I have heard a lot recently about what a bad man George Bush is,Why?, there is nothing wrong with him at all! He is a good man who was faced with 9/11as soon as he was elected and had to take very serious decisions to combat the terrorist threat and did what he thought was right, so why is he being pilloried from pillar to post?.

According to some newspapers, he is an idiot and a dumbell, I don't agree because a person who has served as a state governer can't be an idiot, on the contrary they must be intelligent, it is the journalists in question who are idiots who think they can force their egoistical outrageous fantasies on a mainly gullible public and get away unscathed after wrecking a persons career as we have witnessed many times over the years.

Originally posted by halevan
I have heard a lot recently about what a bad man George Bush is,Why?, there is nothing wrong with him at all! He is a good man who was faced with 9/11as soon as he was elected and had to take very serious decisions to combat the terrorist threat and did what he thought was right, so why is he being pilloried from pillar to post?.

According to some newspapers, he is an idiot and a dumbell, I don't agree because a person who has served as a state governer can't be an idiot, on the contrary they must be intelligent, it is the journalists in question who are idiots who think they can force their egoistical outrageous fantasies on a mainly gullible public and get away unscathed after wrecking a persons career as we have witnessed many times over the years.

maybe you should read Michael Moore's 'Stupid White Men' and gain an realistic insight into Mr Bush and his daddy.

...and get a brazilian wax. :D

A Brazillian whacks who?

Don't worry, Brazil's safe from attack. They're not Islamic, so I guess they can't hold weapons of mass destruction :rolleyes:...

well the US has already bombed alot places including parts of south america...

Originally posted by tinajones
well the US has already bombed alot places including parts of south america...
Not forgetting the 200,000 Guatemalan peasants executed and tortured by CIA death squads.

Absolutely true. Prez Clinton even went there to apologise for it. Yet we never hear about it....

Yeah but if Americans do it it's ok :loopy:

He's no idiot or dumbell, his popular portrayal is also well known to be a caricature.

But he is presiding over an unprecedented shift in american policy, induced by the events of 010911 but neverthless nascent for some time, as demonstrated in the output of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Some people like me, believe that the day the US feels it can start pre-emptive wars against whom it chooses, whilst still propping rightwing dictatorships and selling arms to whoever, is a bad one.

This visit, planned as a triumphant welcome for a swift decsion making friend of the KU has tunred into a bitter debate about the rights and wrongs of going to war.

That in itself tells you something about the mood of the nation, that at least a part of it, (and a lesser part of it than support bush's visit admittedly) resent the current US administration as one that prosecutes wars for material purposes, whilst claiming a false moral high ground.

I was sent this via email the other day. Sorry don't know the source.

Welcome the President
================

> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
>
> I attacked and took over two countries.
>
> I spent the US surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury.
>
> I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not
> easy!).
>
> I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any 12
> month period.
>
> I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock
> market.
>
> I am the first President in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
>
> In my first year in office I set the all-time record for most days on
> vacation by any other President in US history (tough to beat my dad's
> record, but I did).
>
> After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, I presided over
> the worst security failure in US history.
>
> I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by any other President
> in US history.
>
> In my first two years in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs.
>
> I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other
> President in US history.
>
> I set the all-time record for most real estate foreclosures in a 12-month
> period.
>
> I appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any
> other President in US history.
>
> I set the record for the fewest press conferences of any other President
> since the advent of TV.
>
> I signed more laws and executive orders amending the Constitution than any
> other US President in history.
>
> I presided over the biggest energy crisis in US history and refused to
> intervene when corruption was revealed.
>
> I cut health care benefits for war veterans.
>
> I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take
> to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for
> protest against any person in the history of mankind.
>
> I dissolved more international treaties than any other President in US
> history.
>
> I've made my Presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any other
> in
> US history.
>
> Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history.
> (The poorest multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker
> named after her.)
>
> I am the first President in US history to have all 50 states of the Union
> simultaneously struggle against bankruptcy.
>
> I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud in any market in
> any country in the history of the world.
>
> I am the first President in US history to order a US attack AND military
> occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the
> United Nations and the vast majority of the international community.
>
> I have created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history
> of the United States, called the "Bureau of Homeland Security," (only one
> letter away from BS.)
>
> I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases,
> more
> than any other President in US history (Reagan was tough to beat, but I did
> it!!
>
> I am the first President in US history to compel the United Nations remove
> the US from the Human Rights Commission.
>
> I am the first President in US history to have the United Nations remove
> the
> US from the Elections Monitoring Board.
>
> I removed more checks and balances and have the least amount of
> congressional oversight than any other presidential administration in US
> history.
>
> I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
>
> I withdrew from the World Court of Law.
>
> I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default
> no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
>
> I am the first President in US history to refuse United Nations' election
> inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.
>
> I am the all-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign
> donations. The biggest lifetime contributor to my campaign, who is also one
> of my best friends, presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy
> frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
>
> I spent more money on polls and focus groups than any other President in US
> history.
>
> I took the world's sympathy for the US after 9/11, and in less than a year
> made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest
> diplomatic failure in US and world history).
>
> I am the first US President in history to have a majority of the people of
> Europe (71%) view my Presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
> stability.
>
> I changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government
> contracts.
>
> I set the all-time record for the number of administration appointees who
> violated US law by not selling their huge investments in corporations
> bidding for government contracts.
>
> I have removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any
> other President in US history.
>
> I entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than
> two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
>
> RECORDS AND REFERENCES: I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in
> Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
>
> I was AWOL from the National Guard and deserted the military during time of
> war.
>
> I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
>
> All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my
> father's library, sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
> All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt
> companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
> All minutes of meetings of any public corporation for which I served on the
> board are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
>
> Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public
> energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
>
> GEORGE W. BUSH The White House, Washington, DC
>

I wonder how many (quid pro pro) of the above that Blair is guilty of.:rolleyes:

Well looky here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html), seems Richard Perle (one of Bush's PNAC cronies) has come out and admitted what we already know, that the Iraq war was illegal.

Originally posted by halevan
I don't agree because a person who has served as a state governer can't be an idiot, on the contrary they must be intelligent,
I wouldn't say Arnie's the sharpest knife in the rack TBH. (Although I wouldn't say that to his face.)

Originally posted by Carlwarker
I wonder how many (quid pro pro) of the above that Blair is guilty of.:rolleyes:
Come on then, put us out of our misery. How many?

Originally posted by max
Come on then, put us out of our misery. How many?

I'm sure you're quite capable of counting.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Carlwarker
I'm sure you're quite capable of counting.:rolleyes: I wasn't sure whether to use the reciprocal or not.:D

Originally posted by max
I wasn't sure whether to use the reciprocal or not.:D

Here's a reciprication for you:

You should be - you're used to turning things upside-down, whereas, when I'm aware of a 'self-error' I try to rectify it.

ps. (seriously) how's the cam-printer search going?

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Here's a reciprication for you:

You should be - you're used to turning things upside-down, whereas, when I'm aware of a 'self-error' I try to rectify it.

ps. (seriously) how's the cam-printer search going?

Bit puzzled about the upside down bit but I do admit my errors, too.

The cam-printer thing is a bit iffy at the mo. It's for my father, as I probably mentioned before. I found the Kodak one bundled with one of their Easy Share cameras for £200 and told him about that. You don't need a PC but then you hit the problem of storage. Should he buy several memory sticks and send them to me to download to my PC and then I send them back? Whichever option he chooses it leads to more questions. He doesn't want to buy a PC and he lives too far away for me to visit more than a couple of times a year. Aaargh, wish I'd never shown him my camera now.

Apart from robh's suggestion, I can't help. Pity he's so adamant about not getting a pc (or Macs - pun intended):) I was in my sixties when I started - and now, it's the big time-consuming part of my life - I'm addicted.

ps. I'm also 'Bushed'.:)

Wahey! Sheffield Samba Bands Heads BBC submitted pics of London Demo

See the Sheffield Samba Band in action in London! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/03/magazine_bush_protests_2/html/1.stm) Way to Go Dave! (Nearest Drummer).

Anyone just see the demonstrators pull down that statue of Bush - made me smile :D

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Anyone just see the demonstrators pull down that statue of Bush - made me smile :D

Why? I see it as a mockery of the Iraqis who felt it a necessary symbol to coincide with their new found freedom. On the other hand, the anti-war demonstrators already have the freedom. A lot of the anti-war demonstrators are simply anti-American, not just anti-Bush. Why burn USA flags? This is offensive to American citizens, not just their President. The answer is they are simply anti-American, or, racist, as some might put it. This kind of action sends out the message that the British don't like the American people and will hardly boost the numbers of tourists here from the US. Whether or not the war was justified, the outcome is surely positive for a lot of Iraqis who were suffering from years of oppression and in many cases, the threat of violence, torture, and death, often carried out. Would you rather the Iraqis lived under a regime like this?

Well i would agree with most of that but there are many American citizens also anti Bush who also disagree with the war.
I to think this war was more than justified and it was'nt an over night decision to bomb Iraq, sadam had 11 years advance warning and he thought he was unmovable because the Iraqie feared him so much.
How wrong he was.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Anyone just see the demonstrators pull down that statue of Bush - made me smile :D

As regards the mock Bush statue toppling, surely, it was also a parody of the over-hyped, much publicized and ‘lying’ photo of the Saddam statue toppling – at least, this one (the Bush toppling) was genuine - even if a publicity stunt.

See:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

and

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3024.htm

Whether you agree with the war or not you've got to admit that it's nice to live in a country where we can demonstrate.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
Well i would agree with most of that but there are many American citizens also anti Bush who also disagree with the war.
I to think this war was more than justified and it was'nt an over night decision to bomb Iraq, sadam had 11 years advance warning and he thought he was unmovable because the Iraqie feared him so much.
How wrong he was.

And how wrong Bush and Blair were to think that they would be welcomed with open arms.

Originally posted by max
Whether you agree with the war or not you've got to admit that it's nice to live in a country where we can demonstrate.

Only 'when' and 'where' the so-called authorities allow it.

According to some reports, one-ninth of the entire police force commandered to 'protect' this mass-murderer Bush.

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
Well i would agree with most of that but there are many American citizens also anti Bush who also disagree with the war.
I to think this war was more than justified and it was'nt an over night decision to bomb Iraq, sadam had 11 years advance warning and he thought he was unmovable because the Iraqie feared him so much.
How wrong he was.
To be strictly accurate, US and UK have bombed Iraq at least once a week on average for 11 years since the last Gulf War, which never ended, and was only put on hold through a cease fire - not a surrender (formal end to hostilities)

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Only 'when' and 'where' the so-called authorities allow it.

According to some reports, one-ninth of the entire police force commandered to 'protect' this mass-murderer Bush.


The extra police and other security forces aren't there to protect Bush from the silly protestors freedom of speech! More to do with the risk of terrorists or an assassination. I fail to see how protecting someone at danger from terrorists is restricting anyones freedom of speech. All the Daily Mirror readers, socialist nuts, and general 'protest against anything' hippy types can still wave around their banners and shout what they like. The extra police aren't stopping them, and you can hardly say that the (somewhat biased left wing media) aren't giving them any coverage.

Let's look at two items concerning Bush and the cretin Blair!

The present visit can be construed as electioneering by Bush....Can be!

Then the other issue, which Blair is promising to look at, is the steel and textile tarrifs (illegal) that the USA are implimenting.

This too is electioneering by virtue of protecting two large vote carrying US states from European competition.

Blair full well knows this but is spouting the rubbish that he is going to mention it to Bush.

We must wait and see how this turns out in the light of Bush's response and Blair's two facedness. He kids some of us not.

Originally posted by t020
The extra police and other security forces aren't there to protect Bush from the silly protestors freedom of speech! More to do with the risk of terrorists or an assassination. I fail to see how protecting someone at danger from terrorists is restricting anyones freedom of speech. All the Daily Mirror readers, socialist nuts, and general 'protest against anything' hippy types can still wave around their banners and shout what they like. The extra police aren't stopping them, and you can hardly say that the (somewhat biased left wing media) aren't giving them any coverage.

And I wonder why there may be a risk from terrorists - certainly not because of the demonstrators.:rolleyes:

I don't condone political assassinations, or any other form of deliberate killing - but having mass-murderers like Bush and Blair in power, tends to make one re-think - all be-it metaphorically.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And I wonder why there may be a risk from terrorists - certainly not because of the demonstrators.:rolleyes:




Because there were no terrorist attacks at all before the war in Iraq, were there........

Lets also not forget how easy it would be for terrorists to disguise themselves as protestors. The fact is, agree with him or not, he's here, and we can hardly provide inadequate protection to the president and royal family alike.

Originally posted by t020
Because there were no terrorist attacks at all before the war in Iraq, were there........

Lets also not forget how easy it would be for terrorists to disguise themselves as protestors. The fact is, agree with him or not, he's here, and we can hardly provide inadequate protection to the president and royal family alike.
I believe George Bush should receive the same security coverage as the Royal Family. i.e. not very much.

For a popular leader, Mr Bush drives around as if he were the most hated man on the planet. (His security, NBC limousine, zero public exposure strategy)

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And how wrong Bush and Blair were to think that they would be welcomed with open arms. That's because they're using arms.

Originally posted by t020
Because there were no terrorist attacks at all before the war in Iraq, were there........


I know you're probably not old enough to remember but there was the little matter of the Twin Towers.

Originally posted by max
I know you're probably not old enough to remember but there was the little matter of the Twin Towers.

But nothing to do with Saddam.

Originally posted by Carlwarker
But nothing to do with Saddam.
Oops, forgot that bit, thanks.

Originally posted by max
I know you're probably not old enough to remember but there was the little matter of the Twin Towers.

I think that was a bit of irony on T020s part Max

Originally posted by Carlwarker
I wonder how many (quid pro pro) of the above that Blair is guilty of.:rolleyes:

Yep, I laugh when people call Bush a warmonger and leave Blair out of the equasion. Blair has had 5 wars in 6 years. Good going innit?

Originally posted by t020
Why? I see it as a mockery of the Iraqis who felt it a necessary symbol to coincide with their new found freedom. On the other hand, the anti-war demonstrators already have the freedom. A lot of the anti-war demonstrators are simply anti-American, not just anti-Bush. Why burn USA flags? This is offensive to American citizens, not just their President. The answer is they are simply anti-American, or, racist, as some might put it. This kind of action sends out the message that the British don't like the American people and will hardly boost the numbers of tourists here from the US. Whether or not the war was justified, the outcome is surely positive for a lot of Iraqis who were suffering from years of oppression and in many cases, the threat of violence, torture, and death, often carried out. Would you rather the Iraqis lived under a regime like this?

Here Here, I agree with you one hundred per cent, Blair and Bush had to go into Iraq as Hussain was putting two fingers up to the whole World and he would have carried on attacking other countries especially Israel and with nuclear weapons ( it was only a matter of time ) Then we would have had to have gone in with the same, so involving the World in Armaggeden. ( Think about it! )

Originally posted by halevan
Here Here, I agree with you one hundred per cent, Blair and Bush had to go into Iraq as Hussain was putting two fingers up to the whole World and he would have carried on attacking other countries especially Israel and with nuclear weapons ( it was only a matter of time ) Then we would have had to have gone in with the same, so involving the World in Armaggeden. ( Think about it! )
I don't remember hearing any calls from Iran or Kuwait asking the US and the UK to rid them of the threat from Iraq? The opposite I think.

As for the so called evidence about the Iraq nuclear programme, most has been proven to be forgeries. They may have wanted these weapons but they were never going to get them whilst weapon inspectors and certain sanctions were in place. Even if they did, why would they launch a nuclear attack on Israel? They would have only responded with their own nuclear weapons and wiped them out too!?!?

So that leaves the sticking up of two fingers. So that crime justifies the spending of billions of pounds to killing 10's of thousands of people and increase the threat of terrorism?!?!?

Think about it!

Originally posted by halevan
Here Here, I agree with you one hundred per cent, Blair and Bush had to go into Iraq as Hussain was putting two fingers up to the whole World and he would have carried on attacking other countries especially Israel and with nuclear weapons ( it was only a matter of time ) Then we would have had to have gone in with the same, so involving the World in Armaggeden. ( Think about it! )

I wonder if the families of those recently killed in Turkey think it was a roaring success.

T020 does have a point though.. No I cant say that.. Can I?

No Belle, he doesn't have a point. The point he made:
by t020
Because there were no terrorist attacks at all before the war in Iraq, were there........

Lets also not forget how easy it would be for terrorists to disguise themselves as protestors. The fact is, agree with him or not, he's here, and we can hardly provide inadequate protection to the president and royal family alike.

Implicit in the first irony is that Gulf War II has not had any effect on the terrorist situation. Yesterday's events in Istanbul compound the fact that this is not the case. Aside from terrorist attacks in Iraq, which were very rare before the illegal invasion, there has been an escalation of terrorism against perceived western targets.

The thing about terrorism is this - and the IRA summed it up very well after the Brighton Bombing failed to kill Thatcher - "You will have to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once"

Borne out by the twin towers atrocity.

Gulf War II has effectively created a whole new generation of arabs under occupation, which has been shown to be (palestine) the most fertile ground imaginable for recruiting men into terrorism.

The second point about how "easy it would be for terrorists to disguise themselves as protestors" is a non point. The same is true of all groups of people that gather together - football fans, shoppers, tourists. It also assumes the target is George Bush. Why bother?

From a terrorist perspective, the tougher the security measures around the great and the good and the more vigorous anti terrorist measure are taken, the softer the target you choose.

We had just about got to the point of not being bombed by Irish fanatical nationalist terrorists (note: we did this by negotiation after years of military intervention.) Now with Gulf War II we have deliberately provoked a shadowy organisation (AQ), but in doing so we have also provided it with more recruits than it can shake a stick at.

Is it just me or does this strike anyone else as utterly stupid? (not you t020, the current US/UK policy on counter insurgency and the middle east)

The thing to do, in my opinion, would be to support the islamic revolutionaries against the kingdom of the Sauds - which is AQ's stated aim. The Saudi regime is as evil and repressive as any in the region, if not even more autocratic and vicious than most, so we would have no moral problems going in to liberate the poor people of Saudi right?

Oh, but wait, they are one of our biggest customers for arms and law enforcement hardware. More to the point, they like US fighter planes, which are very, very expensive.

Originally posted by Belle
I think that was a bit of irony on T020s part Max

Oops, so used to vitriol I missed the irony.:blush:

Originally posted by max
Oops, so used to vitriol I missed the irony.:blush:

I think it was more attempted 'sarcasm' than 'irony' max (and Belle);)

Originally posted by Carlwarker
I think it was more attempted 'sarcasm' than 'irony' max (and Belle);)
I think I'm losing it. First missing 'something' and secondly not being able to put a name to what I missed. Groan, nurse, bring me my tablets.

Sarcasm is irony isn't it?

Originally posted by max
I think I'm losing it. First missing 'something' and secondly not being able to put a name to what I missed. Groan, nurse, bring me my tablets.

DON'T take the tablets max - I (an ex-professional mathematician) took a tab and a half the other night, and confused a reciprocal with the reciprocal of a reciprocal.:blush:

Originally posted by Sidla
Sarcasm is irony isn't it?
interesting point.

Sarcasm invariably uses irony, but irony is not always sarcastic.

Sarcasm is used with intent to wound or belittle, true irony is more of a narration device in drama...a knowing wink that the audience knows more than the narrator does.

but its all debatable...

Originally posted by Sidla
Sarcasm is irony isn't it?

No!

Sarcasm: a bitter or wounding remark - although it CAN be ironically worded (OED)

Irony: a simulated adoption of another’s point of view for purpose of ridicule (OED)

Not quite the same.

Well in that case I would say it was definitely IRONY, as I first said


and I agree with T020 that time and money is being spent on protecting the President from terrorists or would be assassins rather more than he is being protected against 50 year old grandmothers who want to climb gates and unfurl flags (although there is bound to be a bit of that too)

I wasnt agreeing with him on everything... as you could guess.

I wouldnt say personally that Al-Quaida attacks are a direct result of the war in Iraq, although it wont have helped.

New York, Bali, Sierra Leone (did I make that up by accident?) were all before Iraq.

Okaies - to address Hals original post in defence of Bush.

I would like to know what drugs Hal is taking? ;)

Bush is not intelligent, Bush is a prat. Bush got in as president because the US have difficulty counting.

Bush has got to be a set up as no one in their right mind would elect that muppet as president - even the Americans were gobsmacked when he won.

He obviously serves some purpose for someone somewhere, tho what that is I don't quite know. Apart from witch he will be leaving soon.

Moon

Originally posted by Carlwarker
DON'T take the tablets max - I (an ex-professional mathematician) took a tab and a half the other night, and confused a reciprocal with the reciprocal of a reciprocal.:blush:
Were you trying to get one over somebody?

I'll get my coat.

Originally posted by max
Were you trying to get one over somebody?

I'll get my coat.

No - I was alone.:)

Originally posted by Belle
Well in that case I would say it was definitely IRONY, as I first said


and I agree with T020 that time and money is being spent on protecting the President from terrorists or would be assassins rather more than he is being protected against 50 year old grandmothers who want to climb gates and unfurl flags (although there is bound to be a bit of that too)

I wasnt agreeing with him on everything... as you could guess.

I wouldnt say personally that Al-Quaida attacks are a direct result of the war in Iraq, although it wont have helped.

New York, Bali, Sierra Leone (did I make that up by accident?) were all before Iraq.

In that case, then, it was a case of SARCASM which is ironically worded - which is not irony.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Okaies - to address Hals original post in defence of Bush.

I would like to know what drugs Hal is taking? ;)

Bush is not intelligent, Bush is a prat. Bush got in as president because the US have difficulty counting.
that is certainly how he is portrayed ine the media, but to characterise his election as president as a cock up is to ignore the vast deliberate effort that went into winning Florida and the other key states. Notably stopping black people at roadblocks to prevent them voting, and many other 'sharp' practices.

Bush is no idiot. Shrewd and cunning are two words that would apply better.

Bush has got to be a set up as no one in their right mind would elect that muppet as president - even the Americans were gobsmacked when he won.
He obviously serves some purpose for someone somewhere, tho what that is I don't quite know. Apart from witch he will be leaving soon.

Well he is installed as part of an american ideological dynasty that includes his father and reagan, and which is closely tied to the US defence industry and oil interests.

His entire adminsitration is composed of oil and defence millionaires, the poorest of them, Condoleeza Rice is the only one not a multimillionaire, but at least she has an Oil Tanker named after her...

Well well, this is all a bit friendly isn't it? Back to business methinks:


Originally posted by t020
Whether or not the war was justified, the outcome is surely positive for a lot of Iraqis who were suffering from years of oppression and in many cases, the threat of violence, torture, and death, often carried out. Would you rather the Iraqis lived under a regime like this?

I almost agreed with you until I remembered who it was who installed Saddam and his regime in the first place. And also who was going to supply him with that wonderful little supergun (another claim to fame for our great city :) )

Originally posted by Abby
Well well, this is all a bit friendly isn't it? Back to business methinks:

I almost agreed with you until I remembered who it was who installed Saddam and his regime in the first place. And also who was going to supply him with that wonderful little supergun (another claim to fame for our great city :) )

And didn't the CIA train bin Laden and his gang in terrorism skills to attack the Russians occupation of Afghanistan?

Originally posted by Carlwarker
And how wrong Bush and Blair were to think that they would be welcomed with open arms. They have been welcomed with opened arms its just that the majority who do support the war don't demostrate.
Its the minority which are demostrating.

Perhaps a poll is in order?

Originally posted by Abby
And also who was going to supply him with that wonderful little supergun (another claim to fame for our great city :) )

But were they aware that it was for a Supergun beforehand?

Originally posted by The Cycleracer
They have been welcomed with opened arms its just that the majority who do support the war don't demostrate.
Its the minority which are demostrating.

Evidence please - except for what is in the Sun.

As one chap said to the other - it must be true, I read it in the Sun.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Carlwarker
Evidence please - except for what is in the Sun.

As one chap said to the other - it must be true, I read it in the Sun.:rolleyes:

Latest ICM polls show 40% are against the war. This of course leaves a majority either for the war or not sure.

PS. Where was your evidence with your opinions? I know only the Guardian and Mirrors left wing stance are valid on his forum, but you didn't even quote them from what I've seen, unless I missed it.

Originally posted by t020
Latest ICM polls show 40% are against the war. This of course leaves a majority either for the war or not sure.

PS. Where was your evidence with your opinions? I know only the Guardian and Mirrors left wing stance are valid on his forum, but you didn't even quote them from what I've seen, unless I missed it.

My empasis was on this statement: They have been welcomed with opened arms its just that the majority who do support the war don't demostrate. I asked: where is the evidence?

Here's one example for you from the Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=466153

Originally posted by Carlwarker
My empasis was on this statement: They have been welcomed with opened arms its just that the majority who do support the war don't demostrate. I asked: where is the evidence?

Here's one example for you from the Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=466153 From the article

Two 6ft-tall speaker systems were used to deliver some choice phrases, such as "Daft beggar Bush" and, confusingly, "Blair go home".

hehe :)

Our news station tells us:
"US President George W Bush has granted a 'pardon' to two Thanksgiving turkeys,".
Is this a case of brotherly love, when a turkey spares turkeys?

Why burn USA flags? This is offensive to American citizens

In what way? It's only a bit of cloth?


I fail to see how protecting someone at danger from terrorists is restricting anyones freedom of speech.

Try protesting near the Houses Of Parliment. See what happens:D.


Because there were no terrorist attacks at all before the war in Iraq, were there.......

From Iraq? No. There were no terrorist attacks (by Iraqis) before the illegal invasion:|


with nuclear weapons ( it was only a matter of time ) Then we would have had to have gone in with the same,


If it was "only a matter of time", why did the UN inspectors (and later the US/UK armies) find no traces of any kind of WMD program, let alone nuclear ambitions. The only country in the region to hold nukes, is Isreal (another country that like to use illegal tactics - cluster bombs anyone):rolleyes:


so involving the World in Armaggeden. ( Think about it! )

What makes you think this is still not going to happen? There is more hatred in this world now, than before the invasion.


at least she has an Oil Tanker named after her...

And a milk based desert:D.

Ill be suprised if you get any replies sccsux, those comments you quoted are 3 years old...

Ill be suprised if you get any replies sccsux, those comments you quoted are 3 years old...

That'll teach me to read the dates too:D