5.html)?
Exceptions dont make the rule. I have to laugh at your source of information (oh the irony). Sunni and Shai would NEVER pray at the same mosque. In Saudi there is little or no integration. Much of the marriage is inter-tribal, and those do not cross religous divides.
Exceptions dont make the rule. I have to laugh at your source of information (oh the irony). Sunni and Shai would NEVER pray at the same mosque. In Saudi there is little or no integration. Much of the marriage is inter-tribal, and those do not cross religous divides.
We aren't talking about Saudi we are talking about Iraq, Catholic and Protestant see each other a lot differently in Ireland than they do in England what happens in Saudi is no guide.
How about this from the United Nations Refugee Agency Magazine. (http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/461e34e92.html)
Qais is Sunni. Layla is a Kurdish Shia. It seems strange now, but at that time – just four years ago – their religious identities were not considered important.
"Both my parents are Shia, but it wasn't a problem," said Layla, during a recent interview in the Syrian capital Damascus.
"Mixed marriage was very common in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Christians," explained her husband. "My mother is Shia and my father is Sunni, and we lived in a mixed Sunni-Shia neighbourhood. The stratification of society into religious sects was not part of our society."
Sorry Fred, I cannot agree to this petition.
I do believe that Blair was very wrong to lie and hoodwink the UK for contrived and hyped reasons into this ongoing fiasco, but I do not believe he should effectively stand trial for crimes against humanity. There are plenty of things which I think he is guilty of and which absolutely he should be barbequed for, but not this. IMO it's too fierce an accusation.
I respect your view and I support your wish to see Blair subjected to a formal proceedings because he's obviously guilty of something, even if there has been a lot of shifty burying of useable evidence making that to be almost an impossibility. I'm not signing the petition though!
Fred, you may recall that many different ethnic groups lived happily together in the former Yugoslavia - then ethnic, national, cultural and political differences set them up agianst each other. If you think the Sunni/Shia conflict or lack of it pre-Iraq war is a base for the greater region - then you are as big a fool as those who drew up the invasion strategy.
Fred, you may recall that many different ethnic groups lived happily together in the former Yugoslavia - then ethnic, national, cultural and political differences set them up agianst each other. If you think the Sunni/Shia conflict or lack of it pre-Iraq war is a base for the greater region - then you are as big a fool as those who drew up the invasion strategy.
No sectarian violence in Iraq prior to our invasion, Sunni and Shia lived side by side and married freely.
We invade and now it is civil war.
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
That's how things work in a free and democratic civilised society isn't it? That's what we in the West are supposed to represent, what our troops are supposed to be fighting for isn't it?
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
I think that a Court would find it difficult to prove that Blair intentionally invaded Iraq for the purpose of starting a civil war with the loss of a million lives. Not guilty.
I think that a Court would find it difficult to prove that Blair intentionally invaded Iraq for the purpose of starting a civil war with the loss of a million lives. Not guilty.
Exactly, only by drawing conclusions and by including circumstantial evidence can there be even so much as a claim for consequential losses (including the loss of life).
No sectarian violence in Iraq prior to our invasion, Sunni and Shia lived side by side and married freely.
We invade and now it is civil war.
Blair is directly responsible for the bloodshed and should be held to account, he and the others who plotted the invasion committed a crime and should be responsible for the result of that crime.
That's how things work in a free and democratic civilised society isn't it? That's what we in the West are supposed to represent, what our troops are supposed to be fighting for isn't it?
You are speaking absolute tosh and you know it.
Using your example you may as well blame Ford for the drunk driver that causes an accident in a Ford car.
Blair is responsible for the actions of UK troops only and not the actions of the Shia/Sunni militia.
You are speaking absolute tosh and you know it.
Using your example you may as well blame Ford for the drunk driver that causes an accident in a Ford car.
Blair is responsible for the actions of UK troops only and not the actions of the Shia/Sunni militia.
We know the invasion was illegal, we know the Attorney General informed Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal on the 22nd of July 2002, if it were to come to international court he would be found guilty without a doubt, he wouldn't have a defence.
All that has happened in Iraq since has been as a result of that crime. If you commit an armed robbery, which basically we did, and somebody gets killed then that is murder if you intended somebody to get killed or not.
The facts are clear cut, there was no legal basis for our invasion and occupation of Iraq under international law, it was an act of aggression, it was the exact opposite of what we in the West are supposed to stand for.
We know the invasion was illegal, we know the Attorney General informed Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal on the 22nd of July 2002, if it were to come to international court he would be found guilty without a doubt, he wouldn't have a defence.
All that has happened in Iraq since has been as a result of that crime. If you commit an armed robbery, which basically we did, and somebody gets killed then that is murder if you intended somebody to get killed or not.
The facts are clear cut, there was no legal basis for our invasion and occupation of Iraq under international law, it was an act of aggression, it was the exact opposite of what we in the West are supposed to stand for.
So Alfred Nobel is responsible for how people have subsequently used dynamite, as surely he gave them to opportunity to use it?
No Fred, stop making excuses for these militias - they are responsible for their own actions NOT Tony Blair or George Bush.
You might want to argue that Bush and Blair have given them the opportunity to carry out their crimes, but they are not forcing them to do so. I have told you more than once that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
You make the point that Sunni and Shia lived side by side peacefully before the invasion. Have you ever asked yourself why? Could it be the same reason that the Serbs, Croats, Albanians etc lived together peacefully in Yugoslavia for many years?
Maybe the type of government that was in place was responsible. Just maybe the fear of disappearing in the middle of the night was enough to stop their actions, just maybe. Dictatorships tend to have that effect Fred.
Iraq is going through what most of Europe went through during the 1930's and 1940's, it is the populations reaction to democracy, and as in Europe unfortunately, if that region of the world wants democracy then it will be a painful process.
So Alfred Nobel is responsible for how people have subsequently used dynamite, as surely he gave them to opportunity to use it?
Did Alfred Nobel commit any crimes? Did he break international law and launch a war of aggression on a defenceless country?
No Fred, stop making excuses for these militias - they are responsible for their own actions NOT Tony Blair or George Bush.
Are you trying to say that everyone who has died, been maimed, been made homeless in Iraq it was done by the militias?
Under the Geneva Convention it is the responsibility of the occupying power to protect the civilian population we have failed in our duty once again.
You are the one making excuses, pathetic half baked excuses for the chickenhawk criminals who started this war.
International law is clear, there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, a crime was committed. Now do we in the West stand for freedom, justice and democracy or are we a bunch of pirates?
I am sure there is a lot more freedom of speech, democracy and justice in Iraq now than before. I don't think the Sunnis and Shia insurgents want those things. Are you suggesting we should take the gloves off??
Did Alfred Nobel commit any crimes? Did he break international law and launch a war of aggression on a defenceless country?
No, what I am suggesting is that he gave others the opportunity to just as Blair and bush have. It does not make him responsible for the actions of others, and Blair cannnot be blamed for the actions of others that he does not have control over.
Are you trying to say that everyone who has died, been maimed, been made homeless in Iraq it was done by the militias?
No, of course not. Of course the coalition troops have killed Iraqis, some innocent and some not. I am not saying that that that is correct and any loss of innocent life should be avoided however, unlike you Fred I am not blaming the coalition troops for ALL the deaths.
Under the Geneva Convention it is the responsibility of the occupying power to protect the civilian population we have failed in our duty once again.
Well what do you suggest Fred? Its fairly obvious that in parts of Iraq we have failed to protect the local population.
How would you deal with this? How do you stop someone with 5kg of explosive strapped to them from walking into a crowded market and blowing themselves up? Would you be happy if there were coalition troops on every corner, a 24hr curfew and a shoot to kill policy on everyone that breaks it?
Of least we are making our best attempts to make the streets safe, can you think of a better way - bear in mind the current situation, and saying that we should not have invaded in not an option - we have and we have to deal with the current circumstances.
You are the one making excuses, pathetic half baked excuses for the chickenhawk criminals who started this war.
Fred, I would really re read what you are writing. You are just going overboard. Whilst I can agree with some of your points, and can see why you hold others some are just beyond a joke. Are you playing devils advocate?
International law is clear, there was no justification for the invasion of Iraq, a crime was committed.
That depends on your point of view.
Now do we in the West stand for freedom, justice and democracy or are we a bunch of pirates?
Obviously we have democracy, justice and freedom. You will be exercising your democratic right today won't you? You are free to say what you like on the internet re the government (unlike Abdel Kareem), and we have a justice system that is recognised internationally as one of the best, the envy of the world.
Fred, I would really re read what you are writing. You are just going overboard. Whilst I can agree with some of your points, and can see why you hold others some are just beyond a joke. Are you playing devils advocate?
I know what I am saying, the truth the facts.
A crime was committed under international law which has caused untold misery and suffering in Iraq and misery and suffering to the families of British servicemen. Blair is a criminal and should be brought to trial for the deaths he has caused.
That's plain simple truth, that is how justice works, the people of Iraq and the families of the British servicemen deserve justice.
You keep coming out with stupid arguments none of which alter those facts.
I know what I am saying, the truth the facts.
A crime was committed under international law which has caused untold misery and suffering in Iraq and misery and suffering to the families of British servicemen. Blair is a criminal and should be brought to trial for the deaths he has caused.
That's plain simple truth, that is how justice works, the people of Iraq and the families of the British servicemen deserve justice.
You keep coming out with stupid arguments none of which alter those facts.
You are playing devils advocate, you little beggar, you! Gee Fred, thats what I like about you, you're never knocked down!
Would you like to answer my other points, or are you being selective again?
Undoubtably, the invasion has caused death and misery, but can you seriously blame Blair for it all? Can you explain to me how Blair is responsible for somebody walking into a market and blowing themselves up, as I cannot see how you can blame that on him?
You are playing devils advocate, you little beggar, you! Gee Fred, thats what I like about you, you're never knocked down!
Would you like to answer my other points, or are you being selective again?
Undoubtably, the invasion has caused death and misery, but can you seriously blame Blair for it all? Can you explain to me how Blair is responsible for somebody walking into a market and blowing themselves up, as I cannot see how you can blame that on him?
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq's history before we invaded, since we invaded they happen every day, it is obvious that the bombings are as a result of the invasion. A highly predictable result at that.
Even if this was not the case it would make no difference, it's just another of your stupid illogical arguments, murder is murder, the killing of one person is murder, you keep saying we can't blame Blair for all the deaths, I can but even if I couldn't he would still be guilty of murdering the rest.
Now once again your arguments are meaningless, the invasion was illegal under international law, Blair is a war criminal, he should be tried for his war crimes in an international court.
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq's history before we invaded, since we invaded they happen every day, it is obvious that the bombings are as a result of the invasion. A highly predictable result at that.
I'll throw that back at you - nobody was killed by dynamite until Nobel invented it. Is he responsible for all the deaths caused by it since?
Blair might have been partly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, but he is not responsible for the suicide bombings.
If i give you a gun Fred, am I responsible for you pulling the trigger, or are you? Are you aware of personal responsibility or is that not a concept that exists in your odd little world?
Even if this was not the case it would make no difference, it's just another of your stupid illogical arguments, murder is murder, the killing of one person is murder,
Murder is murder, that is correct.
you keep saying we can't blame Blair for all the deaths, I can but even if I couldn't he would still be guilty of murdering the rest.
You can, but then I can say that 2+2=5 - that does not mean it is correct.
Now once again your arguments are meaningless, the invasion was illegal under international law, Blair is a war criminal, he should be tried for his war crimes in an international court.
Again, your opinion, an opinion that is deeply flawed like all your reasoning.
Again, your opinion, an opinion that is deeply flawed like all your reasoning.
No, not just an opinion a fact.
Again your arguments are meaningless nobody with half a brain could take them seriously. Blair started a war of aggression against a country which was no threat to Britain, he broke international law and he knew he was breaking international law because the Attorney General told him so. He is a criminal and should be brought to justice.
No, not just an opinion a fact.
Again your arguments are meaningless nobody with half a brain could take them seriously. Blair started a war of aggression against a country which was no threat to Britain, he broke international law and he knew he was breaking international law because the Attorney General told him so. He is a criminal and should be brought to justice.
Well unfortunately less that 1500 agree with you - have you asked yourself why?
Well unfortunately less that 1500 agree with you - have you asked yourself why?
Again you are making stupid statements, you have no evidence of how many people even know about the poll or what the final result will be.
Now read this (http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=1) and see what some people who do agree with me have to say then make up your mind if you support them or the lying mass murderer Blair.
Fine! So a handful of people with relatives in the Army have become part of the "Stop the War" group of political activists.
I'm sure there were similar families who felt exactly the same during WW2, especially at the beginning when we appeared to be on a hiding to nothing.
Perhaps we should have listened to them in 1940 and just given up? After all, even the ex-King was part of "Stop the War" then.
Fine! So a handful of people with relatives in the Army have become part of the "Stop the War" group of political activists.
I'm sure there were similar families who felt exactly the same during WW2, especially at the beginning when we appeared to be on a hiding to nothing.
Perhaps we should have listened to them in 1940 and just given up? After all, even the ex-King was part of "Stop the War" then.
I'm sure that there were people in Germany who were opposed to the war.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
Again you are making stupid statements, you have no evidence of how many people even know about the poll or what the final result will be.
Correct, but at the current rate of signing by Sunday it will have gained another whooping TWO votes.
More people would like Jeremy Clarkson to be Prime Minister (possibly you would prefer him to Blair).
I'm sure that there were people in Germany who were opposed to the war.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
Cough Cough!! Ehemm ! World War Two in Europe began on 3rd September 1939, when the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany
Cough Cough!! Ehemm ! World War Two in Europe began on 3rd September 1939, when the Prime Minister of Britain, Neville Chamberlain, declared war on Germany
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.
Yes, Hitler invaded Poland in 1940. Neville Chamberlain, wanting to eradicate the memory of the waving of the lavvy paper with Hitler's autograph on it, got hold of the Prototype Steam Powered Tardis and went back in time to 1939 in order to declare war on Germany.
sweetheart
04-May-07, 21:22
The system the nazis used, instilling fear in a population using pervasive corporate propaganda, and then using this fear to increase military spending
and foreign warmongering to gain resources for this corporate dystopic vision;
this system was copied by the USA after world war 2, britain as well, we
always need a new cold war to keep the security establishment in employment.
Notice how the police/military/nuclear establishment is so pro-keeping their jobs.
By 2100, caithness will be remembered fondly as the world's largest windfarm,
powered by the giant war economy that, unlike the nazi reich, has really
indeed conquored the entire planet with its resource colonialism. Then its
job is to mine your soul, to incubate your heart with its viral perpetuation,
that you spend and waste god's goodwill on rubbish mass murder and
defending such horrible behaviour.
Blair has just lost by nationwide petition on his war crimes, just today,
and the SNP rules scotland for it. Thank you for signing.
And there was me thinking it was because Hitler invaded Poland.Wrong again, Fred. It was all about Oil and organised by the CIA!
Correct, but at the current rate of signing by Sunday it will have gained another whooping TWO votes.
More people would like Jeremy Clarkson to be Prime Minister (possibly you would prefer him to Blair).
I'm having a lot of trouble getting through to you but I'll try and explain it as simply as I can. The poll doesn't end until 22nd of December, if it were a football match they would have been playing for about 5 minutes, a bit early to start predicting the result.
Yes, Hitler invaded Poland in 1940. Neville Chamberlain, wanting to eradicate the memory of the waving of the lavvy paper with Hitler's autograph on it, got hold of the Prototype Steam Powered Tardis and went back in time to 1939 in order to declare war on Germany.
I'd credited you with a bit more intelligence than golach scorrie, now go back and read what I wrote.
In 1940 it was the other side launching unprovoked attacks on defenceless countries to steal their natural resources.
In 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway, it was JAWS who chose the year not me, it was golach who started sprouting irrelevant rubbish about 1939.
I'm having a lot of trouble getting through to you but I'll try and explain it as simply as I can. The poll doesn't end until 22nd of December, if it were a football match they would have been playing for about 5 minutes, a bit early to start predicting the result.
Yes Fred, I had noted that. But the uptake has not been very good.
The Jeremy Clarkson one end on 7th April 2008 by the way, if you would like to sign up.
The system the nazis used, instilling fear in a population using pervasive corporate propaganda, and then using this fear to increase military spending
and foreign warmongering to gain resources for this corporate dystopic vision;
this system was copied by the USA after world war 2, britain as well, we
always need a new cold war to keep the security establishment in employment.
Notice how the police/military/nuclear establishment is so pro-keeping their jobs.
By 2100, caithness will be remembered fondly as the world's largest windfarm,
powered by the giant war economy that, unlike the nazi reich, has really
indeed conquored the entire planet with its resource colonialism. Then its
job is to mine your soul, to incubate your heart with its viral perpetuation,
that you spend and waste god's goodwill on rubbish mass murder and
defending such horrible behaviour.
Blair has just lost by nationwide petition on his war crimes, just today,
and the SNP rules scotland for it. Thank you for signing.
ha, ha, ha, ha - are you for real?
Are you suggesting that everybody else is actively seeking unemployment?
In 1940 Hitler invaded Denmark and Norway, it was JAWS who chose the year not me, it was golach who started sprouting irrelevant rubbish about 1939.
Yes, yes, I can agree that Germany invaded Norway and Denmark in 1940.
He also invaded a few other countries, cant remember what they were......
Yes, yes, I can agree that Germany invaded Norway and Denmark in 1940.
He also invaded a few other countries, cant remember what they were......
That's settled then.
Now for the question of why we went to war with Iraq, there is an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6627381.stm) on the BBC web site today which suggests may find out.
If the original dossier is released and there is no mention of WMD which could be fired at us in 45 minutes then that means one thing, it was lie, a blatant despicable lie without which we would not have gone to war and a lot of British servicemen would not have died in vain.
sweetheart
05-May-07, 11:39
Prison guards need jobs, so they only elect representatives who support more
prisons so that their kids can stay in the profession. Quirbal, my post was
reflecting on the irony that the persons who are in this thread even, who are
arguing pro=warcrimes, are police state employees or retired, and they are
justifying the need for a society that is criminal.
Its a fear-based society where these brave employees are willing to take
billions in taxes to finance a totally worthless wasteful carbon-emitting pile
of wars and nuclear submarines, all because they've got big egos and are
unable to conceive of a world where they could not bully us in to such waste.
And here they act like thought police, always bully with the latest war,
*gotta justify themselves*... and my point about employment, needed
clarification..
Prison guards need jobs, so they only elect representatives who support more prisons so that their kids can stay in the profession. Quirbal, my post was reflecting on the irony that the persons who are in this thread even, who are arguing pro=warcrimes, are police state employees or retired, and they are justifying the need for a society that is criminal.
Presumptuous surely?
Its a fear-based society where these brave employees are willing to take billions in taxes to finance a totally worthless wasteful carbon-emitting pile of wars and nuclear submarines, all because they've got big egos and are unable to conceive of a world where they could not bully us in to such waste.
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are? Or are you suggesting that the government instils fear into the electorate so that it can invest in these technologies?
And here they act like thought police, always bully with the latest war, *gotta justify themselves*... and my point about employment, needed clarification..
Here people disagree with your point of view - hardly a crime as you disagree with them.
Your point about employment was odd to say the least.
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are? Or are you suggesting that the government instils fear into the electorate so that it can invest in these technologies?
Just read the pages of this forum and see the fear, see the people afraid to let their children play on the street. Soon if the government announces they are going to lock paedophiles up for life without trial it will get the backing of the public leaving them free to lock up their political opponents before going looking for rent boys on Hamstead Heath.
See the fear of terrorists, you are more likely to drown in your bath than be killed by a terrorist yet the government can introduce draconian new laws to deal with terrorism. It was the government instilled fear of weapons of mass destruction which allowed them to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq and they are using fear of Iran gaining nuclear weapons to push for an illegal war of aggression against Iran.
See the fear of identity theft, of someone spiriting away their money from the bank, fear will prevent people arguing against identity cards and how much power and control will they give the powers that be.
Dr David Kelly tried speaking freely and he wound up dead, the BBC employees who published what he said ended up out of a job.
luskentyre
06-May-07, 14:14
The only reason he was backed by Parliament was because he lied to them, he told them Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us at 45 minutes notice when he knew that wasn't true.
Our soldiers are fighting a war for criminals that is based on a pack of lies.
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
Just read the pages of this forum and see the fear, see the people afraid to let their children play on the street. Soon if the government announces they are going to lock paedophiles up for life without trial it will get the backing of the public leaving them free to lock up their political opponents before going looking for rent boys on Hamstead Heath.
See the fear of terrorists, you are more likely to drown in your bath than be killed by a terrorist yet the government can introduce draconian new laws to deal with terrorism. It was the government instilled fear of weapons of mass destruction which allowed them to wage an illegal war of aggression against Iraq and they are using fear of Iran gaining nuclear weapons to push for an illegal war of aggression against Iran.
See the fear of identity theft, of someone spiriting away their money from the bank, fear will prevent people arguing against identity cards and how much power and control will they give the powers that be.
Dr David Kelly tried speaking freely and he wound up dead, the BBC employees who published what he said ended up out of a job.
Oh, that kind if fear - the light has finally come on!!
Is that not just human nature though? People are always scared about something, be it terrorists, peadophiles, where will I get my next meal from.
Cant really do much about that Fred.
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
Interesting point. I could be wrong but my understanding was that the UN investigators who were in Iraq at the time felt there were no WMD. So where did the "false intelligence" that there were WMD came from?
Yawn....
If the Blair (and Bush) administration was as corrupt as you would have us believe Fred, don't you think it would be a simple matter for the WMD to have been conveniently "found"? I think the fact that they subsequently weren't found proves the fact it was a misunderstanding based on false intelligence. Put simply, you don't leave yourself open to criticism like that if you're a war criminal.
A "misunderstanding", a million dead, two million homeless and a country in civil war is one hell of a misunderstanding.
If the government releases the original dossier as a Judge has told them to then we will know and if they don't then we will know as well. The person who wrote the dossier says it was changed and my money would be on him telling the truth given all the other evidence.
Oh, that kind if fear - the light has finally come on!!
Is that not just human nature though? People are always scared about something, be it terrorists, peadophiles, where will I get my next meal from.
Cant really do much about that Fred.
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Surely you are suggesting that terrorists DIDN'T crash several planes into the WTC, man HAS NOT walked on the moon and that JFK was killed by a LONE gunman?
Can't believe a word you're saying lad! Next you'll be telling me the world is round.
Surely you are suggesting that terrorists DIDN'T crash several planes into the WTC, man HAS NOT walked on the moon and that JFK was killed by a LONE gunman?
Can't believe a word you're saying lad! Next you'll be telling me the world is round.
Interesting set of examples. No one here, or the government, has denied that the planes crashed into the WTC, or that man has walked on the moon.
Your last example is the official government explanation.
Or are you trying to point out that government explanations aren't always consistent?
Or Conspiracies, and the spreaders of conspiracies [lol]
Did you have anything to add to this debate? Some relevant information perhaps? Other than WWII started in 1939 that is.
Somehow I think if it were a million British dead you'd be singing a different tune.
Other than WWII started in 1939 that is.
Indeed it did.
Somehow I think if it were a million British dead you'd be singing a different tune.
Oooohh, you are getting contentious now Fred but yes, you are right - but who is doing most of the killing?
Interesting set of examples. No one here, or the government, has denied that the planes crashed into the WTC, or that man has walked on the moon.
Your last example is the official government explanation.
Or are you trying to point out that government explanations aren't always consistent?
No, not at all - did I suggest that anybody here had denied any of the above?
Conspiracy theories had been mentioned, and they are some of the better known ones.
That, and that the world is round - it simply can't be can it? If you were in Oz you would fall off! As for being able to circumnavigate it, well thats just some form of evil magic, you can see that can't you................
Oooohh, you are getting contentious now Fred but yes, you are right - but who is doing most of the killing?
The same sort of thing happened in the countries Germany occupied in WWII, some of the people collaborated with the Germans so the patriots took out reprisals against them, then there were reprisals against the reprisals then more reprisals and a lot of people were killed. Everybody seems to think it was Hitler's fault.
You're new to this forum and you see the clique butting in with their snide comments and ridicule but time after time I've been proven right and they've been proven wrong.
Take a look at this (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=3126&highlight=civil+war) thread from July 2005 then take a look at the results of the inquiries and see who the one person who got it right at the time was then ask yourself how I did it.
Soon if the government announces they are going to lock paedophiles up for life without trial it will get the backing of the public leaving them free to lock up their political opponents before going looking for rent boys on Hamstead Heath.. How long has Putin been in charge in Westminster? He's the one with form for using trumped up charges against Political Opponents, but he had good teachers, didn't he? At least they have learned not to use messy ice-picks and are now using sophisticated poisons.
Hampstead Heath? Isn’t that at the wrong location for that sort of behaviour?
The same sort of thing happened in the countries Germany occupied in WWII, some of the people collaborated with the Germans so the patriots took out reprisals against them, then there were reprisals against the reprisals then more reprisals and a lot of people were killed. Everybody seems to think it was Hitler's fault.
You're new to this forum and you see the clique butting in with their snide comments and ridicule but time after time I've been proven right and they've been proven wrong.
Take a look at this (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=3126&highlight=civil+war) thread from July 2005 then take a look at the results of the inquiries and see who the one person who got it right at the time was then ask yourself how I did it.I see you are well informed about what happened to the Polish Patriots in Warsaw! Sit back a few miles outside the city and watch whilst they are wiped out by the Germans, then move in and slaughter any of the Patriots who survived so there is nobody left to oppose the Comrade Puppets you wish to install. That certainly wasn't Hitler's fault, it was on the orders of a different Murderous Dictator.
I don't recall anybody, event the most fervent anti-Nazi claiming that the treatment of collaborators (mainly acts of humiliation such as having their heads shaved and certainly not by blowing crowds up with car bombs) was the fault of Hitler.
It says something if you have to go back nearly two years to find something that you were right about! :roll:
One thing from the BBC link you quote in that thread is absolutely correct, "This "backlash" (against Muslims after the London Bombings) is "exactly what those who promote terrorism want" police say." (The bracketed italics are mine for clarification)
I would also say that the same goes for those who excuse those committing acts of terrorism thereby giving terrorists succour and encouragement to continue such acts.
The same sort of thing happened in the countries Germany occupied in WWII, some of the people collaborated with the Germans so the patriots took out reprisals against them, then there were reprisals against the reprisals then more reprisals and a lot of people were killed. Everybody seems to think it was Hitler's fault.
Well Fred, I think we have gone round in a full circle, and you are again accusing our soldiers of war crimes, as well as Blair.
How do I come to that conclusion - are you seriously suggesting that British Troops are taking the same role in Iraq as the Wehrmacht and the SS did in the countries they occupied?
What happened in Europe during the late thirties and fourties is what is happening in Iraq today. It is unfortunate but true Fred that to sort the sutuation you either need time, a strong dictator or ethnic cleansing.
You're new to this forum and you see the clique butting in with their snide comments and ridicule but time after time I've been proven right and they've been proven wrong.
Fred, I am not one of the clique, and do not intend to be. What I don't like is misinformation - and you are very good at giving that.
Time and time again I have challenged you over statements you have made - asked you direct questions and with great regularity you have ignored them.
Do you have problems when people have logical and clear challenges to your point of view? I have on many occasions challenged your opinion, giving you references and facts as to why you are wrong, and your only answer seems to be to ignore me.
Take a look at this (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=3126&highlight=civil+war) thread from July 2005 then take a look at the results of the inquiries and see who the one person who got it right at the time was then ask yourself how I did it.
That was an unfortunate case - however is that not an effect of what happened several weeks before that? As you said earlier about fear Fred, the country was in a state of it due to the terrorists actions.
Now I am not going to be hypocritical and suggest that the terrorists were to blame for the death - they did not force the officers to fire, so they were not to blame.
Hey, now that seems a bit familiar doesn't it? Does Blair control the terrorists who are blowing themselves up in Iraq..................
[quote=JAWS;220494]I see you are well informed about what happened to the Polish Patriots in Warsaw! Sit back a few miles outside the city and watch whilst they are wiped out by the Germans, then move in and slaughter any of the Patriots who survived so there is nobody left to oppose the Comrade Puppets you wish to install. [quote]
Yep, and to make it worse Rokossovsky was polish!
Do you have problems when people have logical and clear challenges to your point of view? I have on many occasions challenged your opinion, giving you references and facts as to why you are wrong, and your only answer seems to be to ignore me.
The sum of your logic seems to be "that means our troops would be committing a war crime, our troops wouldn't commit a war crime, therefore that can't be true".
There is no logic to your arguments at all, just blind faith.
That was an unfortunate case - however is that not an effect of what happened several weeks before that? As you said earlier about fear Fred, the country was in a state of it due to the terrorists actions.
And if you read the findings of the inquiry into what happened several weeks before that you will see they found that it happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq.
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are?
Precisely.
The sum of your logic seems to be "that means our troops would be committing a war crime, our troops wouldn't commit a war crime, therefore that can't be true".
There is no logic to your arguments at all, just blind faith.
Fred, I think this is all about magnitude. If you think that I am suggesting that our troops do not occasionally overstep the ideal then you are very much mistaken.
Yes of course they do - there have been times, and troops have been held accountable - it is not UK policy to commit such acts.
However Fred they are not commiting atrocities of the scale as say the SS, the pre invasion Iraqi army or the Red Army did.
And if you read the findings of the inquiry into what happened several weeks before that you will see they found that it happened as a result of our invasion of Iraq.
Are you a liberal, right on, PC apologist? It aint his fault he did it - it was his upbringing , society etc. Where does personal responsibility come into this?
Precisely.
Been reading George Orwell recently have we?
Oops, silly me - he pointed out the problems with communism..........
Fred, I think this is all about magnitude. If you think that I am suggesting that our troops do not occasionally overstep the ideal then you are very much mistaken.
Yes of course they do - there have been times, and troops have been held accountable - it is not UK policy to commit such acts.
However Fred they are not commiting atrocities of the scale as say the SS, the pre invasion Iraqi army or the Red Army did.
Ah so how many people do you have to murder before it becomes a crime?
Again your answer is devoid of all logic.
Are you a liberal, right on, PC apologist? It aint his fault he did it - it was his upbringing , society etc. Where does personal responsibility come into this?
If it hadn't been those young people it would have been others and there will probably be more as a result of our invasion of Iraq, it's direct cause and affect, where there is injustice people will fight against it any way they can.
Been reading George Orwell recently have we?
Oops, silly me - he pointed out the problems with communism..........
No I've been reading sweetheart's post with attention to detail.
You weren't under the impression that your sarcastic remarks make you look intelligent were you?
No I've been reading sweetheart's post with attention to detail.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Yes, and agreeing with them. Now you might want to put forward a case for war crimes, but genocide? The definition of genocide as given by the UN can be found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide New York, 1948. I do not believe that UK troops are contravening this, do you?
You weren't under the impression that your sarcastic remarks make you look intelligent were you?
Er, yes, yes I was.
Ah so how many people do you have to murder before it becomes a crime?
UK troops that are guilty of crimes in Iraq will be/have been prosecuted.
If it hadn't been those young people it would have been others and there will probably be more as a result of our invasion of Iraq, it's direct cause and affect, where there is injustice people will fight against it any way they can.
So thats ok then?
Direct cause and affect - Saddam does not comply fully with UN resolutions and Iraq gets invaded.
Yes, and agreeing with them. Now you might want to put forward a case for war crimes, but genocide? The definition of genocide as given by the UN can be found in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide New York, 1948. I do not believe that UK troops are contravening this, do you?
You didn't look at the detail did you?
Er, yes, yes I was.
It doesn't.
You didn't look at the detail did you?
Of what?
It doesn't.
Er, yes, yes it does
Of what?
Try looking under his name.
Er, yes, yes it does
With the rest of the stuff you write it would take a lot more than that.
Try looking under his name.
With the rest of the stuff you write it would take a lot more than that.
Ooooh er, theres no need for that.
You didn't look at the detail did you?
Definition of Genocide as given by UN, taken from www.un.org (http://www.un.org).
The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes such acts as:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
Forcefully transferring children of the group to another groupAre you suggesting that Blair invaded Iraq with any of the above intentions?
Are you suggesting that UK troops are carrying out any of the above? Sweetheart obvoiusly thinks that they are, and by agreeing with her so do you.
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
Definition of Genocide as given by UN, taken from www.un.org (http://www.un.org).
What are you whittering on about quirbal?
You said:
Fear based society? If it were a fear based society then surely you would not be able/willing to post the way you are?
Now take a look at any of sweetheart's posts.
See what I mean?
What are you whittering on about quirbal?
Ah, right, so thats one way to get you to say what you mean.
Now take a look at any of sweetheart's posts.
See what I mean?
Yes, I have looked at Sweethearts posts - they are full of hate.
They are the rants full of vitriolic hate - someone who cannot accept the society they live in, accept what life is, accept that we do not live in their utopian society.
Ah, right, so thats one way to get you to say what you mean.
Yes, I have looked at Sweethearts posts - they are full of hate.
Don't you mean "were" full of hate?
I saw no hate in sweetheart's posts quite the opposite, I saw compassion, compassion for people he saw as fellow human beings and anger that a million fellow human beings can be murdered without people wanting to see the murderers taken to justice for it.
It's your posts I see the hate in.
Don't you mean "were" full of hate?
I saw no hate in sweetheart's posts quite the opposite, I saw compassion, compassion for people he saw as fellow human beings and anger that a million fellow human beings can be murdered without people wanting to see the murderers taken to justice for it.
It's your posts I see the hate in.
No Fred, they are full of hate - you do not use the language used by Sweetheart if you are not full of hate.
No Fred, they are full of hate - you do not use the language used by Sweetheart if you are not full of hate.
Language?
You do not condone the murder of a million people if you are not full of hate.
Try reading what the families of those killed have to say or do you hate them so much you just don't care?
Language?
You do not condone the murder of a million people if you are not full of hate.
Try reading what the families of those killed have to say or do you hate them so much you just don't care?
Do you understand what I wrote? Read it again - read what I wrote about the hate and who it was directed to.
You are muddling the issue Fred - what I am having a discussion with you about who is responsible for the deaths.
Nobody should be able to support the killing of the innocent.
Do you understand what I wrote? Read it again - read what I wrote about the hate and who it was directed to.
You are muddling the issue Fred - what I am having a discussion with you about who is responsible for the deaths.
Nobody should be able to support the killing of the innocent.
There is no doubt about who is responsible for the deaths. The report published in the Lancet last year is based on accepted practice and uses the death rates prior to the invasion compared to the death rates after the invasion to calculate the excess deaths caused by the invasion. The people who decided to invade are responsible for the deaths.
It's simple logic yet you seem intent on blaming the people who's country was invaded, the victims, the people who have had loved ones killed.
Just suppose America had invaded Caithness and one clan, the Sinclairs or the Sutherlands or whatever decided to collaborate with them, if your house was blown up and your family killed or your wife was shot at a checkpoint what would you do and who would you blame?
The civil unrest in Iraq didn't just happen it was caused deliberately without it America would have had no excuse to stay and build permanent (sorry they call them "enduring") bases there.
There is no doubt about who is responsible for the deaths. The report published in the Lancet last year is based on accepted practice and uses the death rates prior to the invasion compared to the death rates after the invasion to calculate the excess deaths caused by the invasion. The people who decided to invade are responsible for the deaths.
It's simple logic yet you seem intent on blaming the people who's country was invaded, the victims, the people who have had loved ones killed.
Just suppose America had invaded Caithness and one clan, the Sinclairs or the Sutherlands or whatever decided to collaborate with them, if your house was blown up and your family killed or your wife was shot at a checkpoint what would you do and who would you blame?
The civil unrest in Iraq didn't just happen it was caused deliberately without it America would have had no excuse to stay and build permanent (sorry they call them "enduring") bases there.
Well Fred, I guess we are just going to have to disagree with each other.
I cannot see how you can blame the US/UK only for the deaths - can you not see that there is fault on all sides?
Remember that there are a lot of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq - what are they doing there?
As an aside, I am sure today of all days you agree that thanks are due the US, Commonwealth and former Soviet countries for there help over sixty years ago.
luskentyre
08-May-07, 23:30
A "misunderstanding", a million dead, two million homeless and a country in civil war is one hell of a misunderstanding.
If the government releases the original dossier as a Judge has told them to then we will know and if they don't then we will know as well. The person who wrote the dossier says it was changed and my money would be on him telling the truth given all the other evidence.
Thanks for picking up on a single word in my entire post Fred. My point still stands - if you submit to accountability (and you seem to indicate that this is entirely possible), then you are not the evil, ruthless dictator that you seem to think Tony Blair is.
Thanks for picking up on a single word in my entire post Fred. My point still stands - if you submit to accountability (and you seem to indicate that this is entirely possible), then you are not the evil, ruthless dictator that you seem to think Tony Blair is.
I didn't say he was a dictator, much as he'd like to be, I said he was a mass murderer.
Remember that there are a lot of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq - what are they doing there?
Are there?
How many foreign terrorists are there in Iraq then and how many of the deaths are attributable to them?
How many foreign terrorists are there in Iraq then and how many of the deaths are attributable to them?
Enough it seems to be responsible for the majority of deaths since the war 'ended'. Or do you not consider all the suicide bombings of markets and mosques the work of foreign terrorists?.....
Enough it seems to be responsible for the majority of deaths since the war 'ended'. Or do you not consider all the suicide bombings of markets and mosques the work of foreign terrorists?.....
Ah the "insurgents" you mean, the resistance fighters. Of course by far the greatest number of foreign fighters in Iraq are American but I suppose you don't see them as terrorists or what they did to Falluja as terrorism.
As I have pointed out before there had never been a suicide bombing in the history of Iraq prior to the invasion so I think we can safely assume they are as a result of Blair and Bush's decision to invade.
One day a teacher went into the classroom to find a large ink stain on the wall. "Who did this?" she asks the class, one boy stands up and points at another and says "it was his fault Miss, when I threw the bottle of ink at him he ducked".
I didn't say he was a dictator, much as he'd like to be, I said he was a mass murderer.
Saddam was more of a dictator and mass murderer than you alledge Tony Blair is, I never saw any petitions to get him done for war crimes, but no doubt you will try to prove me wrong.
Saddam was more of a dictator and mass murderer than you alledge Tony Blair is, I never saw any petitions to get him done for war crimes, but no doubt you will try to prove me wrong.
So which part of "I didn't say he was a dictator" didn't you understand then?
I cannot see how you can blame the US/UK only for the deaths - can you not see that there is fault on all sides?
I just thought I'd post this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6637307.stm) link to a story I saw on the BBC website, you might have missed it it didn't make the front page where the headline is about 7/7 with a picture of a wrecked bus.
Did you know Iraq now has the worst infant mortality rate in the world with one in eight children never seeing their fifth birthday?
NickInTheNorth
09-May-07, 10:16
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WarCriminalBlair/
The war criminals and their heinous genocide of iraqi civilians has gone too far.
It is a citizen's obligation to reign in the criminals and to demand justice be done.
Having come to this site very recently and not having the stomach to read through all the pages of pointless posts regarding this issue I just thought I would ask the obvious question (my apologies if the point has already been made).
Does the person that started the petition, or anyone (of the 1500 or so) that signed it actually understand what it is that they have signed up to?
It is a petition to TONY BLAIR to prosecute TONY BLAIR for war crimes. Now I may not be the brightest button in the box but even I can see a slight flaw in that...
If invading another country is an illegal war crime, why wasn't Saddam accused of invading Kuwait at his trial? :confused
You fail to mention the US isn't far behind...
An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/
You also incorrectly stated -
Did you know Iraq now has the worst infant mortality rate in the world with one in eight children never seeing their fifth birthday?
What the article you linked to actually says is -
Figures collated by the charity show that in 1990 Iraq's mortality rate for under-fives was 50 per 1,000 live births. In 2005 it was 125. While many other countries have higher rates - Angola, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, for instance, all have rates above 200 - the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere.
Egypt, Indonesia and Bangladesh have made the most progress in tackling child mortality, while Iraq, Botswana and Zimbawe have regressed the most.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2521989.ece
What you should have said was infant mortality in Iraq had risen since the war. The bit you missed is "the increase in Iraq is higher than elsewhere."
So, according to the Save the Children's report, State of the World's Mothers 2007....
Nine of the 10 countries with the worst infant mortality rates are in sub-Saharan Africa. The other one is Afghanistan, which has the second-worst rate.
1. Sierra Leone: 282 (per 1,000 live births)
2. Afghanistan: 257
3. Niger: 256
4. Liberia: 235
5. Somalia: 225
6. Mali: 218
7. Chad: 208
8= Democratic Republic of Congo: 205
8= Equatorial Guinea: 205
10. Rwanda: 203
Sierra Leone is the worst country for infants - not Iraq.
This story provides an interesting analogy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6638461.stm
So which part of "I didn't say he was a dictator" didn't you understand then?
Which part of mass murderer dont you understand, I added Dictator just on a whim
I just thought I'd post this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6637307.stm) link to a story I saw on the BBC website, you might have missed it it didn't make the front page where the headline is about 7/7 with a picture of a wrecked bus.
I could be really pathetic and use your cause and affect analogy.
Man on ground fires at helicopter, helicopter fires back and innocent people get killed.
You fail to mention the US isn't far behind...
That is because the US is a long way behind. The infant mortality rate for the US is under 7 in 1,000, around 1 in 140, I'd call that a long way behind 1 in 8.
You also incorrectly stated -
You are right. The article I read just said that Save the Children had placed Iraq last in their child survival rankings which I assumed to mean they had the highest mortality rate.
What the article you linked to actually says is -
I didn't link to an article.
I could be really pathetic and use your cause and affect analogy.
Man on ground fires at helicopter, helicopter fires back and innocent people get killed.
So why was the helicopter there in the first place?
Cause and affect.
So why was the helicopter there in the first place?
Cause and affect.
Saddam did not comply fully with UN resolution 1441.
Cause and affect.
fred,
My bad - it was my search for the "Did you know Iraq now has the worst infant mortality rate in the world with one in eight children never seeing their fifth birthday?" point you raised.
Sorry.
But I expect it was a similar article with references to the Save The Children survey you read re: child mortality, hence you raising it?
But, I have a feeling that the current state of child mortality in Iraq may be attributable to the terrible state of the Health care system and interupptions of power supplies since the war? Interruptions which are no doubt caused by the actions of the insurgents blowing things up.
$20 billion for electricity
The US is in the process of spending about $19 billion on long-term water and electricity projects, but about a quarter of this money has been diverted to security because of the raging insurgency, US officials sau. Even when electricity generation is improved at the power plant, transformers and cables are easy insurgent targets, with the net result that less power gets to Iraqi homes.
“Security increases costs by 10 to 25 percent, so we’re not getting our value for money. Security was factored in at a rate of 9 percent - we didn’t know it would be this much,” Brig. Gen. Bill McCoy told Reuters during a tour this week of projects north of Baghdad. “We’ve had to downsize in some areas. It took $3 billion out of water and $500 million out of electricity,” he said.
Iraqi officials said last month that the country would need an estimated $20 billion over the next five years to restore full electric power capacity and keep power flowing to the entire country. Iraqi Electricity Minister Mohsen Shalash seemed confident that Iraq would be able to restore full power within two years and that daily demand - estimated by the US General Accounting Office to reach 8,500 megawatts this summer - will climb to 18,000 megawatts by 2010.
Not to mention the doctors killed by insurgents...
10 doctors killed in Iraq
10 Aug 2005
Karbala (SA) - Unidentified gunmen ambushed a group of doctors on their way to help at hospitals, west of Baghdad, killing 10 of them, said medical sources on Wednesday.
The sources said the physicians were travelling to the city of Ramadi when armed men intercepted their vehicle on Tuesday evening.
The sources said among the victims, were Dr Youssef Alewi and two of his assistants from the Karbala health department, in north Iraq.
http://vitw.org/archives/981
luskentyre
09-May-07, 23:17
I didn't say he was a dictator, much as he'd like to be, I said he was a mass murderer.
Ah, my apologies. For one moment I thought you were in danger of being melodramatic.
Jeemag_USA
09-May-07, 23:20
Saddam did not comply fully with UN resolution 1441.
Cause and affect.
What has UN resolution 1441 got to do with it? Don't recall the UN invading Iraq because of any breach of resolution? Don't think the UN took any part in the invasion of Iraq?
fred,
But, I have a feeling that the current state of child mortality in Iraq may be attributable to the terrible state of the Health care system and interupptions of power supplies since the war? Interruptions which are no doubt caused by the actions of the insurgents blowing things up.
Well many of them are as a result of our invasion of Iraq yes but they already had a high infant mortality rate caused by our sanctions, our invading just made it worse.
Jeemag_USA
09-May-07, 23:38
Remember that there are a lot of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq - what are they doing there?
The reason they are there is because the US/UK removal of Saddam Hussein and his family and allies has caused a power vacumm. The insurgents are not terrorists as we know them, they are trying to claim territory and sympathy so that when the USA pulls out they can use momentum to have direct influence on the paper thin democracy enforced by the USA. They did not have the bravery or the gumption to do what they are doing while Saddam was in power, now they have a double motive, gain strongholds and influence in a country without power and also take potshots at the people they class as infidels. The situation will continue to get worse while the USA is there, and as soon as they leave democracy will fail and the people in that country will go back to what they know best and another dictator will step forward. Anyone with any political savvy could have seen that coming before they even started, but unfortunately poeple have no control over the bumbling idiots we call politicians. The USA and the UK have no control over Iraq whatsoever, they just have better protection for themselves which gives them the image of being more powerful. They have no idea what they are doing, they have no bearing on the future of the country and their motives for being there are nothing akin to what they tell you in the media.
I hear people in this country (USA) talk to me about, well there has been no terrorist threat since we went into Iraq to fight a war on terrorism and it just makes me laugh. As many US citizens have died in Iraq now through acts of terrorism as there was killed in the 9/11 bombings of the World Trade center, on top of that hundreds of thousands of Iraqui citizens have died in Iraq, but do we not count them as terrorist attacks because they were not from the UK or USA, and the same people tell me that thats different because those are soldiers doing what they are paid to do, rubbish!!! They are soldiers and people in a place where they shouldn't be for reasons dreamt up by people they have no say over and their lives have been thrown away for no reason whatsoever. They are fighting in a country in a war that has created terrorists in that country who are not even part of Al Quaeda, while Al Quaeda uses other countries at this very moment in time to regroup, recruit and retrain new followers where no USA soldiers can be found. The terrorist threat to the western world is now many times worse than it ever has been, just because major strikes have not taken place it does not mean they are not in the pipeline for the very near future. The USA has just uncovered a plot to blow up one of its naval bases, the suspects have no ties with any terrorist group but are having their own fun anyway, if this is one example of what unconeected people are doing, think what the Al Quaeda are doing right now!
How anyone can look at what is happning right now in Iraq and Afghanistan and not see the whole thing as a pointless waste of time for the common man of this world that will put more people in danger than ever before, is beyond me. The blinkers have seriously been welded to the side of peoples heads.
Places like Iraq have become a money vacuum that is sucking in money rom any country that thinks they can make a difference there, the amount the USA has spent since the onset in Afghanistan and Iraq alone is staggering, it could eradicate the debt of a multitude of third world countries, and every penny of it has been wasted. Its beyond ludicrous! And the loss of all that money from western economies is a bigger victory for the terrorists than 9/11 was.
Saddam did not comply fully with UN resolution 1441.
Cause and affect.
Saddam did comply with UN resolution 1441.
He had destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.
Israel on the other hand between 1967 and 2000 was subject to and ignored 138 UN resolutions so why didn't we invade them? They really did have illegal weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, they really were a threat to neighbouring states.
We invaded Iraq without the backing of the UN, in direct violation of international law, it was an act of aggression. Insurgents defending their country against invaders is not against international law, they are acting legally.
Insurgents defending their country against invaders is not against international law, they are acting legally.
What about the foreign fighters? How are they acting?
Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis and Sudanese amongst others.
They may only account for less than 10% of the insurgency (Aug 06 figure), but their role is high profile. Stirring the pot no doubt....
Jeemag_USA
10-May-07, 01:26
YAWN!!!!!!! here we go again!!!!!!!
Trolling, nothing constructive to say, Fred has a point.
There are many countries with WMD, like India, Pakistan, North Korea, China etc, but nobody is invading them or telling them they have to go, why not, because nobody has the balls, they only have the tackle to stand up to countries they think they can easily over run. Its double standards, all western governments have them, they do what suits themselves best and not their people and whenever someone decides to point it out people come forward and say stuff like.......
YAWN here we go again. If your not interested don't post, go to sleep if your tired! [lol]
What about the foreign fighters? How are they acting?
Which one? They are not a government, not covered by international law.
However when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan how do you think they were acting?
I can tell you the opinion of one senior British officer, Gen Sir Michael Rose, on the subject, you can read it here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6618075.stm)
Interesting article (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2516654.ece) in the Independent the other day by another British officer.
Then we realised the issue was not replacing tyranny with democracy, but gaining long-term access to oil. Blair, in bowing to American oil-mad energy hunger, had deployed the British Army on a lie, a much bigger lie than the one about WMDs. Today, the appalling sectarian violence killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians every week is the direct result of our invasion and botched occupation. As Blair prepares to leave office, Iraq is descending into deeper human tragedy, and British troops are still dying.
They are saying the same as I have been saying because what I say is based on reality not wishful thinking.
fred,
My bad - it was my search for the "Did you know Iraq now has the worst infant mortality rate in the world with one in eight children never seeing their fifth birthday?" point you raised.
You were too busy googling and missed it you mean:)
I hear people in this country (USA) talk to me about, well there has been no terrorist threat since we went into Iraq to fight a war on terrorism and it just makes me laugh.
I think the problem with America is that the manifest destiny myth is just so deeply ingrained. "Of course everyone in Iraq wants to be like us, only an idiot would not want to be like us, we're doing them a favour forcing them to be like us".
It's the "OK so we wiped out 90% of the indigenous population of North America but the ones that are left all have colour televisions now so that makes it right" attitude.
You were too busy googling and missed it you mean:)
You'd know ;)
I think the problem with America is that the manifest destiny myth is just so deeply ingrained. "Of course everyone in Iraq wants to be like us, only an idiot would not want to be like us, we're doing them a favour forcing them to be like us".
It's the "OK so we wiped out 90% of the indigenous population of North America but the ones that are left all have colour televisions now so that makes it right" attitude.
Have to agree to a certain extent, the US foreign policy seems hell bent on the protection of liberty,freedom and democracy........but only on their terms. Some of the stuff they have got up to in South/Central America is unbelievable.
Saddam did comply with UN resolution 1441.
He had destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.
1441 does not just demand the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, it also calls for among other things:
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC’s or the IAEA’s choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;Are you suggesting that the Iraqi dictatorship complied fully with that?
1441 does not just demand the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, it also calls for among other things:
[Quoting the quote didn't work but it is there above]
Are you suggesting that the Iraqi dictatorship complied fully with that?
From my understanding the US and UK went in without the backing of the UN so in someway whether or not there was compliance didn't matter. I guess the stickler is that UN (and we can talk about problems and issues there) didn't feel obliged to act further on 1441 when the US and UK invaded. We are talking about a fine line but it is there.
From my understanding the US and UK went in without the backing of the UN so in someway whether or not there was compliance didn't matter. I guess the stickler is that UN (and we can talk about problems and issues there) didn't feel obliged to act further on 1441 when the US and UK invaded. We are talking about a fine line but it is there.
Yes it is a fine line.
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
I guess the serious consequences were an invasion.
Jeemag_USA
10-May-07, 20:51
Yes it is a fine line.
I guess the serious consequences were an invasion.
The serious consequences were not enacted by the body making the ruling and the invasions were not for the reasons in that ruling.
There are no WMD, none were found and its not surprising, the USA wanted an invasion for different motives. Kind of obvious.
What you have is two different causes and one effect, the UN's cause didn't have a chance to have an effect, the USA's effect derived from a different cause. ;)
There are no WMD, none were found and its not surprising, the USA wanted an invasion for different motives. Kind of obvious.
Thats true, there were no WMD found, and yes it was unlikely that there would be. I agree that the US were looking for a reason to invade.
Resolution 1441 gave the US the excuse they needed did'nt it? They were the serious consequences of not complying - if you want to interperate it that way, as many do.
Saddam played a game of brinkmanship, and failed. By not completely complying with 1441 he gave the US the reason to invade.
Now, 1441 was written in a way that would have made it very unlikely that Iraq would comply...........
1441 does not just demand the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, it also calls for among other things:
Are you suggesting that the Iraqi dictatorship complied fully with that?
They did their best but kept getting blocked by the US, the weapons inspection program was nothing more than a front for CIA spies doing all they could to provoke Saddam into throwing them out while gathering intelligence for the invasion. Iraq did present the UN with a 12,000 page weapons declaration accounting for all their weapons of mass destruction but it was dismissed by the US as lies and omissions, the US told the UN they had absolute proof, the US was lying to the UN.
In 2006 the Iraq Survey Group issued it's report to the American Government:
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
Note Iraq destroyed all their weapons of mass destruction in 1991, 12 years before the invasion and before our sanctions which killed over a million Iraqis mostly children.
This is of course all irrelevant because it had nothing whatsoever to do with the invasion, it was only an excuse not a reason. We know this from the Downing Street Memo of July 2002:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Note that the decision had already been made to invade in July 2002 irrespective of what Iraq did and that Britain and America were deliberately using ultimatums to try and create a legal justification for a war they'd already decided to go ahead with.
In 2003 a number of countries made it clear that they would vote against military action and France said they would veto any resolution involving military action, there is no doubt we invaded Iraq against the wishes of the UN so you can't be claiming resolution 1441 as an excuse now.
In 2004 the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself declared the invasion illegal. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm) Are you suggesting you know more about it than he does?
Isn't it time you stopped clutching at straws and faced up to reality like a man. The invasion was illegal and it was immoral, this time we are the bad guys.
Jeemag_USA
11-May-07, 00:56
Resolution 1441 gave the US the excuse they needed did'nt it? They were the serious consequences of not complying - if you want to interperate it that way, as many do.
USA cannot use it as an excuse, the USA are not legally obliged to act on a UN resolution by their own choosing, thats for the UN to decide not the USA, the USA went alone and took whoever would come with them, or whoever would kiss their donkey to come with them. The UN ruling and the USA invasion of Iraq have nothing in common. USA had their own reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, the used the pretence of WMD to do it. Within 24 hours of 9/11 Bush had asked all his advisors to find a link to Iraq, Al Quaeda was not even up for discussion, this is not hearsay, it came out of the mouths of members of the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld at the time. It was all about unfinished business which if you want to study it it is not just about Bush snr, it goes back to the days when the USA had was holding up the Shah of Iran by the puppet strings.
...the USA went alone and took whoever would come with them, or whoever would kiss their donkey to come with them.
Lol.......
http://www.graven-images.org.uk/temp/kissass.jpg
fred, How could you? ;)
The Prime Minister who has brought us so much prosperity and given us a never so good life style should not be insulted in this way. Thank God we have people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair who will stand up for our country - see I am not a Labour or Tory supporter but someone who can see how lucky we have all been. We have a wonderful democracy and we should value it. Just look at the news from around the world and you will see where you should live and where you are lucky enough not to be.
DeHaviLand
11-May-07, 15:23
The Prime Minister who has brought us so much prosperity and given us a never so good life style should not be insulted in this way. Thank God we have people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair who will stand up for our country - see I am not a Labour or Tory supporter but someone who can see how lucky we have all been. We have a wonderful democracy and we should value it. Just look at the news from around the world and you will see where you should live and where you are lucky enough not to be.
Prosperity? Personal taxes up almost £200bn (thats more than double), personal debt has tripled, average house price has almost tripled, RPI increased from 2.6% to 4.8%, yet average wages have only increased by 30%.
Want to tell me again where the prosperity is?
Want to tell me again where the prosperity is?
I and Mrs G have free bus passes, and State Pension rises last month, and our house has tripled in value, he has not done us too bad [lol]
I and Mrs G have free bus passes, and State Pension rises last month, and our house has tripled in value, he has not done us too bad
Delighted to hear it golach, but there are winners and losers here.... and overall I think life can be pretty hard for younger people. :(
Record number of bankruptcies, young people in good jobs who can't even begin to think of getting onto the housing ladder, "family friendly" policies that the public sector can perhaps cope with, but are just another burden for small businesses to implement...which therefore don't turn out to be quite so "family friendly" after all...and so on...and on...
That's on the domestic front of course....before we even get started on foreign policy ...[disgust]
The Prime Minister who has brought us so much prosperity and given us a never so good life style should not be insulted in this way. Thank God we have people like Maggie Thatcher and Tony Blair who will stand up for our country - see I am not a Labour or Tory supporter but someone who can see how lucky we have all been. We have a wonderful democracy and we should value it. Just look at the news from around the world and you will see where you should live and where you are lucky enough not to be.
I do, I read the news from Iraq and Afghanistan every day.
I'm glad you think all the death, pain and misery suffered by others to support our opulent lifestyle is worth it.
I and Mrs G have free bus passes, and State Pension rises last month, and our house has tripled in value, he has not done us too bad [lol]
Oh well then forget about all the babies dying horrible painful deaths golach's got a free bus pass.
Prosperity? Personal taxes up almost £200bn (thats more than double), personal debt has tripled, average house price has almost tripled, RPI increased from 2.6% to 4.8%, yet average wages have only increased by 30%.
Want to tell me again where the prosperity is?
Two car families - even three. Few old cars - mosting £10,00 plus and many much more. TVs in every room, central heating throught, carpets inf you want them. Fancy house despite the cost. New Years every weekend. Lots of clothes, eating out, plenty of food on the table. When I was young a new suit cost more than weeks wages - now you can get one for £50 if you want.
Lots spent on gambling, the leisure industry is huge. My holidays was a day in Inverness - now most people go abroad, often to exotic places, sometimes more than once a year. I had a small present from Santa and harly a present at all for birthday - I can hardly get into family members houses now at Christmas for the presents around the floor. Oh, and there is all the food - we had a chicken once a year.
Come off it - would you really go back to the 40s and 50s and even 60s or are you too young to remember linoleum floors, cold beds, etc. etc. etc. The list is endless. We have never had it so good!!!
Oh well then forget about all the babies dying horrible painful deaths golach's got a free bus pass.
these dying babies that you lay at my door Fred are not of my doing, IMO more likely they should be laid at your door, with all the propoganda you spout on these boards, because I choose not to believe you and your ilk does not make me a bad or not caring person.
Again IMO your pals that you support in Iraq and Afganistan are in my eyes must more guilty than I.
And I was just stating a reply to DeHaviland that my prosperity and mine alone under Tony Blair is much more better off than 10 years ago
Two car families - even three. Few old cars - mosting £10,00 plus and many much more. TVs in every room, central heating throught, carpets inf you want them. Fancy house despite the cost. New Years every weekend. Lots of clothes, eating out, plenty of food on the table. When I was young a new suit cost more than weeks wages - now you can get one for £50 if you want.
Lots spent on gambling, the leisure industry is huge. My holidays was a day in Inverness - now most people go abroad, often to exotic places, sometimes more than once a year. I had a small present from Santa and harly a present at all for birthday - I can hardly get into family members houses now at Christmas for the presents around the floor. Oh, and there is all the food - we had a chicken once a year.
Come off it - would you really go back to the 40s and 50s and even 60s or are you too young to remember linoleum floors, cold beds, etc. etc. etc. The list is endless. We have never had it so good!!!
I for one am not too young to remember linoleum floors and cold beds, and yes, a chicken once a year, it was posted down to us in Leith from Caithness.
Even in the 1970s when I was a young mum, I had no central heating, no washing machine, tumble dryer, freezer...no car...holidays spent only with relations.
I agree there are things I would not want to go back to, but they didn't necessarily make the difference between a happy and an unhappy life.
I don't believe that you can measure a good life and a healthy society purely in material terms, and imo things have moved too far the other way in this "me, me, me" I'm all right Jack society.
North Rhins
11-May-07, 20:06
Lino on the floor? You were spoilt, we could only dream about such luxuries!!! ;)
In 2004 the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, himself declared the invasion illegal. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm) Are you suggesting you know more about it than he does?
Isn't it time you stopped clutching at straws and faced up to reality like a man. The invasion was illegal and it was immoral, this time we are the bad guys.
As I have said Fred, it depends on how one interperated it does it not.
There aer several others quoted in that article that say that the invasion was legal.
Lino on the floor? You were spoiled, we could only dream about such luxuries!!! ;)
I agree spoiled indeed, 1947-1950 farm cottage in Perthshire, stone floors no electricity, no running water inside the house, tilley lamps, primus stoves, and a toilet my Dad moved around the garden.
German POW's were living a 100 yards away in luxury
these dying babies that you lay at my door Fred are not of my doing, IMO more likely they should be laid at your door, with all the propoganda you spout on these boards, because I choose not to believe you and your ilk does not make me a bad or not caring person.
Again IMO your pals that you support in Iraq and Afganistan are in my eyes must more guilty than I.
And I was just stating a reply to DeHaviland that my prosperity and mine alone under Tony Blair is much more better off than 10 years ago
The same Tony Blair that decided to invade Iraq?
Oh well then forget about all the babies dying horrible painful deaths golach's got a free bus pass.
I'm not a big fan of fred but I agree with him that the invasion of Iraq was done without just cause. I also agree that golach's statement was shallow and crass in the context of this thread. It comes across as Tony being an OK guy just because he put a few more Sheckels into the old Cougher's Coffer. More young UK lads dead in Iraq, och nevermind, woohoo, look at the latest house prices, time to Riverdance across the lovely Axminster!!
However, I won't sign to prosecute Tony Blair, he is simply a puppet for the establishment and a symbol of the Capital World we live in. Greed is still good and we turn a blind eye to nearly all outrages, as we sit back in our leather recliners, in front of our 40" goggle-boxes, digesting our diet of pap. I don't rate Tony Blair as having one strand of morality in his body but to put him on trial would be making him a scapegoat in a society where someone who thinks the word is "escape goat" is deemed to be a major celebrity.
Goody, Goody, Dumb, Dumb!!
As I have said Fred, it depends on how one interperated it does it not.
There aer several others quoted in that article that say that the invasion was legal.
Any of them not members of the governments which invaded?
Bit like letting Ronnie Biggs decide if robbing trains is illegal isn't it?
I agree spoiled indeed, 1947-1950 farm cottage in Perthshire, stone floors no electricity, no running water inside the house, tilley lamps, primus stoves, and a toilet my Dad moved around the garden.
German POW's were living a 100 yards away in luxury
A cottage in Perthshire??? You lucky people.
There were eighteen of us living in a cardboard box in the middle of a road.
Any of them not members of the governments which invaded?
Bit like letting Ronnie Biggs decide if robbing trains is illegal isn't it?
Well, whatever you think of the western leaders are you suggesting that they seriously thought they could get away with a war that they thought was illegal.
Well, whatever you think of the western leaders are you suggesting that they seriously thought they could get away with a war that they thought was illegal.
If they wanted to get a way with it they could. They hold most of the power in the world, who would take them to task.
If they wanted to get a way with it they could. They hold most of the power in the world, who would take them to task.
If nobody else their electorate.
Well, whatever you think of the western leaders are you suggesting that they seriously thought they could get away with a war that they thought was illegal.
Blair can just move to America, they have a long history of harbouring terrorists.
Blair can just move to America, they have a long history of harbouring terrorists.
Is one trying to be controversial?
If nobody else their electorate.
That could be why Labour took such a big hit.
I am not sure being voted out of office is a suitable punishment for "an illegal war" (the example talked about). It is not that easy to shift people in power out. Watergate is very good example of that, but there are many others played out at a smaller scale, Prescott cold cutting someone etc.
Once in power hard to move out, and hard to prosecute.
Is one trying to be controversial?
It is another fact, from the 1980s when they refused to extradite IRA bombers to Britain to now (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BE86EB731-4DF3-43DE-B918-B67EAC49BF1A%7D)&language=EN) the US has always had an appalling record for harbouring terrorists.
It is another fact, from the 1980s when they refused to extradite IRA bombers to Britain to now (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BE86EB731-4DF3-43DE-B918-B67EAC49BF1A%7D%29&language=EN) the US has always had an appalling record for harbouring terrorists.
Well, I am not going to disagree with you on that Fred. Believe it or not I will probably agree with you on many things about the US.
NORAID always seemed very hypocritical to me.
That could be why Labour took such a big hit.
I am not sure being voted out of office is a suitable punishment for "an illegal war" (the example talked about). It is not that easy to shift people in power out. Watergate is very good example of that, but there are many others played out at a smaller scale, Prescott cold cutting someone etc.
Once in power hard to move out, and hard to prosecute.
I
I?
Eek. Looks like someone took out Tristan before he finished. Be afraid. Be very afraid. The dementorgerators devour posters they don't like with little or no warning.
Tony Blair? Who was he then? Public school prat who played at goodies and baddies in Iraq or the man who reinvented UL plc and stabilised its economy? Yes, right first time.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.