# US Election



## whirlypig (Feb 20, 2003)

Looks like Bush has pipped Kerry which IMHO can only be the worst possible outcome for the rest of the world.

Wonder if Ladbrokes are taking bets on where the next war will be?


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

According to CNN it's too close to call at the moment:

12.00 = Bush (254) v Kerry (252)


----------



## whirlypig (Feb 20, 2003)

Bush camp are claiming that they've won Ohio in which case I believe Kerry's lost, that's the BBC News view. Probably just the usual pre-result banter as I believe they'll not know for sure for some time as other votes need to be checked.

If it's a draw then I reckon we, the UK, should get to decide, well we are virtually the 51st state thanks to Tone.


----------



## CapTT (Mar 2, 2003)

whirlypig said:


> Bush camp are claiming that they've won Ohio in which case I believe Kerry's lost, that's the BBC News view. Probably just the usual pre-result banter as I believe they'll not know for sure for some time as other votes need to be checked.
> 
> If it's a draw then I reckon we, the UK, should get to decide, well we are virtually the 51st state thanks to Tone.












Hes on the phone to Mr.Bliar already :idea:


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

The last elections were fixed (laws rushed through to stop select people from voting etc) and these ones have also been...there's too many nasty stories going around about voter intimidation etc for them not to be true. I think the UN should demand a complete re-election and have independant auditors... and none of this "let's get the lawyers to decide" crap.


----------



## paulb (May 6, 2002)

Robert Mugabe offered about a year ago to send international observers to the US to oversee the elections. I'm sure he was making a point, but it seems to be a valid point. It's not only the third world that have dodgy election practices.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Pehaps the UN should make sanctions againts the US, then send in a Task Force (France can lead :twisted: ) to set up proper democratic elections and overthough an evil dictator...

Sauce for the goose etc :wink:


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I would love to have been the 51st state when Wilson proposed it in the 60's. Still would today.

Best democracy in the world and strong leader to the west. The audit trail and checking in all the elections is some of the best and most rigourous in the world.

It's a good job Tony has the foresight to be strong allies and friends with them, even though we disagree sometimes. Influence is what's required, not histrionics.

As for the next war, anything that rids the world of decapitating moronic terrorists is fine by me.

Jim.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

jimfew said:


> Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I


Where have you been the last 4 years?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Looks official now then. Kerry has declared.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

The best thing about Bush losing would have been the fact that it would make Blair look very alone in the world. However, even that thought could not make me want Kerry to become President - too many confused messages on so many areas. Better to have someone like Bush who is not afraid to take these evil nutters on IMO. Not that I agree with everything Bush has done by any means, I just think it's a case of better the devil you know.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Hurray, Bush wins. Best result ever.

I think I'll go and celebrate.

At least we'll have a strong committed free world leader.

Jim.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

sonicmonkey said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I
> ...


Same place as you but concerned about the growing threat of terrorism in the world. Thank god we have a committed leader like Bush to have the guts to take the fight out to the scum. And well done Tony for supporting him.

Shame they can't go for three terms.

Jim.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

jimfew said:


> At least we'll have a strong committed free world leader.


Completely agree. I'll even give Blair some credit for that as well.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

jimfew said:


> Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I would love to have been the 51st state when Wilson proposed it in the 60's. Still would today.
> 
> Best democracy in the world and strong leader to the west. The audit trail and checking in all the elections is some of the best and most rigourous in the world.
> 
> ...


What the fuck, if you really believe this then why don't you move to the United States of Fucking Arseholes [smiley=freak.gif]

Fucking Bush is a C U N T if you read a few books and maybe watch Fahrenheit 911 you might not be so keen.

The good old USA has built it's self off the backs of others everything they have done in their own country and the rest of the world is done with overkill and aggression they think they have the right to police the whole world, maybe one day us if they take a dislike to something we believe in.

Fact the only country to ever use WMD on another is the USA Fact until 911 the only citizens to ever make a "TERROR" attack on the USA were citizens of the USA.
All this fucking hype and scare tactics about terrorist is total fuckin bullshit, every time they want to justify their war (Bush/Blair) theres always a reminder of ohh be careful someone's going to try and kill you soon on the news.

I'll tell you when the next attack will happen, it will be when some of those poor Bastards in Iraq grow into men and want revenge for their loved ones and the thousands that have been killed so far on the basis of lies (Whoop's sorry real people don't die it's "Collateral damage" ) [smiley=bomb.gif]

I feel disgusted to be a citizen of a country that has attacked another without any threat or attack made by them on us i think Iraq would be fully justified in attacking either us or the states for an unprovoked onslaught on themselves.

I truly believe that one day either us or our children are going to pay heavily for the actions of these two utter fucking bastards maybe some of us should stop and think what it would be like to have our entire family blown to fucking pieces buy some mislead american teenager, because i know for sure once i had buried what was left of them i would stop at nothing until i had revenge even if that envolved me dying what would i have left to live for.

These are REAL women, children, babies and fathers that have been totaly desimated because of two self rightous arseholes. IT HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH TERRORISM how many attacks have there been in the states since 911....... oh yeah none thats none in 4years but Bush and Blair would have you believe were under constant threat.

As for democratic elections Bush didn't even win last time if you remember weeks after when they had the true count he had actually lost.

Prehaps people should stop and think before they get caught up in the histeria of terrorist's.

I feel totally fucking pissed off now i'm going to go home and be gratefull that i still have my wife and children in one piece and make the most of what i've got because the only threat i'm living under at the moment is Blair and Bush.


----------



## muTTley (Mar 15, 2004)

L7C TT said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I would love to have been the 51st state when Wilson proposed it in the 60's. Still would today.
> ...


agreed - it's easy to be a defender of freedom when it's not your families that are "collateral damage" from "friendly fire"...


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

L7C TT said:


> I feel totally fucking pissed off now i'm going to go home and be gratefull that i still have my wife and children in one piece.


No doubt you will give thanks to Bush and Blair.

You hae more than Ken Bigley's family will ever have and yet you miss the point completely.

Jim.


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

L7C TT said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know what you guys are getting so het up about. I would love to have been the 51st state when Wilson proposed it in the 60's. Still would today.
> ...


Did I miss something. Didn't 3000+ innocent people get murdered in New York. A lot of your comments may equally apply to the relatives of those that died. I bet they'd be grateful if their loved ones were coming home tonight :?

Moley


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

L7C TT said:


> The good old USA has built it's self off the backs of others .


really, how?



L7C TT said:


> stop and think what it would be like to have our entire family blown to fucking pieces .


Have you never heard of Saddam Hussein?

Sorry L7 but i don't know where your coming from, i don't necessarily condone the actions of Bush/Blair, but regrdless of the WMD debate Saddam was a monster who slaughtered thousands of his own people, most Iraqi's IMO support a free & united Iraq, these insurgents have no interest in Iraq's future or well being whatsoever, most of them aren't even Iraqi, they are just using a country in a state of flux to wreak havoc and target America/The West/Democracy in general and all under the name of Allah!!!

total bollox as far as i'm concerned.

And yes the USA does regard itself as the Police state because it's the only country that can, would you rather it be the old USSR?

I certainly wouldn't or would you prefer to be in the hands of a mad mullah as you care for your children tonight?


----------



## whirlypig (Feb 20, 2003)

I honestly believe another 4 years of Bush is about the worst thing that could happen to the world. I find it very hard to understand how anyone in possession of the facts can actually be supportive of him and his policies.

Do people honestly believe that Bush's goal was freedom for the Iraqi people? The US rarely intercedes unless there is some benefit to themselves; they'll happily prop up a dictatorship if it serves their purposes and likewise finance rebels against a democracy if it means a financial gain or more control in the region. You've only got to look at events in recent history where the US has interfered, to name but a few; Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Chile etc.

Getting rid of Saddam is a good thing but the lies and the lack of foresight have meant a very large number of innocent people have died on both sides. The war and other events have also served to populate the ranks of the fanatics and terrorists. Which they probably don't mind as the fear factor was probably a major factor in Bush's re-election.

Bush's last campaign was largely financed by Haliburton, his Vice President used to head the company and they also got the bulk of the army and Iraq rebuilding contracts without even having to tender for them. But the war has nothing to do with oil, so were told.

We were in Las Vegas recently and on quite a few occasions politics was discussed despite us trying to avoid the subject - there's no point getting into an argument, we were on holiday and we didn't want to stir up any Americans, they can be quite passionate when it comes to politics. So we let them take the lead and it was quite refreshing to hear the majority were very critical of Bush and Blair. However those that were critical seemed to be the ones that had travelled and were aware of world politics. They were first to admit that the US is a very insular nation, world news doesn't really feature, much of the media is owned by the big conglomerates loyal to the Republicans and at the moment it's very hard to speak out against Bush or the war because it's deemed unpatriotic.

It's a great shame that Kerry didn't win, not because he'd be a great president, but he's far less right-wing and less controlled by business than Bush. The only saving grace is that you can only serve two terms, if only we had the same system. :?


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

jimfew said:


> sonicmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > jimfew said:
> ...


I cannot believe a non-American citizen who hasn't been subjected to the to constant barrage of shit spurted out by the American TV networks would actually truly believe this. It's the policies of people like Bush which fuel the rage of militants all around the world. Don't believe me? Just listen to what the "terrorist" are saying :!:

We are in a privileged position of being outsiders looking into America, and not being subjected to the overly bias and some would say "funded" TV networks. Put simply, his motives are not necessarily concerned with world peace and harmony. If my feelings are misguided, he has a fuck funny way of putting his plans into action. Have the lies of WMD escaped peoples minds already? Are we really that fickle? How many innocent Iraqi fathers/mothers/children have died whilst I've typed this? :?

I would highly recommend reading The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. His research is fully documented and concentrates on the make up of the Bush Administration, it's quite an alarming read of who and how the Administration is funded and their direct and indirect ties with those who would benefit from war in Iraq. Another good title is All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth by Bryan Keefer, Ben Fritz, Brendan Nyhan. I'd like to get the opinions of those who think Bush is a decent man after they've read these books.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

L7C TT said:


> how many attacks have there been in the states since 911....... oh yeah none thats none in 4years


Quite a rant, but does it occur to you that there haven't been any attacks in the States *because* of the US and Allies' actions against terrorism? Impossible to prove of course, but had nothing been done, and another attack had taken place, imagine how many people would not have been able to return home to their families...

Amazing how selective people's memories are - it's almost similar to the way people go on about British Rail being better than Railtrack - Saddam Hussain was killing his own people. There was genocide on a massive scale. That, for me, was good enough reason to get rid of the bastard. Yes, we were sold a different story, more by Blair than by Bush, but it was still the right thing to do.
Oh, and by the way, world stock markets greeted Bush's reelection well. What does that make you think? Or do you just link it to "oil" and other boring irrelevances? [smiley=sleeping.gif]

Don't believe everything Michael Moore tells you...


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

sonicmonkey said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > sonicmonkey said:
> ...


How dare you question my thoughts or reasons for having my opinions. I truly believe what I said and would defend it to the death if necessary. At least, as a free person I can have my opinions without fear or repression (assuming I don't break the law!)

As it happens I have a house in Longboat Key, Florida and, although not a US citizen, I am entitled to judge whatever I see in any way I want to. I have read one of the books you mention, and don't believe a word of it. In addition, the "conspiracies" TV progamme widely discreditted the "facts" as you put it. In any case, I never said politics, wherever it is found, is clean and nice. I just think the free world has a strong confident leader in Bush and allied to Blair, are a positive influence in the world. I am also not saying anyone else couldn't do better, just that all the hype about "conspiracy" and dark forces within our democracies gets no shrift from me. Portraying Kerry as some form of white knight seems frankly luicrous and faintly naiive from some quarters.

For me, the real dark forces are those despots and terrorists who prey on innocent victims around the world and manage to convince gullible people that they are just victims of the oppressors in the developed countries. Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. They are scum and deserve to be eradicated for the good of humanity. Just as they would be in any civilised society.

I am sure the greatest threat to us, whether the UK or US, is from some misguided nutter setting of a biological (as saddam did) or diirty nuclear device just to show that his religion or culture is better than ours. I am prepared to put up with a certain amount of "politicing" to protect against that as much as possible.

I am glad we have leaders who can face this threat and ride out and meet it. I think they have done a great job in containing the threat since 9/11. They are brave and committed people. I also do not blame them for the mistakes of the facts when going to war. They had been supplied with poor quality information about the threat from Saddam and made a judement call to go to war to help protect the world. Good call in my book.

Still, it's an idle debate now as Bush won. I am happy with that. Not sure Blair will have such an easy time of it though in the UK election. At least we have an election where the points raised by you can be tested against the points raised by others for judgement by the people. Long may that be true! Not sure a Conservative Government would have made any decisions differently though.

Jim.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

whirlypig said:


> I honestly believe another 4 years of Bush is about the worst thing that could happen to the world. I find it very hard to understand how anyone in possession of the facts can actually be supportive of him and his policies.
> 
> Do people honestly believe that Bush's goal was freedom for the Iraqi people? The US rarely intercedes unless there is some benefit to themselves; they'll happily prop up a dictatorship if it serves their purposes and likewise finance rebels against a democracy if it means a financial gain or more control in the region. You've only got to look at events in recent history where the US has interfered, to name but a few; Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, Chile etc.
> 
> ...


Thank you sums up perfectly the points i was trying to express.

Yes Saddam was a despot and needed to be removed but not in the way they have done it.

Fact more people are dying in iraq now on a daily basis than under Saddam but hey that doesn't matter because Bush and Blair know how to run the country [smiley=freak.gif]

I love the fact that so many people are taken in by the "War on Terror" fear is such an easy way to control people a tactic often used by goverments and terrorist alike.

And as for 3000 people dying in the twin towers yes it was appalling and tragic but a least go to war with the people that did it and not some other country altogether and then proceed to kill somewhere in the region of 16'000 people. I bet the iraqi's are feeling really liberated now.

I think people are always going to be divided on this issue, i just think it's all very well to turn a blind eye as to what's happening in places like iraq and pretend were doing the right thing as long as we all have our lovely things around us the comfortable homes (maybe in two countries) the nice cars, all those material things we in the west treasure they are such lovely distractions.

Lets face it in reality the only thing to worry about for anyone on here is whether to chip our cars or not or what dv valve should i go for and does a milltek sound better than the gtt sportlite. Yeh it all seems very insignificant when you look at it like that doesn't it.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

L7C TT - for Christ's sake, show some respect for other people's opinions. Nobody's turning a blind eye to anything that is happening in Iraq - there are arguments on both sides, many valid ones and by just belittling anything anyone says that you don't agree with is pathetic. As for saying that all people care about is their cars, do you honestly believe that? Have you noticed that you are posting on a car website?


----------



## digimeisTTer (Apr 27, 2004)

So what's the solution then L7? :?


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

L7C TT said:


> I think people are always going to be divided on this issue, i just think it's all very well to turn a blind eye as to what's happening in places like iraq and pretend were doing the right thing as long as we all have our lovely things around us the comfortable homes (maybe in two countries) the nice cars, all those material things we in the west treasure they are such lovely distractions.
> 
> Lets face it in reality the only thing to worry about for anyone on here is whether to chip our cars or not or what dv valve should i go for and does a milltek sound better than the gtt sportlite. Yeh it all seems very insignificant when you look at it like that doesn't it.


Actually, I can understnad the point you are making here but I do not feel guilty for one moment that we have built a society where we do not suffer the consequences of oppression that others do. The fact that we do care for our cars and have material things are not to be despised but lauded. It is the essence of success and civilisation, amongst other things.

On one other point, as many know on this forum, I do other charity things and have seen more suffering than you could possibly imagine. Just makes me appreciate the fact that we can sit around and debate the "chips on our cars" in safety. And for me it isn't insignificant, it is the quiet gentle sound of civilisation.

And it is just a car forum, after all. :lol: :lol:

Jim.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

jimfew said:


> How dare you question my thoughts or reasons for having my opinions. I truly believe what I said and would defend it to the death if necessary. At least, as a free person I can have my opinions without fear or repression (assuming I don't break the law!)


I'm trying to engage dialog not have a cheap stab at you. But living in a free world (and posting on a public forum) I'm allowed to question your ideology in an effort to understand both sides of the tale.



jimfew said:


> In addition, the "conspiracies" TV progamme widely discreditted the "facts" as you put it.


How Bushs campaigns were funded, the interests he and his administration have with large corps who had/still have an interest in Iraq is hardly a consipracy. It's quite simple, all you have to do is look at Bush Snr and Bush Jr's CV's and stock options. Before dimissing the whole book(s) as a pack of lies, I'd suggest looking up some of the references.

On the rest, we'll just have to be grown up enough to beg to differ.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

raven said:


> L7C TT - for Christ's sake, show some respect for other people's opinions. Nobody's turning a blind eye to anything that is happening in Iraq - there are arguments on both sides, many valid ones and by just belittling anything anyone says that you don't agree with is pathetic. As for saying that all people care about is their cars, do you honestly believe that? Have you noticed that you are posting on a car website?


Prehaps you should read my last post again.

And as for the business about us and our cars, i don't think for a minute that it's "all" any of us care about i'm just saying that on a personal level sometimes when i get caught up in the "modding" i want to do to my own car i start to give myself a hard time about whats really important in life and how much i have compared to others.

Yes the "anyone on here" was a sweeping statement and wrong and i appologise for that comment.

digimeistter as for a solution i don't know, it should have been left to the UN in the first place.

As for terrorism we need to look at what makes someone so unhinged that they are willing to blow them selves up/ shoot school kids/ fly planes into skyscrapers packed full of innocents etc. Sure a lot of it is down to religious fundamentalist but lets face it if you were in new york watching your friends or family jumping from the twin towers you would want revenge just the same for the 10's of thousands of innocent iraqi's that have been watching their family's and friends be killed in the name of collateral damage.

As for having respect for others opinions i do i've only been expressing my own feelings on this subject and giving my own opinion.

I could be wrong and then again i might be right.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

sonicmonkey said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > How dare you question my thoughts or reasons for having my opinions. I truly believe what I said and would defend it to the death if necessary. At least, as a free person I can have my opinions without fear or repression (assuming I don't break the law!)
> ...


One book you might like to read is:-

Karl Popper, "the open society and it's enemies".

As for being grown up, quite right, I enjoyed the debate, even if we disagreed on the content, at least we spent time to try to understand each other. I for one would relish the chance to debate these issues with you further.

As L7 said, I could be wrong, then again I might be right.

Jim.


----------



## sonicmonkey (Mar 20, 2004)

jimfew said:


> One book you might like to read is:-
> 
> Karl Popper, "the open society and it's enemies".
> 
> ...


Cheers Jim. Just read the review on Amazon and it sounds like my sort of read, Waterstones at the weekend then.

I may get my lazy arse down to a meet soon and hopefully catch up somewhen.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sonicmonkey said:


> jimfew said:
> 
> 
> > sonicmonkey said:
> ...


I think Bush being pro-Israel may swing some stances here. :roll:

What I can't get my head around, is how _anyone_ can think that the now ineveitable move of the US further to the Right in the political spectrum - all the way through to the Supreme Court - allied to an also inevitable strengthening of zealous Christian morals (ie extremists), can be in _anyway_ helpful to a world that is becoming increasingly polarised to Bush and his cronies/poodles at one end, to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism at the other.

It's a recipe for continued strife, killing and disasters. A more moderate US administration with more liberal foreign policies could have been very good for world affairs. A more extreme one cannot help but divide further.

I'm depressed by the thought of 4 more years with that Creationalist twat.


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

[garyc said]


> I think Bush being pro-Israel may swing some stances here. :roll:
> 
> What I can't get my head around, is how _anyone_ can think that the now ineveitable move of the US further to the Right in the political spectrum - all the way through to the Supreme Court - allied to an also inevitable strengthening of zealous Christian morals (ie extremists), can be in _anyway_ helpful to a world that is becoming increasingly polarised to Bush and his cronies/poodles at one end, to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism at the other.
> 
> ...


Yeh it can only get worse unfortunately, islamic fundamentalist to the left of me and Christian extremists to the right, and i'm stuck in the middle with you :lol: i've got to laugh or i'll cry


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> It's a recipe for continued strife, killing and disasters. A more moderate US administration with more liberal foreign policies could have been very good for world affairs. A more extreme one cannot help but divide further.
> 
> I'm depressed by the thought of 4 more years with that Creationalist twat.


More moderate US administration = more time talking about it and less action. They spent 12 years talking to Saddam which was bad enough. I for one am relieved that the message to the world is that we will not tolerate rogue states that ignore the UN or practice genocide (or whatever).

The best thing about Bush winning for me is the reaction of the woolley liberals in Europe. If they had their way, we'd still be trying to organise the UN to take on Saddam. Of course nothing would have happened, and they'd probably have set up another parliament to try and sort things out. Talking shops get us nowhere. Direct action sends a message.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

garyc said:


> sonicmonkey said:
> 
> 
> > jimfew said:
> ...


As usual - well said Gary.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course, but I struggle to understand the Bush vote. It's interesting that the reason he seems to have got in is because of his far-right moral stance. The American public has been largely terrorised by the media to the point of becoming a worryingly paranoid nation. And George Bush is their protector. What a laugh. Virtually every key member of his administration has deep business ties with the middle east - especially the Bin Laden family. If anyone actually seriously thinks that the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was from the humanitarian stance of ridding the world of an evil dictator then I firmly believe they are sorely deluded. Of course, in its self it's a good thing to get rid of an inhumane dictator (though at what price - all those POOR innocent Iraqi familes now suffering the grief of loss of family and friends, and the destruction of their everyday lives).

However, 9/11 allowed the US government to whip up the fear factor and play on the American need for revenge (and to act as the worlds apparently morally upright protector) to get support for attacking Sadam Hussein - the chosen fall guy. Funny how Irag has the worlds second largest Oil reserves and that all those large American companies (run by Bush's cronies) have now massively lucrative contracts. Nice bit of cash coming in for the US when you have plunged the economy into $trillions of debt !!!!!

All this with no proof of Iraq having any WMD, and plans to attack the US, or any firm ties with Al Qaeda. What happened on 9/11 was absolutely terrible, in every way - but let's please go after the true culprits and not just some random dictator that we've got a score to settle with cos Papa failed to get rid of him last time! So, just over 3,000 Americans killed tragically on 9/11. And what is it, about 160,000 Iraqi's and 1,500 Americans killed in Iraq so far. Those numbers really make sense don't they !!

Far far from allowing us to live safer in this world, the Bush Government foreign policy has increased the hatred towards the US and its allies and caused us a great deal more reason to be looking over our shoulders.

Let's face it there are FAR greater threats to world peace than Saddam & Iraq. North Korea anyone? Why aren't they attacking them?!

Damian


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

raven said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > I for one am relieved that the message to the world is that we will not tolerate rogue states that ignore the UN or practice genocide (or whatever).
> > .


So, the reasons the USA hasn't invaded North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, and Iran etc etc are? .............


----------



## L7 (Aug 27, 2004)

don't speak too soon Bush is already making noises about Cuba and North Korea :?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Am I the only one that feels ashamed to be British?

I was under the impression we had a Ministry of Defence, not Attack.

The current situation is extremely saddening because it is nothing more than the prolongation of previous wars that have never really been resolved.

Trouble in the Balkans led to the killing of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

This led, by mutual protection treaties, to the First World War.

The ending of this war left Germany in ruins and humiliated.

The rise of Hitler was a direct result of the actions of the allied victors.

Hitler started the Second World War as a crusade against the humiliation of the 1st World War.

Once again as victors we humiliated Germany and cut it in two. In addition we created the state of Israel.

In the creation of that state we excluded the inhabitants of that area. This is one of the most disasterous acts of our history.

The Palestinians, by and large, live in poverty, whilst the Israelis are supported by the West and in particular the U.S.

Despite UN resolutions the Israelis refuse to treat Palestinians as equals or to return land to them as required by the UN.

The Palestinian suicide bombers chose that method to alert the world to their plight as it is the ONLY corse open to them. Negotiation with the UN on their side has achieved exactly nothing.

The rest of the Arab world looks on in disbelief at the way the Palestinians are treated, not just by the Israelis, but also by the rest of the world who are effectively complicit in their suffering.

The attack on the Twin Towers was a message to the US that the Arab world doesn't consider that the US policy towards Israel as either fair or logical. It was their only way of getting the world to notice.

Any reasonable person would look at the events of the past 4 years and say to themselves, "Why does anyone hate us so much that they are willing to take their own lives to make something change?". Unfortunately in the White House the word reasonable has no place. Where thought and actions could easily have resolved this conflict in hours, by removing the state support for Israel until such time as she complied with the UN requirements, we see the administration use this as an excuse for starting another unconnected war.

This has got to be a low point in our history. However Tony was hoodwinked into giving support is irrelevant. We attacked a country that had nothing to do with this terrorism without a genuine reason.

That Saddam was a dictator, and a bad one at that, is undoubted. That we in any way have the moral or poltical right to remove him is less certain.

To secure an effective regime change it must come from within and not helped, started or imposed by outside forces. We don't understand their culture and needs. We have helped nobody. Especially not ourselves.

This is war for war's sake. The people that were behind 9/11 were not religeous extremists. They were people who wanted to see that the Palestinians had what all the world agreed they should.

The terror threat is only greater now than 5 years ago because of Washington's unwillingness to reduce the threat. A war is always good for business, especially if you are a Republican President short on imagination.


----------



## muTTley (Mar 15, 2004)

raven said:


> More moderate US administration = more time talking about it and less action. They spent 12 years talking to Saddam which was bad enough. I for one am relieved that the message to the world is that we will not tolerate rogue states that ignore the UN or practice genocide (or whatever).


there's large parts of the world that consider the usa a rogue state and genocide is not that far back in their history - it depends on where you're looking from - i think we forget sometimes that our view of the world is unusually similar to theirs for historical reasons, but it is very alien to most of the rest of humanity...

the states may see themselves as policing the world, but that has to be with the agreement of those about to be policed.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

s3_lurker said:


> raven said:
> 
> 
> > garyc said:
> ...


Er, not absolutely sure that is my quote???

But i think the reasons are (in order);

-N Korea - far too scary, big and ugly;

- Syria - no oil reserves of note and no military machine as such;

-Zimbabwe - just another African despot with no international stance or impact or trade of any worth to US (watch Nigeria though);

- Iran - invading here would bring the whole Arab nations against the west, and also they are united, very powerful and could resist far more than a leaderless and divded Iraq. Remember the Iran/Iraq 8 year war? They'd be no pushover like Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

garyc said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > raven said:
> ...


So the US solution will probably be to 'encourage' Israel to do it for them ('you guys owe us some favours, right'). Another great step in the Middle East peace process :roll:

Also, of course, it's not wise to open up to many flanks of attack at once....even the mighty US War (mongering) Machine will suffer diluted potency..

Damian


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

for a democratic country they seem to be more corrupt and disorganised at running elections than some third world countries.

I was working over there the last 2 weeks and from a work collegue point of view the office was split although their main argument seemed to be the fact bush did what he said and that was get rid of Sadam ?! BUT i argued it was ohn false pretenses etc .. but they dont care the fact he did it in their eyes meant more!? go figure!?

I argued till i was tired about the fact they arnt looking at teh right data or asking the right questions they are filled with properganda to the max and they are all too stupid to question it !

Oh well the worse thing since 9/11 bush is back !


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

> I was working over there the last 2 weeks and from a work collegue point of view the office was split although their main argument seemed to be the fact bush did what he said and that was get rid of Sadam ?! BUT i argued it was ohn false pretenses etc .. but they dont care the fact he did it in their eyes meant more!? go figure!?


Didn't he also say that he was going to get Bin Laden? A promise made to the United States citizens that he was not in a position to make.

Why are we always talking about the need for democracy. It is a system of government that can work, but is not going to be a bringer of change. A well run dictatorship would be far preferable. In some ways this is what the United States is trying to achieve in Iraq. In the same way that we have democracy in the UK and US it is really only a way of making the citizens feel like they have some ownership of the government and a say in what happens. In reality the Iraqi democracy will be run from Washington, like Britain's and Washington is run for the benefit of Dick Cheney.

That so many people protested against the attack on Iraq, that there was no debate, that the reasons for going to war changed several times in the absence of any tangible justification, that cabinet ministers would rather resign than be involved in this scandal show to what extent our democracy works! Especially in the absence of a enuine opposition.

Democracy is lowest-common-denominator government for mature secular societies only. Societies with deep divisions will favour the majority in a democracy, whereas that may not be what is best for the country as a whole. The only system we currently have for controlling these rotten democracies, i.e. Israel/Palestine etc is the UN. Dead effective now thanks to the US and UK. I don't think.


----------



## Loz180 (Sep 20, 2004)

I watched Faranheitt 9/11 the Moore Film about Bush and how he got to be president and where all the evidence was about 9/11.

Things that disturbed me.

Bush went to photo op the morning of 9/11 despite the alert of a threat.

Bush on being told of the attack sat there unmoved for 9 minutes while the cameras rolled. even his state officials looked puzzled by this! 

Bush waited till the other plane hit before getting up and leaving. it looked like he might have been told to get up and leave this time.

Bush has many saudi and Bin Laden Conections in business and the two families are VERY linked.

Osama is not outkast buy the family they were all seen at a family wedding

Oh, I could go on but enough already. the florida vote count that faked him into the presidency:

His cousin made the fox announcment that turned it for many!

His Brother is govener of the state

the Vote Count woman was in his pocket

Before they even got to the poles loads of black voters were removed from eligability to vote!!

Dodgy Scum.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

snaxo said:


> So the US solution will probably be to 'encourage' Israel to do it for them ('you guys owe us some favours, right'). Another great step in the Middle East peace process :roll:
> 
> Also, of course, it's not wise to open up to many flanks of attack at once....even the mighty US War (mongering) Machine will suffer diluted potency..
> 
> Damian


So I guess you watched Question Time last night as well?

I actually think that the Middle East would not be up in arms about the US attacking Iran. Nobody wants their neighbours to be developing nuclear weapons, especially given the huge dislike both internally and externally of the ayatollahs (or however you spell it!)


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

ag said:


> Am I the only one that feels ashamed to be British?


I'm not ashamed - why should I be?



ag said:


> I was under the impression we had a Ministry of Defence, not Attack.


It's a good job they do sometimes e.g. WWII. An attack can be a form of defence.



ag said:


> The current situation is extremely saddening because it is nothing more than the prolongation of previous wars that have never really been resolved.


True ... and we never learn :?



ag said:


> The Palestinian suicide bombers chose that method to alert the world to their plight as it is the ONLY corse open to them.


Strongly disagree - the blowing up of innocent civilians can NEVER be justified EVER.



ag said:


> The attack on the Twin Towers was a message to the US that the Arab world doesn't consider that the US policy towards Israel as either fair or logical. It was their only way of getting the world to notice.


It was a brutal, evil murder, nothing more and nothing less. Once again, to try and justify something horrific like this in any shape or form baffles me.



ag said:


> That Saddam was a dictator, and a bad one at that, is undoubted. That we in any way have the moral or poltical right to remove him is less certain.


Does genocide count - something the UN should have tackled years ago.



ag said:


> The people that were behind 9/11 were not religeous extremists.


  :x Yes they bloody were.

Moley


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

The counter attacks made during WW2 were due to genuine threats against a country we were at war with.



> Strongly disagree - the blowing up of innocent civilians can NEVER be justified EVER.


Moley, you miss my point. I'm not justifying their actions, simply trying to understand. Without understanding the cause of these conflict they will never be resolved. By the way innocent civilians can equaly apply to the 100,000 Iraqis who have lost their lives!



> ag wrote:
> The attack on the Twin Towers was a message to the US that the Arab world doesn't consider that the US policy towards Israel as either fair or logical. It was their only way of getting the world to notice.
> 
> It was a brutal, evil murder, nothing more and nothing less. Once again, to try and justify something horrific like this in any shape or form baffles me.


However shocked you are at an event of this nature, it is important to reflect on the causes in an attempt to prevent its recurrence.



> ag wrote:
> That Saddam was a dictator, and a bad one at that, is undoubted. That we in any way have the moral or poltical right to remove him is less certain.
> 
> Does genocide count - something the UN should have tackled years ago.


We have been rather late to react in many cases around the world, Ruwanda for example. But then they don't have oil and don't threaten Israel. Iraq has oil and can therefore destabilise the world economies. That is why it was attacked. Saddam was our friend during the Iran/Iraq war. He hasn't changed, he is no worse now than then and yet all of a suddden we want to sort him out. This is all about self interest and absolutely nothing to do with the welbeing of Iraqis.



> ag wrote:
> The people that were behind 9/11 were not religeous extremists.
> 
> Yes they bloody were.


Admittedly I generally don't read any of the American owned press, but nothing I have read about those involved with the terrorist attacks on the United States has lead me to believe that these acts were to convert people to Islam. They were targetted at the citizens of the western world to bring attention to the unbalanced way in which the US in particular was funding the Israelis domination of the Middle East. That certainly happened!  What they didn't understand was the complete inability of the US government to reflect on its foreign policy other than to say simply "Well damn me, isn't this just a great excuse to bomb the shit out of the Iraq's or whatever" And then to rally everyone around them.

The US government is arrogant and full of shit. They are immature bullies with no social conscience whatsoever exept to steal your dinner money. Unfortunately their actions and rhetoric spell it out clearly.

"You are either with me, or you're with the terrorists" Bollox, pure and simple. I am neither.

"The Axis of Evil" Evil per se is an invention of the Christian church. It is a concept that doesn't come naturally to Muslims. There are probably more terrorists living, working and funded from within the EU than Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"We will hunt down and kill all Al Kaida (sp)" Surely a fair trial and sentence for the actual crime that they have commited would send a message to the world that this is how modern society deals with problems of this nature. Bullying, and that is all it is, has no place on the playing field, even less at the diplomatic table.

You probably think that I am a weak minded liberal, but consider the fact that if you kick a dog it will bite you back. Beat a child, it will probably abuse its own children. Terrorise a country and it will eventually rise up and terrorise you. Unfortunately 20th century history has shown us this only too often.


----------



## snaxo (May 31, 2002)

raven said:


> snaxo said:
> 
> 
> > So the US solution will probably be to 'encourage' Israel to do it for them ('you guys owe us some favours, right'). Another great step in the Middle East peace process :roll:
> ...


Maybe, but they ALL hate Israel and any kind of action from the Isareli's just massively inflames any situation.

No didn't see question time - why who was on!?!

Damian


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

ag said:


> Moley, you miss my point. I'm not justifying their actions, simply trying to understand. Without understanding the cause of these conflict they will never be resolved.


Okay, but the understanding has to be on both sides. I think there'll always be fanatics (on both sides) who will never let a resolution happen.



ag said:


> By the way innocent civilians can equaly apply to the 100,000 Iraqis who have lost their lives!


I totally agree that there has been appalling carnage of innocents during this Iraq war. I was going to say that there is a difference between terrorists killing innocent civilians and civilians being killed in a war scenario, but ultimately they are all the same - innocent people.



ag said:


> We have been rather late to react in many cases around the world, Ruwanda for example. But then they don't have oil and don't threaten Israel. Iraq has oil and can therefore destabilise the world economies. That is why it was attacked.


This is too easy an answer for the Iraq case. The world was without Iraqi oil for 10 years or so - no destabilisation then.



ag said:


> Admittedly I generally don't read any of the American owned press, but nothing I have read about those involved with the terrorist attacks on the United States has lead me to believe that these acts were to convert people to Islam.


Their actions were to destroy us infidels and in the process of killing themselves they would ensure a path to their heaven. That's what suicide bombing is all about. So in my book it is irrevocably linked to religion (as most conflicts are :? ).



ag said:


> "The Axis of Evil" Evil per se is an invention of the Christian church. It is a concept that doesn't come naturally to Muslims. There are probably more terrorists living, working and funded from within the EU than Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


If you mean there are more non Muslim terrorists in the EU, I'm not sure I'd agree with that.



ag said:


> You probably think that I am a weak minded liberal, ...


Not at all, you are putting another side to this debate.



ag said:


> ... but consider the fact that if you kick a dog it will bite you back. Beat a child, it will probably abuse its own children. Terrorise a country and it will eventually rise up and terrorise you. Unfortunately 20th century history has shown us this only too often.


 The chicken and egg situation. If something misbehaves, correct "it". "It" may then feel hard done by and do something much worse, and so the spiral starts. This encompasses all the complex facets of human nature which results in the difficultly of resolving such situations.

Moley


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Interesting thread... interesting opinions 

Unfortunately there are no quick fixes... there is no easy answer... in fact there is no "single" answer. Not sure I'm smart enough to know the answer to how to solve the problems of the problems of the world.

I don't however believe the middle east problems and issues can be left alone. Something needs to be done and my biggest problem is that I would like other problems sorted first...

Yes, it makes me (very) sad when I see US, UK & Iraq citizens dying, but it makes me cry when I see children dying of starvation somewhere in the world... it makes me cry when I see the results of child abuse (sexual & physical).

I believe that priorities are focused on money by the leaders in this world. It IS what makes the world go round... and strangely some of it could be used to solve hunger/famine and crime, but it isn't as polarising and "glamorous" as starting a war.

Removing Bush as President of the US wouldn't solve anything IMO... there are too may deep rooted issues that would probably take decades to resolve.


----------



## Loz180 (Sep 20, 2004)

> Removing Bush as President of the US wouldn't solve anything IMO... there are too may deep rooted issues that would probably take decades to resolve.


might have been a good start though :?


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Maybe Loz... may not :?

I don't pretend to know the right answer. Like I said... I'm not sure there is a right answer. Who can tell what the REAL consequences would be if Kerry had won?

Does any know? Of course not... it is only conjecture.

Take WWII as an example... prior to it's start, no country had wanted to take Hitler on. The UK stood firm and decided to "go it alone"... against the might of world opinion (including the US). If the UK hadn't decided enough was enough and issue an ultimatum to Hitler, then he would have continued his evil path across Europe, Africa and Asia. We were brave in the face of world opinion... and it was OUR action (helped later by the US, etc) that stopped him. Simplistic I know, but it does have certain parallels... IMO. Churchill was decried in certain circles for continuing the battle against Hitler... Time told us he was proved right. It's not for me to say whether Osama Bin Laden will be judged as evil as Hitler... but we shouldn't believe that the easy route is always best. best for our conscience isn't always best for others... :?

I hope there are some really smart people out there that have some answers... because all I hear is opinion, conjecture and bullshit.



Loz180 said:


> > Removing Bush as President of the US wouldn't solve anything IMO... there are too may deep rooted issues that would probably take decades to resolve.
> 
> 
> might have been a good start though :?


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> s3_lurker said:
> 
> 
> > raven said:
> ...


My point entirely. The Bliar and Bush argument that it was OK to oust Saddam because he was a tyrant is a pure nonsene. The point implicit in your argument was that the war in Iraq was justifiable because Saddam was a despot. The world is full of despots. But they are all either insgnificant or too strong to resist (eg N.Korea, Iran). We invaded IRaq because Saddam had the oil and tried to kill Pappy Bush. The war was being planned BEFORE 9/11. The hypocrisy of our Beloved Leader in saying the war was to make the world more secure is breathtaking.


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

nutts said:


> I don't however believe the middle east problems and issues can be left alone.


Read today that Blair may be trying to organise a middle east summit in London. He'll be pressing Bush to attend. Got to be better than doing nothing.

Moley


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Whoever won the election was fairly academic. The two candidates were slightly varying hues of the same colour. Their judgement will always be clouded come payback time when those that have supported their election campaigns financially expect their views to count.

There is an interesting point though, why is it that a country that puts personal freedom higher than anything else (in public anyway), uses the word "Liberal" as a putdown?


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

moley said:


> ag said:
> 
> 
> > Am I the only one that feels ashamed to be British?


As a former military officer it really pisses me off when people say this.

If you want someone to criticise over the war try the media - its broadcasting 24/7 things that only adds fuel to the terroristâ€™s cause. Terrorism does not work without publicity. If the media isnâ€™t publicising a terrorist cause it giving out allied troop movements - total madness.

Look at the hostage taking, while Iâ€™m sure most people felt for the family of Ken Bigley. The media's portrayal of this act has cost more lives because the terrorist know they are stirring up public opinion. This means they will now take even more hostages because of the media reaction. TB was right to ignore the issue because he knew what it would lead to if he got involved. Governments have always known you can not negotiate with terrorist.

Would the changing of the president have made a difference - I doubt it, the us congress is the one who is running the war - it holds the purse strings The president actually needs the congress's approval to embark on any form of military engagement. Surely with the re-election of bush it only goes to strengthen that the majority of people are for the war.

If you want a way to complete the Iraq mission, then simply stop all reporting and remove the stupid rules of engagement that exist for the allied forces.

In todayâ€™s media run world I doubt very much if the allied forces would have won the Second World War. War is not nice and horrible things do happen that you never forget especially if you've taken part, but this is necessary for the greater good.

Support the troops.


----------



## jimfew (Mar 5, 2004)

Toshiba said:


> moley said:
> 
> 
> > ag said:
> ...


I am proud to be British and energetically support the troops. I think they are the best in the world. Look at the low key confidence building way they have run Basra compared to the US approach up north. Takes brains as well as brawn to to that.

However, I am sure you would not deny Moley his right to his view. That is the essence of what we are fighting for anyway. If he feels ashamed at the things that are done in his name, he needs to speak them. No politician cun run a country (even as a despot) without the consent of the people.

Jim.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

jimfew said:


> [I am proud to be British and energetically support the troops. I think they are the best in the world. Look at the low key confidence building way they have run Basra compared to the US approach up north. Takes brains as well as brawn to to that.
> 
> However, I am sure you would not deny Moley his right to his view. That is the essence of what we are fighting for anyway. If he feels ashamed at the things that are done in his name, he needs to speak them. No politician cun run a country (even as a despot) without the consent of the people.
> 
> Jim.


I donâ€™t deny him his right to his view, but thatâ€™s different to saying he's ashamed of being British. AG's views seem to be of one of a very Middle Eastern or blinkered muslim persuasion if you look back on the posts.

Does this means he's ashamed of all this country has achieved?

BTW it was aimed at AG not moley, I just picked the quote out of a reply from moley.


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> Look at the hostage taking, while Iâ€™m sure most people felt for the family of Ken Bigley. The media's portrayal of this act has cost more lives because the terrorist know they are stirring up public opinion. This means they will now take even more hostages because of the media reaction. TB was right to ignore the issue because he knew what it would lead to if he got involved. Governments have always known you can not negotiate with terrorist.


I have noticed that the press is suspiciously quiet about the kidnapping and hostage taking of Margaret Hassan.

After all she is British born. Could the lack of media hysteria be due to the fact that she is married to an Iraqi and has an Iraqi passport as well as a British one and therefore is not newsworthy.

The Press are f***ing hypocrites.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

StuarTT said:


> Toshiba said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the hostage taking, while Iâ€™m sure most people felt for the family of Ken Bigley. The media's portrayal of this act has cost more lives because the terrorist know they are stirring up public opinion. This means they will now take even more hostages because of the media reaction. TB was right to ignore the issue because he knew what it would lead to if he got involved. Governments have always known you can not negotiate with terrorist.
> ...


It could be that they have at last realised the negative impact they cause by publishing such plights.


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> StuarTT said:
> 
> 
> > Toshiba said:
> ...


Of course they know the impact... it sells bloody newspapers :x


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

nuttsOf course they know the impact... it sells bloody newspapers :x[/quote said:


> We'll i for one would not buy a newspaper for its headline.


----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

Toshiba said:


> BTW it was aimed at AG not moley, I just picked the quote out of a reply from moley.


Thanks for putting that straight :wink: I think I'm more in your court.

Moley


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

> ag wrote:
> Am I the only one that feels ashamed to be British?
> 
> As a former military officer it really pisses me off when people say this.
> ...


How can you blame the media? they blow things out of all proportion and print a never ending stream of lies. But that is not new. They do not, however, have the ultimate executive power necessary to invade another country. They have the power to shape public opinion, but TB had a total disregard for public opinion on this matter. What I am ashamed of is the fact that whereas in the past my country stood for honour and a sense of doing the right thing, TB has singlehandedly turned us into a puppet state in the eyes of the world. Following blindly where the US goes without asking any of the questions you would expect of a responsible nation prior to invading another country. Questions such as, what is the real objective? Can it be achieved? How long will it take? Are the probable results worth it? What are the alternatives? As far as I am aware none of these were looked at sufficiently because this is a conflict that will not be resolved in my lifetime, so it is unlikely to ever be worth it.

Much as I admire the work of our soldiers, especially as they appear to be more successful in calming potentially difficult situations than the US troops I cannot help but think of the old mantra "Do the right things right". However well our troops work and however successful their campaign, this wasn't the right thing to do. So the eventual result will always be fundamentally flawed. In this case a war that we can never hope to win. If the Germans had succeeded in invading the UK during the 2nd World War, however much some people agreed with their views, we would have resisted until such time as they were sent packing, by whatever means possible. War is a dirty business and the insurgents in Iraq are as aware of the media as they are about rockets and grenades. They will fight back until we have been kicked out. Any elections next year masquarading as a legitimate democracy in action will be a sorry sham for a self governing nation.

I wish I didn't think and feel all of the above, but until there are some genuine facts revealed by the government to substantiate ANY of their justifications for going to war, I will unfortunately feel the same way.

Please Tony, explain your thinking.


----------

