Home Politics & Debate
Take part in our Watch Club tonight at 7.30pm. We'll be talking about the TV series Euphoria! Join from this page.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

WHAT!!! - it can't be!

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by kevlar85
    Why are there no calls for Blair to be brought before Parliament because he lied to the House?
    Not just that (whatever happened to the noble tradition of not lying to Parliament, or the public), but surely there are grounds to charge G.W. Bush and Tony Blair with war crimes?

    There was a report in The Independent today that Tony Blair "sexed up" the dossier on WMDs to fool not only the public but Parliament and indeed the United Nations. Blair insisted on putting his infamous and much-ridiculed "WMDs ready for launching at 45 minutes notice" quote in, despite strong opposition from the intelligence services. Apparently the whole basis for this was a single source, which was not more reliable than a 20-year old Lada.

    So, misleading his country and the UN, attacking a sovereign nation under false pretenses and without authorisation, causing the deaths of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of soldiers... Methinks the case for the prosecution would be strong, if anyone had the balls to charge Bush and Blair with war crimes/crimes against humanity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well you well know from repeated statements Ive made just what I think Bush and co should be charged with, and its a darn sight more severe than war crimes charges. Problem in charging any head of state is finding the evidence which will almost certainly either have been shredded, deleted, or highly classified.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If Iraq didn't have W.M.D. it wasn't ethical to attack them. On the other hand...

    In the US a lot of people don't care if Iraq had WMD or not. At one time they had them and they have the mobile labs to produce weaponized antrax etc. The reality is, Iraq was made into an enemy and it was made into a divided country where Al Qaeda operated out of the north and gave a man ricin which he brought to London in January. That's a fact.

    Also, they found a terrorist training camp in the south with a airliner in place to test hijacking techniques. Terrorism of some kind was being conducted out of Iraq towards someone. Also Saddam paid for suicide bombers in Israel as well as offering Palestinians college educations as a way to get in with the Arab Street. So he was a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

    But perhaps, the most positive result of the war is that Arab countries know that they'd better get serious about cooperating with the US W.O.T. and also put an end to Muslim clerics preaching hatred on Fridays.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    The reality is, Iraq was made into an enemy and it was made into a divided country
    And whose fault is that? And how could it have been remedied overnight without the need for war?
    Saddam paid for suicide bombers in Israel
    No he didn't.
    as well as offering Palestinians college educations as a way to get in with the Arab Street.
    And what would be wrong with that?
    But perhaps, the most positive result of the war is that Arab countries know that they'd better get serious about cooperating with the US W.O.T. and also put an end to Muslim clerics preaching hatred on Fridays.
    LOL. Firstly, the war on Iraq HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with the war on terror. And secondly, the only effect it has had is raising the anti-American feeling in the Muslim world to unprecendented levels, providing hundreds if not thousands of new recruits for Al Qaida. Well done!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    If Iraq didn't have W.M.D. it wasn't ethical to attack them. On the other hand...

    In the US a lot of people don't care if Iraq had WMD or not. At one time they had them and they have the mobile labs to produce weaponized antrax etc. The reality is, Iraq was made into an enemy and it was made into a divided country where Al Qaeda operated out of the north and gave a man ricin which he brought to London in January. That's a fact.

    The people in the US need to learn not to be so gullible - the whole ricin came from Iraq theory was proved to be based on such a connection of tenuous links that it is virtually impossible to confirm or deny that it happened. Iraq was made into an enemy though, the US and British governments took any information they had in their files that even hinted that Iraq was trouble and presented it off as solid fact - if you throw enough mud at someone it sticks.
    Also, they found a terrorist training camp in the south with a airliner in place to test hijacking techniques. Terrorism of some kind was being conducted out of Iraq towards someone. Also Saddam paid for suicide bombers in Israel as well as offering Palestinians college educations as a way to get in with the Arab Street. So he was a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.
    I have not heard anything remotely like this which we would have if it was true it would be the smoking gun and everyone would be jumping up and down about it. Have we been listening to Fox again PNJ?
    But perhaps, the most positive result of the war is that Arab countries know that they'd better get serious about cooperating with the US W.O.T. and also put an end to Muslim clerics preaching hatred on Fridays.
    So in other words they should learn that the US is a bully that will come and get them if they dare to disagree with American policy and that they should also limit freedom of speech in their countries.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    In the US a lot of people don't care if Iraq had WMD or not. But

    If that is the case then why did the American people accept George Bush's statements on why the country was attacking Iraq?

    seems to me the Americans are so brainwashed and stupidy loyal that they don't really know what to believe in anymore...Not even the truth when it is put in front of them. Poor bastards!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So in other words they should learn that the US is a bully that will come and get them

    Exactly.

    Bush: "We will bring them to justice...or bring justice to them.:thumb:

    Regarding the camp with the passenger plane for terrorist training. It was shown on CNN.

    The BBC most your most unreliable source for this war. They were against it from the start and would do anything, including lies and misinformation about IRA funding and the rescue of our POWs, to discredit the war.

    Thinking the war was wrong is a valid point of view. Thinking you could come to that conclusion well by watching the BBC is wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Exactly.

    Bush: "We will bring them to justice...or bring justice to them.:thumb:

    Regarding the camp with the passenger plane for terrorist training. It was shown on CNN.

    The BBC most your most unreliable source for this war. They were against it from the start and would do anything, including lies and misinformation about IRA funding and the rescue of our POWs, to discredit the war.

    Thinking the war was wrong is a valid point of view. Thinking you could come to that conclusion well by watching the BBC is wrong.

    OH JESUS WEPT _ SOMEBODY CALL THE NURSES!! I am really sorry but the BBC has been accused at one time or another during the war of siding too far with the government and then dsiding too far with the 'terrorists' - The reality is that the BBC is funded in such a way that out of all the TV channels throughout the world it is the least likely one to be biased, bribed or telling lies.
    The BBC has never stated that they are against the war, this is not their job. As a publically funded corporation they let the public have their say using informed dbate, they don't dictate the news they report it!!


    PNJ - you cannot accuse people of telling lies just because you do not believe what they are showing you.

    Has the BBC lied about the latest statement from Mr Rumsfeld? Has the BBC lied about the fact that the weapon making factories supposedly discovered in Iraq have been proven to be harmless (Despite the fact that the USA went overboard and claimed they had found what they were looking for weeks before they had any evidence)

    Sit back and have a think about what YOU are being fed. It does your intelegence no good to blindly follow someone who is clearly distorting the truth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    byny I'm sure you have a valid point. Our Public Broadcasting Company tends to have a liberal bias. And God knows we have a counter balance to any liberalism in the Fox Network. In fact my dad says he has never seen a broadcaster go after their competition in the liberal press, or just liberals in general, the way Fox has.

    Some important advisor to Clinton said he's been around Washington a long time, and has never seen a slicker or shrewder politician than Bush....even his father wasn't as slick..he said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-28-rumsfeld-iraq_x.htm

    Clandestine, there's the link you requested to an article where Rumsfield says the weapons may have been destroyed before the war.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Islamic militant group Hamas could agree as early as next week to halt deadly attacks on Israelis, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas said in comments published Thursday...


    Posted so you understand where I get my viewpoint that the Iraqi war led to some good outcomes because Saddam was a negative influence in the region.

    And Sharon seems serious about Israel pulling out of the West Bank for good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I am not entirely clear how the current break through in Israel/Palestine has anything to do with Saddam.....:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Saddam had NOTHING to do with the peace process in the Middle East; nor did he influence in any way the frequency of suicide bombings.

    Please stop swallowing the bullshit your government and the Murdoch press keep spoon-feeding you to justify the illegal war on Iraq.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know what, for the sake of the international community, can we just remake the Lone Ranger with Dubya as the leading man? He can have his own little gun to play with and of course we in Britain would happily lend out Tony Blair to play Tonto! Then the grown ups of the world can discuss international relations in a mature way.

    Seriously though, what the hell gives that gunslinging Texan moral superiority over anyone else? What makes his definition of justice right? I won't even go into the system of American justice that put him in office and allows white cops to beat up black suspects. The world is not a china shop for the American bull to charge into and cause chaos, America has no right to just invade sovereign nations because it wants to this is why the UN was created to stop this sort of abuse of power.

    The passenger plane thing - I have not seen it mentioned on the BBC News website, I have not seen it on news broadcasts - not only the BBC but also ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or Sky or in my newspapers, no-one on here seems to have heard of it but I will stand corrected if any British poster has.

    PNJ you could (and do) a lot worse than use the BBC as your main source of news. It is fair and impartial - it was attacked by both peace campaigners for supporting the government and by the right wing press for "stabbing our boys in the back" - when both sides of the argument oppose the BBC you can generally know that you are being told the truth. If the BBC was known to deliberately mislead the British people for political reasons there would be total uproar and everyone from the director general to the tea boy would be out on their ear. The BBC has a history of the highest quality investigative journalism rather than just repeating White House press releases like American news stations or in some cases creating an even better press for Bush (Fox).

    On the contrary PNJ it is you who needs to re-examine where you get your news. Maybe you should look at foreign news sites and see what they say about American foreign policy - you will find hardly any Britons who like your President or your country's foreign policy and we are one of your closest allies - think about how the Middle Eastern nations are reacting. Maybe their governments are fearful but their people will be angry and seeking revenge - your government is sending these people flocking to Al-Qaeda.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet


    has never seen a slicker or shrewder politician than Bush....even his father wasn't as slick..he said.

    JESUS IF THATS INTERPRETED AS sLICK THEN i AM REALLY WORRIED!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru



    Kevlar

    We are miles ahead of Europe regarding diversity initiatives and integration.

    That's why recently Al Qaeda was found out again when they tried to recruit African Americans and Muslims and were turned in.
    JESUS IF THATS INTERPRETED AS sLICK THEN i AM REALLY WORRIED

    Slick meaning dishonest but smooth about it. Undetectable.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet

    We are miles ahead of Europe regarding diversity initiatives and integration.

    That's why recently Al Qaeda was found out again when they tried to recruit African Americans and Muslims and were turned in.



    Slick meaning dishonest but smooth about it. Undetectable.

    How you ahead of us integration wise? I live in very ethnically diverse areas (I live with someome from China). When I have visited the cotinenet they have been very diverse as well and you rarely hear of trouble from anything but a minority.

    As for Bush being undetecatble, nearly everyone on this site knows he is a crook, are we just much more hyper intelligent than the average person?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    undetecatble

    He's been getting away with a lot...this guy from the Clinton Administration feels.

    Diversity in terms of laws, protection all of that. The continent is not. The UK might be.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There ya go spouting off about what you have absolutely no knwoledge of whatsoever. I challenge you to prove your claims with hard evidence pnj!

    The US is miles behind the EU in respect for human rights, tolerance, integration, and asylum policy (as your own post on the Pakistani exodus only further highlights).

    When you grow out of your "Mr. Know It All" youthful gullibility and perhaps bother to experience firsthand any part of Europe, you might realise just how stupid you continually appear on these boards with your groundless claims and beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    He's been getting away with a lot...this guy from the Clinton Administration feels.

    Diversity in terms of laws, protection all of that. The continent is not. The UK might be.

    Bush has got away with a lot, he is effectively chipping away at the American constitution to create a neo-conservative state. He has the backing of the federal courts which Reagan packed with right wingers in the 1980s and has Congress supporting him with a strong Republican position since 1994 and the Democrats are too scared to oppose him for fear of being called traitors.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My dad said for me to watch the major attack on the liberal media that's going on here too. ...to discredit them. And we're not talking some little nothing papers. I mean the NY Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune and LA Times...by either the administration or the Fox Network.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    pnj ...if everyone including your dad is telling you that bush is a lying thieving coniving little shit ...why are you still saluting him?
    sit down and think for youself ...don't read stuff, just sit and have a quiet think. ask yourself why most of the planet are becoming ever more anti american. try to answer in an adult fashion ...none of this their all jealous shit is adult ok?
    the distrust, hatred and fear has been rising rapidly since .........






























    a very dodgy election put dubya in power, the very man that most people in the world dreaded becoming president.
    before he became president people around the world were saying, 'if bush becomes president there will be new wars, huge poverty in america. the world will become realy scary'.
    do you remember any of that stuff?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't remember anything before Bush but I believe you. I'm not pro-Bush, I'm afraid of not doing everything we can against terrorism.

    Don't worry, I'm all ears around here. I'm listening. I like fighting with dad sometimes though. Just to fight. :naughty:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you don't remember anything before bush then perhaps you really do need to sit down and do some thinking and reading and searching and listening because you cannot present facts based upon such a small perspective...please...listen to Mr Roll and Think and learn before you present the 'facts'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    Some important advisor to Clinton said he's been around Washington a long time, and has never seen a slicker or shrewder politician than Bush....even his father wasn't as slick..he said.
    We have those over here, too. 'Advisors', 'colleagues', 'close friends', 'spokesmen/women', 'sources', 'pals'... they give the best exclusives.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by pnjsurferpoet
    I don't remember anything before Bush

    Dear god... :eek:

    Have you been brainwashed? I mean, Bush hasn't been in power that long (though IMO it's far too long)...

    As Byny said, sit down, research things, think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I hope all American kids havnt been brainwashed like PNJ:(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes , the Clinton administration were a bunch of liars and crooks.

    Who can forget Miss Lewinsky and the words 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'

    Ok , so no weapons , perhaps he destroyed them , or buried them , or perhaps Saddam took them with him if he fled Iraq.

    No more Saddam = Good for iraq and its people.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the Clinton administration were a bunch of liars and crooks

    So do enlighten us Mat as to precisely when it was that you became politically conscious? I suspect it wasn't too long before pnj! :lol:

    Grasping at a sex scandal as the most damning indictment against an administration which enhanced the US's diplomatic standing, reversed the runaway budget deficit of the Reagan/Bush Sr. era and restored strength to the US economy with sound economic policies, only shows how petty your Sun spin-drenched comprehension of the American political scene is.

    As for Iraq, the situation grows worse by the day with increasing lawlessness, the further departures of US administrators in aknowledgement of the inefficacy of dictating to a sovereign people how they must conduct their affairs and the increasing erosion of America's allied relations as well as national credibility.

    Like pnj, you'd do well to open your eyes and truly investigate just who is profiting from the conquest of Iraq whilst the Iraqi death toll mounts and increasing numbers of Americans are lining up for the dole.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Back to the topic in hand, I see that Rumsfield has done yet another U-turn and said today he has "no doubt WMDs will be found".

    Call me paranoid but this is extremely suspicious. First he admits WMDs might never be found, and now that there has been another outcry about the real reasons for the war (if not so much in the US, certainly here) he backtracks yet again and says weapons "will be found".

    Surely not a damage limitation exercise for Blair after the grilling he has received from left and right wing press alike?

    Could there be a transport plane on its way to Iraq carrying "evidence" as we speak? Perhaps some of those 2,000 tonnes of chemical and biological weapons they've just found buried in an army base near Washington, of which no-one had knowledge. :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.