Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Pucker Time

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
_1716435_150_chirac_schroeder_ap.jpg
"Jacques, we've got a problem--I don't think our 'silent partner' is going to stay that way!"

"I know, I know!! I'll have to call Kofi and see what he can do; in the meantime, keep harping about international law and contracts--remember, we can't let that damn cowboy turn Addam-Say Ussein-Hay into the bad guy here!! Now change your pants--they smell like merde...."

"Scheisse...."

"Whatever...."


putin.gif
"Boy, am I sure glad I'm not those guys--at least I can blame the Communists. Well, at least for the stuff before 1991. Oh, well, I can at least bring up the Chechens--that usually gets George off my back...."

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Let's spin the wheel...


    http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=78919038&f=409192893&m=2561940886


    "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What, and the US had no dealings with him what so ever, and UK companies honestly didnt arm him as well?

    And the US has no history of arming all kinds of dodgy leaders, and supporting them with cash. Or the UK, with its huge amount of arms and arms training exports to nasty dictators in Africa.

    It is massively hypocritical of any side in this to comment on the others actions. And to suggest that France didnt want to war purely for its own export gains is just stupid.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just more demonstration of selective consciousness. Something all the non-thinking sycophants can hoot and holler and slap one another on the back about. Nothing of any credible value to the political and material realities of the matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rumsfeld.80s.jpg

    k-bush-ap-pic.jpg

    Same old hypocrisy.

    Same old brutal dictators who are welcome to torture and kill thousands for as long as the mighty USA has a use for them.

    Same old brain-dead neo-con bushbots who are oblivious the whole thing.

    Whatcha think Thannie?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I think is that the US attempted the collaborator's "negotiations" and "diplomacy" far too long, and got down to doing what needed to be done.

    Why do you not pull up photo's of Neville Chamberlaine embracing Adolf Hitler? Counter-productive to your own "blinkered" vision???


    :lol:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    What I think is that the US attempted the collaborator's "negotiations" and "diplomacy" far too long, and got down to doing what needed to be done.

    But thats surely indicates that if only Saddam had been a good boy and invaded Iran instead of Kuwait then there wouldnt have been a problem.

    Unless the US is going to be moving into Pakistan any time soon...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dream on boy.

    The only reason Saddam was removed is because he had ceased to sing to Washington's tune.

    Human rights, world peace, "freedom" or non-existent WMDs had nothing to do with that.

    Are you really that naive/deluded that can't see that?

    In the meantime the US has made a monster that makes Saddam look like Mother Teresa its official new best friend.

    How about it Thanatos? Can you give us your insight on that? Will you remember Bush's handshake in 5, 10 or 15 years when the US has no further use for the President of Uzbekistan and announces to the world it's to embark in another war of liberation to rid the world of such evil?

    If you cannot answer by yourself please put the question forward to the world's biggest wankfest forum, and let's see if between all of you a satisfactory justification can be given.

    Ay Thanatos, ay!

    Ay! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe
    Why do you not pull up photo's of Neville Chamberlaine embracing Adolf Hitler? Counter-productive to your own "blinkered" vision???


    :lol:
    Photos of Chamberlain 'embracing' Hitler? Would surprise me.

    Anyway, NC resigned, after declaring war on Germany, whereas Rummy? Did not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Here's something to put a smile on your face Al.

    http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Uncle Joe
    Anyway, NC resigned, after declaring war on Germany, whereas Rummy? Did not.

    Wasn't NC forced to resign when he lost the support of the House?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Here's something to put a smile on your face Al.

    http://www.ericblumrich.com/idiot.html
    LOL :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok , Saddam used to be the Wests friend , but that was out of necessity. He was the counter weight to what was then seen (in the 70's-80's) as the aggressive power in the Middle East - the fundementalist state of Iran.

    All wars are fought for a reason, WW2- to stop Hitler. Vietnam - to prevent the spread of Communism. Korea - ditto. Gulf War 1 - protect Kuwait and Saudi and the oil. Gulf War 2- disarm a rogue regime and secure a base for democracy in the Middle East.

    And the UN? It has proven itself to be ineffective when faced with people who refuse to obey it - like Saddam. We could have gone on sanctioning and protesting and petitioning for ever , but Saddam would still be there.

    The most final form of justice comes from the barrel of a gun, not from a piece of paper or treaty. Remember 1939.

    Moan and sigh and shout all you want , but the war happened, history will vindicate it and Bush will be re-elected.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    History has already vindicated those who opposed this invasion as merely more of the same shortsighted and muddled manipulating by Washington of a region it in now way comprehends.

    Just as the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950's in Iran by US machinations and lies lead to the installation of the brutally repressive darling of Washington, The Shah (whose own reign belies the warmongers' claims of benevolent aims in the region) which lead to the populist uprising in favour of the theocratic state, so too will the present situation in Iraq prove any more lasting.

    Of course its all too convenient for the warmongers to say, oh Saddam was necessary and that excuses our duplicity in backing him until he dared nationalise the oil and stop handing our companies all the control of profits and production.

    Sorry Mat, doesnt work like that. If his evils warrant yet further ruination and destabilisation of the region by our military might and if he is to be tried for crimes against humanity, then those who aided and abetted those atrocities must needs ALSO be indicted for collusion in crimes against humanity (and that includes ALL parties French, German, Russian, US, et al.).

    Otherwise the rhetoric of the "rule of law" is meaningless.

    History will more likely demonstrate that Iraq is being primed for the installation of a new puppet front man who will surprisingly install most of Bush's handpicked pampered exiles in the Chalabi gang as his cabinet.

    Then you will see how great a sell out to US interests this becomes rather than any legitimate allowance for Self determination. What follows from there may well be nationalistic resurgence that makes the current resistance look amateurish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Wasn't NC forced to resign when he lost the support of the House?
    And?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Uncle Joe
    And?

    Well it was Parliament which made NC resign, rather than a man falling on his sword. He was happy with the approach which he had taken and would have continued as PM if he hadn't lost the confidence of Parliament after Norway... which was Churchill's fault anyway ;)

    Would have thought that it would need similar pressure from the two "Houses" in the US to achieve the same, and I can't see that happening can you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Well it was Parliament which made NC resign, rather than a man falling on his sword. He was happy with the approach which he had taken and would have continued as PM if he hadn't lost the confidence of Parliament after Norway... which was Churchill's fault anyway ;)

    Would have thought that it would need similar pressure from the two "Houses" in the US to achieve the same, and I can't see that happening can you?
    Regardless of whether Chamberlain was forced to resign, or chose to resign, Rumsfeld did neither. Since he was a relatively lowly official at the time, it shouldn't have been an issue of him resigning anyway, but of not getting to be Secretary of Defense in the first place (but how was anyone to know, unless they'd been protesting outside the Iraqi embassy at the time, that the gassing of Halabja would be an event that the American administration would want to use for propaganda purposes in later years, however embarrassing that would be for politicians of the time who have since risen in the world).

    The irony continues to be that Churchill would have had no more difficulty with the gassing of the Kurds than Rumsfeld, an irony that evidently continues to evade Bush.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Globe


    Why do you not pull up photo's of Neville Chamberlaine embracing Adolf Hitler? Counter-productive to your own "blinkered" vision???


    :lol:


    Neville Chamberlain hadn't just negotiated a successful arms contract. Idiot.
Sign In or Register to comment.