# Dubya in London next week



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

Bugger off. You're not wanted here. Go and close someone else's city down for four days.

[smiley=furious3.gif]


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

But he's our friend and is fighting for our peace...


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

Despite the price it will cost in security, we owe the Yanks many times over for what they have done for us. I think we should make him welcome.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Despite the price it will cost in security, we owe the Yanks many times over for what they have done for us. I think we should make him welcome.


The Yanks are great. It's the current Prez who is the problem. There's a BIG difference between being Anti-American and Anti-Bush. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD that threatened the Western World. But Dubya had Saddam in his sights before the skewed Florida vote put him in the White House.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Despite the price it will cost in security, we owe the Yanks many times over for what they have done for us. I think we should make him welcome.


What like the US remaining absolutely neutral to Hitler during 1940 and 1941 when 40,000 innocent British civilians died in UK cities during nightime Nazi bombing raids?

Thanks USA. Â Can you imagine if we had left it a year or more before condemning, joining forces and acting upon 9/11?

What happened after Pearl Harbour was more about the US imperialism in the Southern hemisphere, than it was was defending our freedom in Europe.

Our bacon was saved as much by Hitlers desire to take Russia and the resultant disasterous campaign that swallowed his resources and ultimatley broke him.

Of course the USA ended the war by dropping the first and only atomic bombs on Japan. Â Followed by 50 years Cold War arms race that put us all in jeopardy. And for that we should be grateful? :


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

I'm with gary on this one. It really winds me up when they say "if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking german". Well, if it wasn't for you being more interested in your failing economy than getting rid of a dicatator then, there would have been no holocaust and no cold war.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Last time a septic told me that we would all be speaking German if it were not for his coutry, I told him he would not be speaking English if it weren't for us. He looked confused.
W.


----------



## WattaMan (Sep 15, 2003)

> There's a BIG difference between being Anti-American and Anti-Bush


Totally agree. Yanks are generally alright and great for taking the piss out of 

Dubya on the other hand is a fucking liability.
Saddam is (was?) a genocidal maniac. Fact.
The Iraqi govt. (not fucking Regime) had no WMD worth going to war over. Fact.

Before this dumb war, the suggestion of an Iraq/Alqaeda connection was fundamentally flawed - they hate each other's guts. Fact.

Now, Iraq must be an Alqaeda recruitment officer's wet dream [smiley=cheers.gif] Dubya, YOU TWAT.

Now, Dubya, I'll say this slowly so you understand. FUCK OFF YOU TWAT. We don't want you over here mumbling about your "Good Book in one hand a rifle in the other".

I just hope all those lurvely reconstruction contracts make it worth your while. 
Fanks alot Dubya. YOU TWAT


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

> Totally agree. Yanks are generally alright and great for taking the piss out of Â
> 
> Dubya on the other hand is a fucking liability.
> Saddam is (was?) a genocidal maniac. Fact.
> ...


 :-/ Touched a nerve?  Not sure that Dubya reads the Forum, but you never know.

Of course, your whole argument could be applied to Blair as well... they're in it together... :

Have to say though, it does puzzle me why they let Mugabe carry on the way he does. Should really sort him out too. And I don't believe it has anything to do with oil actually.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Have to say though, it does puzzle me why they let Mugabe carry on the way he does. Should really sort him out too. And I don't believe it has anything to do with oil actually.


Trouble is one man's "sort him out" is another man's act of "freedom fighting".The perpetrators of 
9/11 wanted to "sort out" the USA and Bush.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> :-/ Touched a nerve?  Not sure that Dubya reads the Forum, but you never know.


You can bet the National Security Agency does. So let's be REAL careful what we say here!


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

I feel a bit thick but why are you calling him dubya (what does it mean)?

And as for the person who thinks it is not about oil - what do you think it is about?

W.


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

> I feel a bit thick but why are you calling him dubya (what does it mean)?
> 
> And as for the person who thinks it is not about oil - what do you think it is about?
> 
> W.


Dubya = "W" in an American accent = George W Bush (as opposed to his Dad).

I actually think it's about getting rid of perpetrators of terror. 9/11 made a lot of people sit up and think we're not going to let this happen any more. Saddam was an easy place to start.

By the way, it pisses me off that they talked about WMDs etc as that wasn't the real reason. In fact, in this regard, I think Bush was a lot more up front and honest than Tony Blair.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> I actually think it's about getting rid of perpetrators of terror. 9/11 made a lot of people sit up and think we're not going to let this happen any more. Saddam was an easy place to start.


Shame they didn't start with Northern Ireland then. With US acting against terror, a peace agreement could have been extablished years ago. But actually it ws the complete opposite - with the majority of Republican funding and open support for the IRA always coming from the USA.

Democracy huh? :


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> I feel a bit thick but why are you calling him dubya (what does it mean)?
> 
> W.


The clue is in your own sign-off


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

> Shame they didn't start with Northern Ireland then. Â With US acting against terror, a peace agreement could have been extablished years ago. Â But actually it ws the complete opposite - with the majority of Republican funding and open support for the IRA always coming from the USA.
> 
> Democracy huh? :


Agreed. 9/11 changed all of that of course. But better to have the Yanks on board later than never. It's just a shame it took such a tragic event to kick start them into action.

Striking similarities with Pearl Harbour / World War 2 you could argue. : :-/


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Apart from the fact that the Japs bombed a military base while Al Quaeda took out 3,000 civilians by hitting a non-military target
> 
> :-[


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

People should remember what was said re the election of Bush in the first place - they said there would be a reduction in US activities abroad and the US would be come more insular. I can't see much change - Bush is just making the whole World American.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Apart from the fact that the Japs bombed a military base while Al Quaeda took out 3,000 civilians by hitting a non-military target
> 
> :-[


Repeat. Hitler took out 40,000 British citizens in air raids between 1940 and 1941. America stood by neutral and watched this happen to us. How could we forget that?


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Repeat. Hitler took out 40,000 British citizens in air raids between 1940 and 1941. Â America stood by neutral and watched this happen to us. Â How could we forget that?


The USA gave Britain $30 billion worth of tanks, aircraft and ammunition under the Lend-Lease Act of 1940. Hardly any of that was paid back so it was actually a donation. Not really Roosevelt's fault that Adolf blitzed Britain.

And they also sent Ben Affleck over to help the RAF in the Battle of Britain.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> And they also sent Ben Affleck over to help the RAF in the Battle of Britain.


And the joey wrote off his plane...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> The USA gave Britain $30 billion worth of tanks, aircraft and ammunition under the Lend-Lease Act of 1940. Â Hardly any of that was paid back so it was actually a donation. Not really Roosevelt's fault that Adolf blitzed Britain.
> 
> And they also sent Ben Affleck over to help the RAF in the Battle of Britain.


Lend Lease was to let GB have 50 detroyers after 10 were lost in 10 days defending North Atlantic supply convoys. It created a major Foriegn Policy debate in Roosevelts administration, although he admitted after to driving it so that they could equip the allies whilst maintaining neutrality and preparing for war. The North Atlantic convoys were also vital to US export trade with Europe, so they had a vested interest in their security.

Eden oversaw repayment of approx one third of the debt. US wanted UK to hand over entire Bristish West Indies as cancellation of debt, but settled in the end for part cash and agreement for UK to host US airbases and ultimately missiles in the lead up to the Cold War years.

Ultimately they got as much as they gave out of GB, and still never condemned Hitlers blitz whilst they were neutral.

So if I understand your logic, we could have sent a fire engine over to New York following 9/11 and waited for two years to see if anything else happened before committing any support or condemning. After all not really Blair's fault that the Twin Towers were blitzed, more down to US foreign policy.

Good point about Ben Affleck though


----------



## raven (May 7, 2002)

But the US were not in any way ready for war in 1939 :-/. Didn't they have huge problems throughout the 30s and once GB entered the war, it took them a couple of years to mobilise and create an effective fighting force. :-/

Lack of foresight maybe, but to say they stood by and watched seems to me rather disingenious. Or perhaps you're doing a Flaxseed (or whatever he's called nowadays) and trying to stir things up? :

I don't know to be honest. Great thing about history though is that there's always another side to the story.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> But the US were not in any way ready for war in 1939 :-/. Didn't they have huge problems throughout the 30s and once GB entered the war, it took them a couple of years to mobilise and create an effective fighting force. :-/
> 
> Lack of foresight maybe, but to say they stood by and watched seems to me rather disingenious. Or perhaps you're doing a Flaxseed (or whatever he's called nowadays) and trying to stir things up? :
> 
> I don't know to be honest. Great thing about history though is that there's always another side to the story.


It was 1940-1941.

Me do a Seb? Â Nah. Â Although it could certainly do with livening up around here a little. 

My only point of wonder is that, ready or not, Â our greatest allies did not _have_ to be neutral during that time, and yes, that meant they in effect stood around and watched the news reels of this country being bombed for a year and 000s die.

It takes a lot to mitigate that in my view, but I'm sure the US had their reasons.


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Â our greatest allies did not _have_ to be neutral during that time,


Not sure the USA was "our greatest ally" before WW11. They got into WW1 fairly late as well and spent the 20's, and 30's being isolationist. The "special relationship" came about after they entereed WW2


----------

