If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
It is beginning
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,917323,00.html
The alliance forces have fromerly broken the ceasefire by moving into the demilitarised zone ahead of the ultimatum deadline tomorrow.
tariq Aziz is said to have feld or been shot trying........
The alliance forces have fromerly broken the ceasefire by moving into the demilitarised zone ahead of the ultimatum deadline tomorrow.
tariq Aziz is said to have feld or been shot trying........
0
Comments
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/waroniraq/articles/3895393?source=Evening%20Standard
In response to the events of 11 September 2001, POTUS George W Bush promised that the US would bring to reckoning both the terrorists who perpetrated the act, and those who sponsor/harbor terrorists, wherever/whoever they might be.
So be it.
Observe my countrymen in the photos, hanging from windows, then leaping to their death to escape the inferno.
Observe my brothers, preparing for the reckoning of one who sponsors terrorism, even upon his own nation.
So be it...
Wear it in health.
I've just put up a new thread about board behaviour during this conflict. could you please have a look?
cheers
BB
Iraq and the WoT have nothing, Nothing, NOTHING whatsoever to do with one another. This is a war for oil.
Yep, maybe if Zimbabwe had the same amount of oil Iraq has it would be a different story.
Yeah baby!:D
The Iraqis have retaliated to the coalition attack......
I dont think he'd be smiling too long if Bush did, certainly not as he would be a puddle of goo as well.
It actually wouldnt surprise me if chemical weapons were used by Bush on his own men, just to claim support for the war. Theyve already got a history of doing it in 1991, though not for the same reason.
Oh, and the War on Terrorism has as much in common with the war in Iraq as my shit does to a Scud missile. Just to remind you that Iraq, other than the Kurdish controlled area in the north, has nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
How is that so exactly?
During the war, oil prices will go up.
We get all the oil we need from the other Middle Eastern countries.
The US and UK are self sufficient in oil anyway
If it really is about oil then why aren't France, Germany and any other European nations who need the oil joining in?
try again.
Again, why are YOU linking it to the war on terrorism? Blair isn't. He wants Saddam stopped because those scuds contain chemicals far more lethal than your shit.
Yes, maybe the USA does have small stocks of bio/chemicals somewhere, it doesn't demonstrate their effectiveness by testing them on innocent people.
For your info, the US and certainly the UK are NOT self sufficient in oil. Both countries buy vast amounts from OPEC, which means heavy reliance on the Saudis. Controlling IRaq will give them the edge they need should they decide to phase out dependence on Saudi oil (especially now that theyve cleared the way for the Afghan pipeline into the Mid Asian oil sources as well).
Just because you dont want to believe that it is so doesnt change the fact that this is precisely what this war is about, start to finish.
And Bush and his cronies will be laughing all the way to the bank regardless of how many might die on either side.
:eek2:
Have you been reading the papers recently, Blair, powell, Straw, Rumsfeld, all the fools have been going on about the link to terrorism incessantly despite the fact that no-one believes them.
Do you know what the range of a Scud missile is?
If that was there only argument that Saddam posed a threat they would be laughed out of office.......
The US has stocks chemical and bio weapons that would dwarf what Saddam has. They are constantly researching new technology, this is the largets and most powerful army on the planet and chem/bio are part of their arsenal.....
There is also evidence that the US and UK have tested weapons on their own troops in the 50's and 60's, I do believe
The UK is self sufficient in the heavy fuel oils required for power generation as well as coal and natural gas, we export the stuff to Europe for christ's sake. It doesn't take too much engineering and bio-chemistry to refine the stuff so it is suitable at least for vehicles that require diesel fuel.
As for the US, Alaska is just one big oil well.
We import oil from the Middle East in order to pevent our own stocks diminishing too rapidly, if needs be we can use our own. And any fool can see that research into alternative fuels, albeit slow is getting faster.
People in the UK are far more concerned about the environment than our counterparts in the USA, and due to the volumes of traffic on our roads have a far more pressing need for alternative transport.
The US government doesn't use it on its own population, when was the last time you saw an anthrax missile hitting an indian reservation of Mexico?
The Uk government tested it on animals on an uninhabited island in Scotland, mustard gas and other agents were used on troops wearing full NBC gear, if anyone died it was from old age.
A scud, thanks to the embargoes should have a range of 100 miles, they probably have more which flies in the face of Saddam's incessant ramblings that they are harmless, doesn't it.
And Blair has kept quiet about any links with terrorism, his sole concern is the NBC weaponry Saddam has.
It also seems that the contracts are going to go to US companies.....
And aren't prices in the USA low enough already? I remember prices of about $5 a gallon when I went there not long ago. Seems they have too much oil....? So why lower prices more.
There is no such thing as too much oil.......
Actually you obviously must not keep abreast of too much world news at all. Most recently you might recall the Anthrax mail attacks which were at the very least proven to have originated from US military labs and nowhere else. The fact that the government has stonewalled the investigation only points to likely collusion by some high level military personnel with sufficient political and military connections to escape justice.
Prior to that, there is a case to be made for (and one which is believed by many gulf war 1 veterans) that the US took the opportunity to test new chemical or biological agents on our own men. I for one would not be surprised in the slightest that that in fact happened. We are dealing with a machine which has zero ethical or moral fibre whatsoever. Profit is all that matters to these nutcases.
Leaving aside the fact that Mexico is NOT part of the US, you halfwit, you are quite accurate. It tests on the populations of Chile, of Nicaragua, of Cuba, of Vietnam, of Malaysia, of Indonesia, instead. All far more charitable and kind, Im sure youll agree. After all, you do believe that Westerners are far more important than some poxy Third Worlder, theyre only uncivilised filth at the end of the day.
Old age troops? We havent had those since the 1940s. Surely you meant instead that elderly people were killed by mustard gas leaked, from, say, Porton Down. Oh, and why should we test chemicals on our own troops, theyre paid to fight not give ten generations of heir families serious genetic defects. Again, Porton Down.
They dont, but supposing they have, say, a range of 1000 miles, they still arent a threat to us, are they? They might conceivably hit Israel, but they wouldnt even hit London with a range five times that. Least of all New York, or LA. So why, exactly, is he a threat to us? Unless...
Blair and Bush harp on and on about Al Qaeda to justify hussein as a threat. Which they do...even if Hussein has NBC, which is unproven at the very least, he couldnt reach the US or UK with them using conventioanl weapons. An inter-ballistic missile would have difficulty getting beyond Dublin, and Scuds probably wouldnt even hit the Blkans from Iraq. So hes either of no threat, or hes a terrorist, both of which you disagree with. Which one is it then?
Yes, but you dont actually understand it, do you? Its not about price, its about CONTROL. When the US and UK gain control of the Iraqi oil, theyre not gonna flod the market with it, theyre going to hoard it and keep prices high. But the profits would then go to Bushs il-drilling paymasters, not OPEC. Dont you see that the US dont NEED the oil, they WANT it. Its about controlling thsoe pesky Saudis as much as anything- if OPEC dont behave, then the market could be flooded, but it wouldnt be.
Its the same principle that De Beers et al use to keep diamond prices incredibly high. Diamonds are plentiful, but they control the market so supply is stifled, leading to higher prices. You might want to research things more, and be less naive about everything Corrupt and Corrupter tell you.