View Full Version : Hamster Wheel (politics ad nauseam)

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

8th Sep 2005, 19:10
All Bush et al bashers feel free to use this thread exclusively for venting your luvvie spleens. That way other discussion threads can proceed without the usual Bush bashing comments.

Thinking of bashing Bush in thread "X", don't! Simply point your browser here and deposit your opinion along with the others.

Maybe there should be one for all things American too.:confused:


Only folks who have a beef against the US government should be posting here. Think of it as the watering hole where they can engage in mutual backslapping and great rejoicing in their shared mindset of hatred for said government. It should also serve as a place where, when posts in other threads start to turn into just another Bush/US rant, then they can be deposited here instead of the original thread and thus keep that thread on track.

Folks who don't fall into the above designation don't need to post here at all. Just let the usual suspects spout their anti US/Bush vitriol here amongst their own kind.

[Last edited by flapsforty]

8th Sep 2005, 19:16

Take that you little :mad:

This what you mean?

tony draper
8th Sep 2005, 19:18
Best president they have had since Ron, just as our Tone is the best Prime Minister we have had since Maggie.
kick ass pair they are.

8th Sep 2005, 19:19
I like Republicans. Can I post here too? Or can we have our own "Republicans are good people too" thread?

8th Sep 2005, 19:59
Excellent idea. Can you arrange a caption showing an Elephant trampling on a Donkey as a header?:)

8th Sep 2005, 20:04
One statement sums it all up for me:

"Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot"

(Could also apply to Northumberland, eh Drapes?)


8th Sep 2005, 20:18
As stupid as Bush purportedly is, the Democrats have to admit,
"That idiot has kicked our @<hidden> in every political encounter since 2000!"

He's taken control of each of the three branches of government for his party, something only FDR had managed since the Civil War.

8th Sep 2005, 20:19
Great idea Ozzy, the only thing I would recommend is to make it a sticky. Might as well, it seems that almost every thread started soon or later turns into an anti-American bash fest.

8th Sep 2005, 20:28
But if people didn't have America to vent all their frustrations, they'd be picking on the French...?! ;)

tony draper
8th Sep 2005, 20:44
Yup, the anti ami huggy fluffs remind me of a flea crawling up a Elephants leg intent on rape.

8th Sep 2005, 21:56
I blame the parents, you know...... :ooh:

8th Sep 2005, 22:00
;) Gentlemen,
Republicans are quite humble by nature. They know full well that they are not the brightest lights in the firmament. They plod along like good old pachyderms and, most importantly, recognizing their failings, they delegate their authority to wiser men.
Democrats are not so generous of spirit. The braying Jackass, with no concept of self humility, inculked into the mould of Kennedy and Clinton allows the penetration of no other wisdom than its own misguided hubris.
Where are you, Jefferson Davis?

8th Sep 2005, 22:03
He's dead, cavortingcheetah.

Next question?

See, Lima? In a state of denial, the lot of them......:ooh:

8th Sep 2005, 22:09

Having read this sorry lot, I think I would root for Eisenhower and martial law.

8th Sep 2005, 22:14
No.... we don't want too many threads with the same theme, Lima.

I think they should have a Rightie/Hatie Abuse Deathmatch where they can pit their verbal armouries against one another.

We could award scores and offer encouragement and helpful personal advice to all of the participants.

That'd be great fun............. :ok:

And look, poor cavortingcheetah is another tortured soul.

Apparently the poor devil wishes to have Antipodean carnal knowledge of a long-dead US soldier and statesman.

It's a damn shame, so it is..... :sad:

8th Sep 2005, 22:22
Yes indeedy! :E

But it would be a mere appetiser for the main event - Mr Draper versus SASless.

Quail, brief mortals!!!!! :ooh: :ooh: :ooh:

8th Sep 2005, 22:31
Zut alors! You've done it now, Grandpa! :ooh:

I'm off to bed before all those nasty RepublicanNeoNatalWillyWavers come to whup our asses......

Oh....Ozzy? Round this neck of the woods, "bush-bashing" means something very different from "saying bad things about the current President of the USA."

Very different indeed! :ok:

8th Sep 2005, 22:33
Careful Gramps, if a survey could be taken, you would find that the people firing at ambulances in NO are on your side of politics.

I'm with you in that I don't like them either. But whereas I would shoot them, you would try to find the reason for their anger.


8th Sep 2005, 22:34
Mr Draper versus SASless. I watched Alien Vs. Predator. I was left feeling quite sorry for the Alien... :{ Those Predator thinggies were just too sporting for my tastes! :p

8th Sep 2005, 22:48
Now this is more like it lads. Carry on and make sure you restrict yer whining and complaining about the rightie haties to this thread and this thread only.:ok:


8th Sep 2005, 22:49
One thing has been a real success in the present administration. It is bringing the country to bankruptcy faster than old Ronnie did.

I'm somewhat conservative, a registered Republican all my life, and can't forgive the present-day Republicans for their "spend without taxing" policy.

Since I'm not at home in today's GOP and wouldn't feel at home as a Democrat, where do I go? Certainly not a Libertarian ... the "I'm all right Jackf" party.

Both major parties seem to be pandering to unhealthy elements.


8th Sep 2005, 22:50
I think you'll find that the number you're searching for is "6", SASless.

6...... :ok:

Oh, and another thing, SASless..... these references to my "bush-bashing".

As I said to Paterbrat earlier this evening, instead of putting words into my mouth why not quote a couple of examples where I've actually indulged in this heinous activity?

You know......put up or shut up, sort of thing?

Please feel free to hold your breath while you're looking for an example.:ok:

8th Sep 2005, 23:02
Let Junior speak for himself:

"I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."—Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004


8th Sep 2005, 23:06
The 2008 presidential race will be between two heroic mayors:

Rudy Giuliani and Ray Nagin.


8th Sep 2005, 23:11
Great idea this!!

Remember when this e-mail went around?


The caption coming from Dubya said "Who killed Santa?"


Spuds McKenzie
8th Sep 2005, 23:31

9th Sep 2005, 00:05
Spuds, Lima, OW,

So sorry you are reduced to cartoons, expressions of disgust, and inside jokes. May you always have each other with whom to giggle and chortle at we, the unenlightened.

9th Sep 2005, 00:15

My compliments on your unenlightenering.


9th Sep 2005, 00:18
GWB looks younger when showing off his right profile (photo above)... ;)

9th Sep 2005, 02:43
You guys need to realise that the vast majority of the world outside the US can't stand Bush and they think he is a misguided fool.

The quicker you guys get rid of this embarrassment to your once great country, the better.

That's just the way it is.

Don't get agro at me because their are a couple of billion who agree with me - sorry, just the way it is!

9th Sep 2005, 03:55
Perhaps as the leading nation in the world and the self-appointed world policeman then America should allow all the world's citizens to vote for the next President of the USA.

Trouble is if the vote doesn't suit some then they will still cry "Foul" and not let it rest!

People. Democracy is all about respecting the wishes of the majority and quietly getting on with the business of opposition -which involves coming up with sound arguments which will convince the majority of people to vote for your lot next time around. It does not consist of pathetic whinging and banging on about "we wuz robbed - the guy's and idiot etc etc etc".

As I have said before - this seems to be a modern malaise of anything broadly described as 'left of centre' who seem unable to accept the refs decision. There seems to be an arrogance that there is only one way of doing things - their way. Generally speaking, anything 'right of centre' tends to quietly get on with it.

9th Sep 2005, 09:11
But he has support throughout the world, and as much as you dislike it, his view is holding sway right now.Are you including China and India in that, Ben? Do the two most populous nations on the planet follow the Bush line? I think your presumed majority exists only in Europe and the world-wide left, which doesn't have the only say in defining who is an American embarassment and who is not. And my country remains great, your opinion notwithstanding.As you rightly say - your nation and its people are, and will remain, great. Only a fool would say otherwise.

Your politicians, like ours, are a different matter altogether.

The wise do not confuse the two, or pretend that they are one and the same.

Spuds McKenzie
9th Sep 2005, 09:35

:} :} :}

tony draper
9th Sep 2005, 10:07
Yeh but, We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee.:E

9th Sep 2005, 10:28
The focus should be on a group of mostly Jewish bunch of pseudo politicians known as the neo-cons.

"Agent747 you dirty anti-semite you!!!" :sad:

9th Sep 2005, 12:23
I'm not sure if folks understand the purpose of this thread so perhaps I should reiterate. Only folks who have a beef against the US government should be posting here. Think of it as the watering hole where they can engage in mutual backslapping and great rejoicing in their shared mindset of hatred for said government. It should also serve as a place where, when posts in other threads start to turn into just another Bush/US rant, then they can be deposited here instead of the original thread and thus keep that thread on track.

Folks who don't fall into the above designation don't need to post here at all. Just let the usual suspects spout their anti US/Bush vitriol here amongst their own kind.:ok:

Hope that helps.


9th Sep 2005, 12:29
Thanks Ozzy! As I said it's a great idea, i don't think you need to explain it!

But one thing, please don't say Anti US/Bush as if they're not Mutually exclusive. I am an American after all and I am anti Bush. So does that make me anti-American as well? Am I somehow anti-myself? :confused:

Or do you have some other classification for me and nearly 50% of the US population?

A typical sly tactic of the right wing neo-fascists, classify anyone "Anti-Bush" as "Anti-American" :p :p

9th Sep 2005, 12:32
Also, Ozzy has a mate in US Customs and Immigration who told him that it would be just great if we could all be organised into a single thread. That way, they can more easily keep track of us and ensure the welcome mat is put out for when we eventually fly through there. Can someone tell me how they check to see if anyone's making an ass of themselves?! ;) :uhoh:

9th Sep 2005, 12:37
Sorry OW22, "US/Bush" means "US or Bush" there are some, not you, who hate the US as much as they hate Bush, so this is their forum too....:ok:

Think of it as your opportunity to have a central place to bitch and moan about Bush et al and then deal with others who in general think the US is a decadent, capitalistic, world ignorant, soda pop guzzling, World Series Baseball (when it's only the US in the running), grossly obese, thick in the head, tartan pant clad, redneck, gun toting, SUV driving, drug plagued, racist, self centered, gas guzzling, and celebrity worshiping society.:E


PS and when you throw logic at the lefty luvvies they get all emotional and resort to throwing insults:E

9th Sep 2005, 12:52
"you're either with us or against us." Hmmm, "with or without you" might have been more apt, if no less controversial, and definitely less offensive. But I suppose one rarely heard U2 in the Dixieland bars George used to frequent...?! ;)

9th Sep 2005, 13:44
Apparently ABC has held an interview (being aired tonight in the US) with former Secretary of State Collin Powell in which he states that he feels terrible about the statement he made in February 2003 in front of the UN Security Council regarding Iraq's WMD program. He goes on and calls it a blemish in his carrier. "It was painful and it is painful". He also goes on to protect former CIA Chief Tenent saying that Tenent was convinced the Intel was legit.

Rough translation from www.n24.de, a sister news agency/organization of CNN I believe

9th Sep 2005, 14:18

9th Sep 2005, 14:43
yet another evidence that Mr Powell just turned a lefty-luvvie-pinko-commie-anti-American-Bush-basher (here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4229238.stm))

9th Sep 2005, 14:52
OW22, but I always thought he was reading from that book, you know: the one about the pet goat... ;)

9th Sep 2005, 14:53
His mother really is a charming woman isn't she?

An actual quote...............


9th Sep 2005, 15:03
If Colin could be persuaded into changing sides, he'd prolly stand a very good chance of winning the Democrat nomination for President next time around...?! That would almost certainly lead to America's 1st ever...President named Powell?! :ok:

9th Sep 2005, 15:56
I don't know about you Brits but as an American I'm gettin' really tired of the "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission" type of mentality that has pervaded everything from customer service to Presidential administrations.

To hell with Powell.

I want a President who will do the right thing the first time.

I would have supported him for President had he said to Bush, "You want me to go where and say what?" and then resigned from his job as the first ever black Secretary of State.

That would have taken balls and shown his mettle.

But he didn't do that. And I don't support him anymore.
Too little. Too late.

9th Sep 2005, 16:12
Here's a good context for the quote in your cartoon, OW.


She's not a neo-Antoinette as you would have us believe, and the remark was made outside and well before Katrina.

The Katrina comment was similarly misconstrued. She was trying to make the point that people whose lives were not so good in New Orleans before Katrina, now may have a better opportunity in Houston - something of a silver lining.

Not that you would be interested in that interpretation.

9th Sep 2005, 16:42

I never stated it was about Katrina! That is a famous quote a few years old now..

But she did say it!

9th Sep 2005, 17:03
Fair enough, OW.

But what is the point of the captioned pic if it only serves to distort the meaning of the actual dialogue by taking it out of context and creating a false impression of Mrs. Bush and her statement?

Political caricature is one thing, but this is outright distortion.

Not to be a stickler or prude, but I would rather argue with you point-by-point on the real issues than have to set the record straight on your posted misleading and distorted photo cartoons. Am I mistaken that debating on that basis puts you at a disadvantage, therefore you resort to such distortions?

9th Sep 2005, 18:01
Am I mistaken that debating on that basis puts you at a disadvantage, therefore you resort to such distortions?

Yes Ben you are very much mistaken. Please read the title of this thread: The Bush and his Entire Administration and all Republicans Suck Thread

Ozzy, bienf the gracious fellow he is, had given us our very own thread specifically to take the p**s out of Georgie boy!

You have to admit, there are some really great cartoons about Bush out there, why not look at them and laugh?! Leave the debating etc for other threads.

Spuds McKenzie
9th Sep 2005, 19:15
Back to piccies:


9th Sep 2005, 23:21
Hey is this the best you guys can do? :confused:

Hell we are not even fighting back, well not much anyway.:E

Come on, let er rip!:)

Spuds McKenzie
10th Sep 2005, 07:04
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." –President Bush, on "Good Morning America," Sept. 1, 2005, six days after repeated warnings from experts about the scope of damage expected from Hurricane Katrina

"What didn't go right?'" –President George W. Bush, as quoted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), after she urged him to fire FEMA Director Michael Brown "because of all that went wrong, of all that didn't go right" in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort

"Now tell me the truth boys, is this kind of fun?" –House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX), to three young hurricane evacuees from New Orleans at the Astrodome in Houston

"We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." –Rep. Richard Baker (R-LA) to lobbyists, as quoted in the Wall Street Journal

"Louisiana is a city that is largely under water." —Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, news conference, Sept. 3, 2005

10th Sep 2005, 14:34
Hell we are not even fighting back, well not much anyway. con-pilot, this is not a debating thread. This is a thread for all the luvvies to come bitch and moan and feel good with themselves. They have fun posting cartoons etc and basically have a mutual w*nkfest. This is their place for anti-Bush and, for those so inclined, anti-US diatribes.

So that any other thread has no such sh!te intruding. Of course the luvvies will not stick to the deal because they like to f*ck up other people's sandboxes, but hey, we tried.


Spuds McKenzie
10th Sep 2005, 15:09
they like to f*ck up other people's sandboxes
Yep because the neocons hate ANY type of opposition and can't stand different views, that's why they wanna keep the sandbox for themselves, with no luvvie spoiling the party. This is called political incest.


Back to topic:


The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz

7 Questions to Test Your Allegiance to President Bush

Q: What statement best describes your opinion of George W. Bush?

He\'s a resolute, principled leader who is a strong wartime President

He\'s a clueless moron who couldn\'t find oil in Texas

He\'s an arrogant liar hell-bent on world domination

He\'s a faithful servant of God

He\'s a faithful servant of Dick Cheney

Q: The biggest mistake Bush ever made was ___

Trading Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox

Waging an ill-conceived, unnecessary war based on lies

Prancing around an aircraft carrier in a flight costume and prematurely declaring "Mission Accomplished"

Going AWOL from the National Guard

He has never made a mistake

Q: Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream.



Q: Which bumper sticker would you be most likely to put on your car?

Bush/Cheney \'04: Leadership, Integrity, Morality

Bush/Cheney \'04: This Time, Elect Us!

Bush/Cheney \'04: Four More Wars

Bush/Cheney \'04: Don\'t Change Horsemen Mid-Apocalypse

Bush/Cheney \'04: Vote Nader

George W. Bush: Master of Strategery

George W. Bush: President for Life

Q: What has been the most defining moment of Bush\'s presidency?

Standing amid the rubble of Ground Zero and addressing firefighters with a megaphone

His triumphant landing on the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln

His surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad

Choking on a pretzel

Continuing to read "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren for a full seven minutes after being informed that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center

Q: Complete the following statement. George W. Bush won the 2000 election because ___

Voters embraced his strong leadership and philosophy of compassionate conservatism

The Supreme Court embraced his strong leadership and philosophy of compassionate conservatism

His brother Jeb and Katherine Harris rigged the vote and orchestrated a coup

The sore losers in the Democratic party were unsuccessful in their attempts to steal the vote in Florida

God chose him to be president

Q: What\'s the best explanation for the failure to find WMD in Iraq?

Bush lied to the American people

Bush was misled by faulty intelligence

It\'s Clinton\'s fault

Donald Rumsfeld forgot where he planted the WMD

The WMD will eventually be found

10th Sep 2005, 16:19

You are cynical but I am laughing my head off - 'cause it's mostly true.

Brilliant work son!

Thank you Ozzy for the site - great idea so knobs like us (all 80% of the worlds population) can bull$hit on.

10th Sep 2005, 22:19
Thanks Ozzy, I think the personal bile remark by A L Junk pretty well sums up what you’re on about. I’ll refrain from commenting here anymore. Keep up the good work, I agree with you, let them get it all out on this thread. (Like that will stop them on other threads.)

Sticks and stones A L Junk, sticks and stones.:hmm:

10th Sep 2005, 22:38
"Louisiana is a city that is largely under water." —Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, news conference, Sept. 3, 2005

Has been for several decades. Since when is it wrong to state the obvious?

tony draper
10th Sep 2005, 23:11
Teach yers not to buy stuff off the French.

11th Sep 2005, 04:11

Do you think New Orleans could have been by design Napolean's idea of a joke on Jefferson, to be manifested 200 years later? The first French insult, maybe?

The Lousiana Purchase, at $15 million, gave the US New Orleans and most of the American West, largely unexplored, clear up to Montana.

I just had a vision of the West of the 1800's with a French accent. It doesn't settle well, no offense, Grandpa.

Vive Le Bush!

11th Sep 2005, 04:27
Haut les mains, sacre' voleur!!!

Naahhh, just don't seem right. ;) :D

Spuds McKenzie
11th Sep 2005, 05:54
Yep barit1 , Louisiana is a city , innit... (oh dear oh dear... :rolleyes: )

(Like that will stop them on other threads.)
Wishful thinking, Neo-con-pilot , wishful thinking... :E

11th Sep 2005, 07:59

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." :p

12th Sep 2005, 03:57
"It was painfull and it is painfull".

Not as painfull as all the lives that have been destroyed in Iraq by his lies to the UN, I suspect?

I remember when Powell presented the case for Illegal Invasion (sorry - Liberation) to the UN.

He had all the photographs of factories with trucks leaving etc. etc. He claimed that this was evidence (???) of biological weapons etc. (we all remember the scam).

What I could never figure out at the time was this.

There were 200 inspectors on the ground in Iraq. He should have just picked up one of those new fangled things called a phone and got the inspectors to check it out, so as to support these claims.

Maybe he did and they went and had a look but he just forgot to tell us again ... and again ... and again.

Besides, it didn't really matter what the inspectors were finding or not finding. Bush had already made up his mind to invade a year or so earlier.

Powell knew this and like a good servant, fell into line with the other War Pigs.

I used to have alot of respect for this man.

12th Sep 2005, 07:16
Powell once said he was and is a soldier. As a soldier he has a commander in chief. And anyone who has had some US military training will remember the concept of "My country right or wrong". Understanding this, Powell would have done, almost, anything his commander in chief would have told him to do. Patriotism is a double edged sword. This was made clear in the third Reich. Even though many high ranking militaries and even politicians saw what was happening in Germany, they didn’t do anything because of patriotism and loyalty to the commander in chief. Some did do something for the sake of patriotism which was contradictory to the commander in chief – see Colonel Claus Philipp Maria Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg ending up being executed for treason and desertion.

Now that Powell is no longer "an employee of the state" he can clear his conscious by speaking about his experience, as far as it is legally and morally ok to do so.

I Love This Show
12th Sep 2005, 08:15
A politician doing a backflip? Who would have thought!

12th Sep 2005, 09:44

I too have spent a few nights this past weekend bending elbows with combat troops from the UK and USA....and found the exchange to be quite interesting. The American aircraft crews fully supported what is going on and merely suggested the real down side was the hardship it placed upon their wife and children while they were away in combat.

The British view offered centered around the fact they did repetitive short tours and that the operational pace worked a burden on the assets available to man the operations.

Not one....none....nada....zip zero of them suggested anything along the lines of what you posted despite some of them being in units that have suffered losses in combat.

I must hang out in a different officers mess than you do.

12th Sep 2005, 10:53
He was Hitler's Foreign Minister.

12th Sep 2005, 10:57
Question is, was it really an honest mistake?

Or did he know he was really "sexing" up the evidence? A very fuzzy line methinks....

He has hinted I believe that the CIA gave him bogus information.

But I don't think many of us will forget that fateful day in the UN when we were promised a Adlai Stevenson moment and we instead were subjected to a sham.

Onan the Clumsy
12th Sep 2005, 12:59

Ribbentrop was Hanged at Nuremburg


Ron Vibbentrop however stood in the North Minehead by-election

12th Sep 2005, 13:53
Pompus ass Von Ribbentrop was arrested last and hanged as first.

Dunno how he was hung, though?

You know that Hilter was mayor of Minehead?

Landlady: Telephone, Mr Hilter. It's Mr McGoering from the Bell and Compasses. He says he's found a place where you can hire bombers by the hour...?

12th Sep 2005, 14:34
Sent to corner with Fowlers and Gowers:8

12th Sep 2005, 16:06
Bush prepares to tour New Orleans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4234210.stm) (12th September 2005). The president will enter central New Orleans for the first time since the disaster struck two weeks ago. It's prolly safe enough now that everyone's been evacuated. Just a few dead-bodies which might be popping up now and then, that's all, nuffink the Secret Service can't handle... :rolleyes: :uhoh:

12th Sep 2005, 18:50
I had to interrupt my last visit to Planet Prune with a trip to rehab, sorry, simulator training, just when it looked as though the bile was rising rapidly in the bilges over Bush getting a bashing from the luvvies.

When I left, that grieving mother camped out in Crawford had just been unmasked as a vicious, unstable nut-case... yet another example of the cool logic employed by the Bush partisans. What happened after that? Did it turn out that her son had actually been shot by a jealous boyfriend? Well, anything to keep this funny fellow, George W., on top of the heap.

There was an interesting clip on the BBC today of Bush gabbling away about how he was trying to get to the bottom of whether any mistakes had been made in all of this hurricane response stuff. It reminded me of Tricky Dicky Nixon saying, 'I want to make one thing perfectly clear...' just before there came a major brown-out in heifer dust. Bar the odd unburied corpse I really thought FEMA did a sterling job there, but that is just me. I am sure all the criticism is unjustified, unbalanced, America-hating rubbish, yes indeedy.

I assume that once this eight-year break from reality is over, with normal service resumed under President Clinton II, we can all look back on this and have a good laugh over all those TV news clips showing N'Awlins as some sort of domestic stand-in for the Third World. Or perhaps the folks back home will have been recalibrated by then so that they don't freak out over the sight of the odd dead body floating past, in which case tourism to Nigeria should finally take off.

It is perfectly true that we should make the most of this time to mock the pretensions of the USA to world domination because the likes of George W. Bush and Co. will not soon come again.

It has been cruel fun but fun none the less. Double fun, actually, since first you get to pelt this village idiot, George W. Bush, with rotten turnips and then you get to hear the anguished cries of his ardent defenders. And George doesn't mind; he has been in it for the money, so that the luvvies can rant all they like given that they have nil impact on the bottom line.

West Coast
13th Sep 2005, 06:14
"And anyone who has had some US military training will remember the concept of "My country right or wrong"

Which training day was that? I must have slept in that day. I used to beat the drum about Clinton while he/she was the Prez.
Nothing happened to me. Guess I didn't bitch loud enough.

13th Sep 2005, 12:51
I am appalled that Bush has still not sent his condolences to the Aussies! Has the man no feelings. I bet he rang up old Tone pretty damn quick to congratulate him on his performance at The Oval.

Come on Pres get with the zeitgeist why don't you?

:* :*

13th Sep 2005, 13:58
Bush is the most evil SOB alive today. Do you think he gives a crap about anybody other that his power-drunk family and his elite base? Come on now, you weren't really expecting condolences were you?

Did he even apologize for the tens of thousands of Iraqis he murdered just to get his dumb ass re-elected and so his greedy military contractor buddies could get stinking rich?

Will he apologize and offer condolences for the victims of Katarina that he let die slowly and painfully?

Does he care that he still hasn't avenged the victims of 9/11? The people who's deaths he could've easily prevented if he gave a crap. Nope hes "not all too concerned" about that. 9/11 was like a gift from the devil for president Bush and his buddies in the Bin Laden family. There's a saying "when a crime is committed look at who benefits the most and you will find who is responsible", I think we all know who benefited most from 9/11.

This man would kill a million of his own people to save a nickel on a gallon of gas so don't expect condolences for Aussies mate.

Its funny how the Bush family has close ties to both the Bin Laden family and the Hitler family and this doesn't seem odd to anybody but me.

sorry to go on a rant.... just seeing that guy's name gets me fuming mad. :mad:

PS: My deepest condolences to the Australian people for their terrible loss.

PPS: I wonder if I'll get banned for going on an angry political rant... :*

I wonder if I'll get banned for going on an angry political rant

Yep - fraid so - from this thread anyway!
OOps - this was on a new thread when banned. Thread has now been merged with this, but I think I'll keep the ban anyway! :E

13th Sep 2005, 14:07
PPS: I wonder if I'll get banned for going on an angry political rant...
Not sure about that but I'll bet someone at Echelon is reading this sort of opinions with interest. :hmm: :E

tony draper
13th Sep 2005, 14:19
But, apart from that you think the mans ok? huh Pan??

13th Sep 2005, 15:23
Thank god he never flip-flopped in the manner that he accused John Kerry of doing....


13th Sep 2005, 15:53
Re: PanPan

Close ties with the Hitler family? That's one I hadn't heard before.:suspect:

I'm glad Mr. PanPan's on your side, OW and Lima.

13th Sep 2005, 16:03
I think he's talking about Prescott Bush Ben.....

Don't know the story there, maybe he was another Henry Ford? Decorated with the highest honour a non-German could get by Hitler..

EDIT: Ooops Ben, a quick Google search reveals this.....some shady dealings went on there...

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty.

Ref: The Guardian

13th Sep 2005, 18:44
"Ref: The Guardian":uhoh:

13th Sep 2005, 18:50
Well SASless, I guess if it ain't comin from Fox News, Rush or the NRO, it just can't be true can it??!! :p :p

13th Sep 2005, 18:51
Is Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush) any better for you?

13th Sep 2005, 21:18
Do a Google on: Bush family, Degussa and Farish. Many interesting facts will emerge and they're not in the Guardian or Wikipedia...

13th Sep 2005, 22:22
Good god CK.....that makes some pretty sick reading....

The Nazis extracted the fillings of its victims after being informed by Degussa that the company could refine it into marketable gold bullion. Degussa was awarded an exclusive contract with the Nazis to refine all gold. The company was also joint owners with I.G. Farben of Degesch, a firm that produced Zyklon-B cyanide tablets used in the gas chambers. Due to the hoard of gold fillings stacking up at Auschweitz, Degussa built a smelter there. The bullion was then shipped back to Berlin and commingled with the Nazis gold stash. Undoubtedly some of it made its way back to the banker in charge of United Steel Works, Prescott Bush

West Coast
13th Sep 2005, 22:56
"Undoubtedly some of it made its way back to the banker in charge of United Steel Works, Prescott Bush"

Are you speculating, postulating or vilifying on the basis of the authors opinion? Relevance as well please. My father would rather spit on a Brit than talk to one, back in his youth I imagine he would have loved to line one up in the sites as did his uncles before him.
Am I guilty of something because of it? Is guilt transferable through generations despite not sharing his feelings? Is GWB responsible for slavery as well? If you can conclusively link comments from GWB to show him as a Nazi sympathizer then you will have made a point.

13th Sep 2005, 23:17
WC, you've lost me there I'm afraid. I am quoting something written about Prescott Bush. Not George senior or Junior.

I didn't bring up the Nazi links to the families past. Where have I or anyone else called GWB a "nazi sympathiser?" We're talking about his grandfather WC not GWB.

GWB is no more responsible for Prescott then JFK was for his father.

Bit early to be on the sauce out in California isn't it WC????

West Coast
14th Sep 2005, 04:11
Exactly. What relevance does this have to GWB?


Never too early.

14th Sep 2005, 08:51

Some of us have other things to do.....since when are you the one in a hurry to explain something you have said....but then you only offer opinions thus no explanation is required in your estimation I guess.

Being unhappy with the content....which source you using for that that...the Guardian or some other rag?

Ten Thousand deaths his fault for making a speech....how about all of the UN Resolutions....what about Saddam's actions that led to the invasion of Kuwait and all of the sanctions...and resolutions? I assume he is guilt free and less guilty than Bush and Powell in your estimation...afterall he was not a threat right?

Did not the World Famous and Most Great Bernard Law Montgomery....ignore intelligence at Market-Garden and launch an attack that failed.....killing thousands of Allied troops....I reckon you will give him a pass too?

You dear boy are the one that is selective in his application of blame.....and only find fault with those that are conservative take positions opposite to yours.

All you really do is snipe and make poor banter without presenting any viable ideas of your own.....you attack others but fail to take a stand yourself from what I have read.

With the news that the Oil for Food Program was rife with corruption and that Saddam had benefited to the tune of over Seven Billion Dollars in illegal transactions....does that change your view of the wonderful United Nations, Kofi Annan, and crowd?

Do you think Sanctions would ever have worked due to that corruption of the program?

Do you think the UN thus was the vehicle that delivered all manner of suffering to the Iraqi people and Saddam and his henchmen only benefited?

How would you have solved that situation LIMA?

Lets have a clear, definitive statement from you about it....list your actions like a Powerpoint Presentation....point by point...bullet by bullet display of exactly what you would have done?

I am waiting Lima....the world waits!

14th Sep 2005, 10:44
You wouldn't need a great deal of imagination to suppose that some of the power and influence that GWB obviously has benefitted from (given that he seems to have very little on the ball himself) comes from his wealthy forebears making connections and piling up the moolah for the use of suceeding generations.

(Here, of course, I am assuming that GWB is simply what he appears to be, some sort of 'dud'. 'Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, a few sandwiches short of a picnic, lights on folks not home...' Call it what you will but much of what gets people such as West Coast exercised is the way that lots of folks have sublime contempt for GWB and his crowd. WC chooses to take this as anti-Americanism but believe me, it's just that GWB really does come across as some sort of shallow jerk to a lot of folks.)

Take two working assumptions, that Prescott Bush did very well by dealing with the Nazis, adding to his family fortune and that GWB has benefitted from this family fortune. Combine them and you can state that some of the present wealth of the Bush family, however indirectly or not, stems from Nazi sources. This is not a far-fetched or basically unfair thing to assume, is it?

That is not to say that GWB or even his grandaddy had Nazi sympaties. No, perhaps worse is that such folks choose to ignore the stench of death and just take the money. What is all the yadda-yadda about GWB and his links to the Bin Laden family but something similar? Non-ideological, shallow greed is what gets me a bit wound up in this. The sort of logic that states, 'Well, if I don't do it, someone else will come along and do it instead. So why not just take the money?' Hey, Prescott Bush took the money, didn't he? Along with a lot of others, yes, but please do not tell me this family embodies the highest values of American democracy or some such tosh.

14th Sep 2005, 13:35
Without the UN the world will end up with wars being unilaterally started.

So which ones has it stopped then? :hmm:

14th Sep 2005, 13:56
Grand Idea there Lima....just like the EU dictating law to the UK...as has recently happened in criminal cases. What happens if the country being dictated to decides it doesn't care to play that game....as did Iraq? If the UK balks at this latest subordination of UK interests....will the EU be empowered to take action to force compliance? Hows that going to set with the boys down the pub?

14th Sep 2005, 14:17
Balkans (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ksvindx.htm), Darfur (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/18/darfur9355.htm)? These you claim as UN success stories? God help their failures.

The UN has never succeeded in peace making, only in peace keeping after both sides had reached the stage of compromise and needed an impartial force to patrol the ceasefire line. Even there every one of their operations has been dogged by corruption and incompetence.

Collective international bodies to solve disputes? No one would trust the UN to do that, too much corruption and partisanship. That´s why there are bodies such as:

The International Court of Justice
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
The International Court of Justice/ Court of First Instance
The European Court of Human Rights
The International Criminal Court
The World Trade Organisation

The UN has many successes to it´s name - preventing unilateral wars isn´t one of them. Major wars and armed conflicts since 1945. (http://www.ppu.org.uk/war/)


14th Sep 2005, 15:00
Jesus ORAC, looking at that graph, there was me being told that NATO and the nuclear deterrent was the reason why we had peace after WWII!!

So much for that eh?!

14th Sep 2005, 15:12
Well, to be eurocentric, NATO and Europe did. The only conflicts in Europe, on either side, were the Hungarian and Greek civil wars.

Pity about the rest outside the nuclear umbrella eh?....... :hmm:

14th Sep 2005, 15:29

I was hoping you'd say that so I could quote former NZ PM David Lange when he debated at the Oxford Union in 1985 and he pointed out that post WWII with Nuclear Weapoins being claimed as a deterrent, 30 million had died in wars. He was challenged on this by someone making your point to which he replied,

Have you considered the proposition for one moment that that war, that cost those casualties might have entrenched within people the yearning for peace, the growth of democratic institutions, the accountability of political representatives, so that none wishes to wage in conventional or nuclear terms, any war? Why attribute to the presence of that awesome potential clash of firepower a stability which your politicians have been arguing they created?

He went on to say,

The appalling character of those weapons has robbed us of our right to determine our destiny and subordinates our humanity to their manic logic. They have subordinated reason to irrationality and placed our very will to live in hostage. Rejecting the logic of nuclear weapons does not mean surrendering to evil; evil must still be guarded against. Rejecting nuclear weapons is to assert what is human over the evil nature of the weapon; it is to restore to humanity the power of the decision; it is to allow a moral force to reign supreme. It stops the macho lurch into mutual madness.

14th Sep 2005, 16:10

Quite the contrary....that is why Iraq has a new government nowadays...Saddam finally got ousted for invading Kuwait after many long years.

But in response to my question....if the EU finally forces the UK to submit...or tries to force the UK to submit to EU law and the UK refuses.....are the other EU nations authorized to invade the UK to force compliance? Will you folks once again be fighting the French and Germans over some point of law if you refuse to capitulate to the demands of the EU?

14th Sep 2005, 16:18
Just to clarify your position, you think it's acceptable that countries can go round attacking others, answerable to no-one ?

As we all know, the decision by the President of the US to attack is answerable to the people of the United States, who will not support military action taken for imperialistic or any other reasons other than either a direct threat against the US or a moral imperative great enough to engage.

Bush II's Iraq decision weathered the electorate's purview in 2004 and will be tested again every even year from now to the end of our republic.

To say we go around attacking others as if it is solely at the whim of the President, without any accounting, is to misread what is really going on in these situations.

The UN has been uniformly ineffective in deterring or countering situations like Kuwait, Rwanda, Congo, and Darfur. Who carries the burden outside the US, Britain, Australia and their coalitions assembled to stand against the true imperialists and cruel tyrants such as Hussein?

14th Sep 2005, 16:23
Saddam finally got ousted for invading Kuwait after many long years

That ain't the reason we were given by the powers that be!!

14th Sep 2005, 16:29
If there was not wholehearted UN approval, there was at least acquiescence. France, China, and Russia were satisfied enough to withold their vetoes.

Failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 peace was adequate to resume hostilities. It should have been done at the first instance of intransigence on the part of Hussein at allowing full and unfettered inspections, or at the first firing at allied aircraft patrolling the no fly zone.

The no WMD arguments, while pointing out intelligence flaws, are a straw man used to counter the decision to depose Hussein. They were never the sole justification either at the UN or the US Congress. It is because they are the only justification for a position supporting Hussein's continuance in power, or an anti-US or anti-Bush stance, that the WMD arguments are so heavily relied upon by those opposed to the war.

14th Sep 2005, 16:31

Well, he was entitled to his own opinion. :hmm:

14th Sep 2005, 16:35
Jeez, that's nice of you to allow him that ORAC.....:cool:

14th Sep 2005, 16:41
I hate how people seem to come up with the same lame-ass, backwards, and illogical arguments to support this illegal war. Yes, Saddam Hussein is out of power, woopdeee freakin' doooo!

You know what would be better for the collective health of the world??? If Bush and his evil subordinates would go hide in a cave somewhere.

By your logic dear SAS if the end result of an action results in a single favorable outcome then you are justified in killing, lying, and doing whatever it takes to acheive it. The story was that we were going in there for WMD's. Bush lied, full stop, end of story. When Clinton lied nobody died! This yahoo, cowboy oil tycoon wannabe loser you guys call prez just wanted to off the guy who took a shot at his daddy. And of course being in armed conflict gauranteed his re-election and got his buddies (and family) richer and all those little added bonuses. Impeach him now! Show the generation of young people like myself, who have lost faith in justice and the inherent goodness of America, that there is hope. :sad:

SAS, do you not acknowledge that Iraq is a bigger threat now than it was before this fiasco started?

How can people be so blind?


West Coast
14th Sep 2005, 16:49
The accusations against Prescott Bush are just that, accusations. Now you want to raise questions about GWB bias based on accusations of what a relative may or may not have done. Wouldn't hold up in front of any judge except in your kangaroo court.

You need to work a bit harder.

"WC chooses to take this as anti-Americanism but believe me, it's just that GWB really does come across as some sort of shallow jerk to a lot of folks.)"

What does this have to do with being pro/anti American? It has to do with you stringing a bunch of accusations about the Bush family in WWII and what his beliefs about Nazi's are. Do you have any proof that GWB benefited from any arrangement with Hitler? Do you have any proof GWB today holds any sympathies towards Hitler? I'll answer it for you, you aint got shit except a desire for it to be true.

14th Sep 2005, 16:56
What Wolfowitz said was true.

The WMD argument, which I believe was made in good faith based on the intelligence of the time, was necessary to bring along coalition allies, but was only one of the justifications for the invasion. The others were sufficient, IMHO, without the WMD argument.

14th Sep 2005, 17:02
Sorry, but has this turned into an episode of Bremner, Birch and Fortune????

14th Sep 2005, 17:02
The primary, and from what I remember of the time, officially stated legal reason was that Iraq illegally possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

Please do list the other reasons that were sufficent justification for US forces to invade another sovereign country.

14th Sep 2005, 17:08
Here's the full text of the joint resolution passed overwhelmingly in both the US Senate and House of Representatives.


14th Sep 2005, 17:18
The resolution lists WMD's and Iraq's nuclear weapons program as the prime reasons for invasion. Reading through the resolution I notice many of the reasons given including:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

have since been shown to be incorrect.

Darth Nigel
14th Sep 2005, 17:28
Very ill-tempered but correct :E post deleted.

I have sworn a mighty oath not to get involved in the Iraq debate any more, but I slipped for a moment.


14th Sep 2005, 17:31
have since been shown to be incorrect

The jury is still out on that one. Zarqawi and Abu Nidal are known to have been guests of the former regime. As the society was closed, we don't know whether or to what extent Hussein worked with Al Qaeda. The Czechs, for example, insist Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents pre-9/11.

I ask that you look within the body of the resolution for items that were and are true today. As I've previously posted, to me the resumption of hostilities was justified by attacks on coalition aircraft and hindrance of the inspection process.

It was a strategic mistake to place such emphasis on the WMD question when adequate justification existed in addition to that. I agree that Bush wanted Hussein out and was determined to do it. The emphasis on WMD approach was taken largely at the insistance of Mr. Blair.

14th Sep 2005, 17:39
Reasons why people voted for Bush

He's a good christian man with good values:
(he looks positively satanic with that ridiculous cackle and grin)

He's so smart and knowledgeable:
(afterall you can't spell Bullshit without B.U.S.H)

He's extremely talented:
(so cute)

He wants the best for his country and the world:
(thats what I thought)

(In case you can't tell) I am being extremely sarcastic.

14th Sep 2005, 17:50
It was a strategic mistake not finish the job in 1991. It was an even bigger mistake to give the Hussein regieme their helicopters back at that time which were then used to massacre the Kurds in the North and the Southern arabs who had risen up at the encouragement of Bush senior and then abandoned to their fate.

Jury returns verdict (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6189795/)

Was Abu Nidal not executed in his Bahgdad flat by Hussein henchmen?

As for the Prauge Connection, where Atta was supposed to have met with Iraqi secret service bods both the FBI and the CIA subsequently revealed that the report was unsubstantiated.

The inspection process had been restarted by UN inspectors, a read of Hans Blix book is quite enlightening on that score.

14th Sep 2005, 17:58
At the heart of the intelligence failures is that age-old curse, petty rivalry. British and US intelligence services just don't communicate despite the long-avowed Òspecial relationshipÓ. Since the days of Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, the US has seen British intelligence as leaky and staffed by upper-class twits lacking in loyalty. In good old colonial fashion, the British have always scorned their transatlantic cousins.

A nice little thumbnail sketch of this breakdown is provided by a retired British intelligence officer. ÒI was at a CIA conference two years ago when Lockerbie was being discussed. One of the MI6 officers waltzed into the room and strode up to an American he thought to be a CIA agent, saying: ÔThank God none of those wankers from the FBI are here.' He was actually talking to an FBI agent.Ó

The same officer also gave a rather chilling appraisal of the extent of Britain's intelligence on Middle Eastern terrorists. ÒOne of the Cabinet Office briefings I attended was on the threat from Iraq after the Gulf war. We were examining the risk from terrorist cells. I can put my hand on my heart and say that the extent of our knowledge wasn't just negligible Ð it was non-existent. We didn't have a damn clue what was going on. And we still don't, God help us.Ó


14th Sep 2005, 18:04
I see, this whole debacle is down to British intelligence agencies. Interesting concept SASless.

Something to mull over Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html)


14th Sep 2005, 18:07
It would sadly seem that in its determination not to be dominated by the West the UN has sadly become dominated by the mediocre and corrupt and in danger of becoming a bloated irrelevance heeded by few.

14th Sep 2005, 18:50
Iraq had been shown to have biological and chemical weapons before, "and there was no record of either destruction or production; there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?" ElBaradei said.

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

But he could not say definitively they did not exist....after all of the inspections? Go figger!

14th Sep 2005, 18:56
The inspectors were removed from Iraq before the US led invasion of Iraq. Maybe if they were given the extra time they asked for they could have given a definitive answer - but as we know it would not have been the answer that Washington required.

That's how I figger it.

14th Sep 2005, 20:31

What if they told the interrogators the stuff was in Syria....would we dare advertise that? It would make it easier to get the troops and equipment home from Iraq....we could road march to the Med via Damascus and save all those sea miles out of the Persian Gulf and around the long way to Savannah.:uhoh:

14th Sep 2005, 20:43
I must hang out in a different officers mess than you do.

And I must have lived for 5 years in a different one to that which you briefly visited.

14th Sep 2005, 21:39

What if they told the interogators that they were getting assistance from US companies?
What if it turns out that all the rubbish we fed before the invasion turns out to have been a complete fabrication?
What if history judges the invasion of Iraq to have been one the most unfortunate political and strategic mis-judgments of the 21st Century?
What if my astrologer has been telling me lies and I don't win the lottery on Friday?
Why would Syria want to help Iraq?

14th Sep 2005, 22:16
At the heart of the intelligence failures is that age-old curse, petty rivalry. No it's not, it's Bush's tunnelview.

US' invasion was based on 1 (ONE), unchecked intelligence (Chalabi) source, named "Curveball" (http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyNjMmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY2NzQzODMmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk5). A blatant obstruction of all intelligence rules...

How can anybody believe a source named Curveball?
The jury is still out on that one. Zarqawi and Abu Nidal are known to have been guests of the former regime. Incorrect, Zarqawi was in an area controlled by Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern part of Iraq. CIA confirmed there was no link between him and Saddam.

14th Sep 2005, 23:22
Yep - well done boys, hope you are proud!

14th Sep 2005, 23:23
Whoa Lima....George declared war and you went all wobbly....a bunch of Terrorists declare war and you blame......lets guess....George!

How about sticking to one side of an issue please....be upset with anyone that declares war unilaterally please...don't play both sides here!:uhoh:

Next thing you know....old George will be guilty of causing all the Frogs in the world to croak. (sorry...poor choice of words....meant "die")

14th Sep 2005, 23:31
Looks like the gloves are finally off in the Iraqi civil war. Zarkawi has declared war (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9332851/) on behalf of Al Qaeda against the Shiites of Iraq. Last week Moqtada Al Sadr said he (and his army!) would make the Sunnis pay for the anti Shiite bombings - and the notorious bridge tragedy in particular.

So this is it. Civil war.

If it happens its gonna get very nasty. I believe it will end up in the partition of Iraq. Even more importantly, it may see the end of the Global Muslim Brotherhood, and an upheavel within Islam which might actually lead to the elimination of fundamentalism from within, and a brighter future for muslims worldwide.
Not to mention the rest of us.

Onan the Clumsy
14th Sep 2005, 23:33
Not to mention the rest of us. brighter future or elimination?


14th Sep 2005, 23:40
Yep, fighting amongst themselves is the start of a mere downfall.

Does anyone here believe Al_sadr and Zarqawi are easily caught?

Take them both out:cool:

14th Sep 2005, 23:46
Better check your reading comprehension Lima....I did not say WMD's were in Syria.....not at all....did not even suggest that. Read the post.....I posed a question.....you know... statements that have one of these at the end..... ??????

14th Sep 2005, 23:50
Seems some other folks were very friendly to the Nazi's too....

Touchy subject of royal links with Nazi Germany
By Patrick Sawer, Evening Standard

Linked by blood but twice divided by war, the royal family's relationship with Germany, its people and its troubled history has long been a sensitive one. The photograph of Prince Harry wearing a swastika has echoes of one particularly disturbing incident involving the family, one which seared itself into the British collective memory - that of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor meeting Adolf Hitler in 1937.

The ex-King Edward VIII and his wife were known sympathisers of the Nazis and their policies, a feeling shared by a large number of British aristocrats who admired the way Hitler was dealing with the Communists.

The Nazis regarded the duke, who had abdicated over his affair with divorced American Wallis Simpson, as a potential ally and a possible head of state for a subjugated Britain.

But his flirting with Hitler's regime threatened to undermine years of work by the royal family to distance themselves from their German roots.

The modern royal family was founded in 1840 when Queen Victoria married Albert of Saxe-Coburg, a Germany duchy, creating The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Such was the ill-feeling towards all things German during the First World War that in 1917 Victoria's grandson King George V - an honorary Field Marshal in the German army - thought it prudent to renounce the German name and titles and adopt that of Windsor.

It was a masterful PR exercise, replacing the Teutonic surname with that of a quintessentially home counties town.

His son Edward VIII once declared: "There is not one drop of blood in my veins that is not German." Both he and George VI were bilingual in German and English.

Throughout the Twenties and Thirties, the royals were steadfastly opposed to conflict with their ancestral fatherland. Indeed George V's wife Queen Mary always maintained that Britain had "backed the wrong horse" in 1914.

His son's meeting with Hitler threatened irrevocably to undermine the royal family's support among their subjects.

It took the Queen Mother's steadfastness in the face of German bombs and her visit to the East End during the Blitz to restore public faith in the family.

The Windsors' links with Germany remained a touchy subject however. There was embarrassment in the Eighties when Princess Michael of Kent's father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, was exposed as a former Nazi party member and SS officer.

Less well known is the fact that one of Prince Philip's sisters, Sophie, was married to Christopher of Hesse-Cassel, an SS colonel who named his eldest son Karl Adolf in Hitler's honour. Indeed, all four of Philip's sisters married high-ranking Germans.

The prospect of the former Nazis and Nazi sympathisers attending his wedding to the Queen meant he was allowed to invite only two guests.


Send Clowns
15th Sep 2005, 00:04

Lima or Alpha, again complaining because the killing does not have the sanction of the true Iraqi government, and might be noticed and recorded in a way accessible to the outside world. It's only acceptible to some people if Saddam Hussein, legitimate ruler of Iraq, orders the killing, and it doesn't get on video ...

You really are desperate to try and blame the actions of on islamic faction on another are the fault of the Americans. That sort of off-the-wall statement really requires justification you seemingly can't be bothered to provide.

If you can't be bothered to provide an argument, I am not sure why you think people will bother to reply. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt once.

15th Sep 2005, 01:12
So you have nothing of any substance to say on what happened to the WMDs except to suggest bizarre, illogical scenarios ?

C'mon, Lima. That's your job!


15th Sep 2005, 01:48
The good news seems to be that Al Qaida has finally blown its cover and by turning muslim against muslim, revealed that by its very nature, it is un-Islamic.

Surely the big question now is "What happens to all the martyrs?" - will they still get the virgins?

15th Sep 2005, 02:03
Good question.

Furthermore, at the current rate, just how long can standards be maintained at 40 virgins per suicide bomber?

How long can the muslim faith continue to supply 40 per man AND manage to breed (Earthly) at the present outrageous rate?

15th Sep 2005, 03:06
Hmmm...I seem to remember that the consensus amongst the expats on this wonderful island in January 2003 was "well, of course, the first thing that'll happen is that the shi'ites and the sunnis will start kicking the shit out of each other...."

Boy, I hate being right all the time.

15th Sep 2005, 03:12
L, A or J said:

"The war that had no sanction from the UN whose resolutions we supposedly went to enforce. The war that has cost 2,000 coalition lives and tens of thousands of Iraqis".

Well, not quite LAJ, there was a resumption of hostilities in 2003 after a CEASE FIRE that was signed in 1991, with conditions.
The conditions were not met by Iraq and hostilities resumed, the UN had already given their approval in 1991, GWB went to them more as a gesture than to ask but given the extent that France, Russia, China and the UN Organisation itself had their feet in the trough there was little chance of security council approval in 2003, fortunately it wasn't a requirement. Had the resumption of hostilities been illegal rest assured, by now half the lawyers in the USA would be in there bringing their case to court, either in the USA or the Hague.
The last figures released showed between four and five thousand Iraqis killed, not "tens of thousands" Still, far too many, obviously.

Strange but I could swear that all this has been here in JB before yet people still choose to ignore even the most basic of facts!

15th Sep 2005, 03:22
So why the....ahem....12 year gap? I don't suppose Iraq was growing as a threat over that time was it? After all, they did blow up the WTC in 2001, didn't they.

No, wait, er......<cue argument falling apart> :confused:

West Coast
15th Sep 2005, 03:28
The Shia have been at war for a long while. Just figgering that out Junk?

Captain Sand Dune
15th Sep 2005, 04:53
Well it's enough to give me the Shiites!:}

15th Sep 2005, 05:50
The best metaphor I've heard (from a former Republican Guard Officer of all things) was that Saddam was the lid on a pressure cooker. As long as we contained him (something we were doing quite effectively) he contained aggression (and any chance of a coup) between the (mainly Shia) marsh arabs and the Sunni ruling minority. The Kurds were left to mostly do there own thing and the minority of Armenian influenced Christians and few Zoroastrians were free(ish) from persecution.

Plus we (including Donald Rumsfeld) were more than happy to arm Iraq in the fight against the perceived threat of Iran, a conflict in which chemical warfare (the mythical WMDs that must have been bought from, er, someone) was evident. *

So my questions to those who supported 'Operation Iraqi Freedon' (tell that to the guy who hung the stars n' stripes on Saddam's statue!) and 'The War Against Terror' (nice acronym) in general are thus:

Was Saddam anymore of a threat to stability in the region than he was in the late 80s/post Kuwait invasion?

Is the world safer?

What is the plan if the world isn't safer?

How do you propose to bring together such a lidless pandora's box under a single constitution (the only person to come close being Tito and we know his legacy).

As rhetorical as these qustions sound, I'm keen to hear genuine answers. Feel free to quote or link any sources or evidence. Failing that, feel free to point out that I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, that I'm just a liberal, or just repeat your point ad nauseum.


Huggy Fluff/Former Military Intelligence Officer

*Source: Stockholm International Peace Institute

15th Sep 2005, 07:12
Was Saddam anymore of a threat to stability in the region than he was in the late 80s/post Kuwait invasion?

Wrong question, it works on your stated assumption that we were containing him nicely and that it was a steady state situation with those in the region happy with the status quo. It wasn´t and they weren´t.

The aim of sanctions after the ceasefire was to weaken the regime to the point it fell, hopefully within a couple of years. For many well known reasons that didn´t work. Whilst the regime and their supporters were able to bypass the sanctions, they were also having a devastating effect on the general population and great attention was drawn to infant mortality etc (1). The effect on the moslem world was devastating. The continued existence of the regime also required the continuing presence of large numbers of American forces in Saudi, another source of moslem anger and the main bone of contention of Al Qaeda for example. So whatever it was, it wasn´t steady state.

There were 3 real options. Continue with the status quo, accept the continuing deaths in Iraq and the growing anger in the moslem world and just see what eventually happened. Accept that sanctions weren´t working, lift them and come to an accommodation with Saddam (which is what he was waiting for and at which time it has been admitted he would have restarted his various programmes). Or remove his regime by other means.

What was your preferred solution?

Is the world safer?
Overall, I´d say yes. The threat to the rest of the Gulf has been removed. The removal of Saddam was followed by the renunciation of the nuclear ambitions by Libya and the end of nuclear proliferation by Pakistan. I think that makes for a safer world.

What is the plan if the world isn't safer? See above.

How do you propose to bring together such a lidless pandora's box under a single constitution?
Nobody would accept Saddam or another Sunni tyrant. The Kurds and Shia, 80% of the population, want a federal solution, the Sunni don´t. Your comment suggests an an alterntative, I´d like to hear it. (the only thing left in Pandors´s box is hope after all).

By the way, he didn´t buy his chemical weapons, he made his own using equipment and raw materials largely bought in Europe. (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/az120103.html) All Iraqi chemical artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds were based on Russian designs.

(1) Iraq Sanctions (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp):
A United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report in 1999 concluded that half a million Iraqi children had died in the previous eight years because of the sanctions. Columbia University professor Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist and an expert on the effects of sanctions, estimated in 2003 that the sanctions had resulted in infant and young-child fatalities numbering between 343,900 and 529,000.

15th Sep 2005, 07:18
I'm having trouble putting it into words so I'll let these guys do it for me:

It would be easier to subjugate the entire universe through force than the minds of a single village.

Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood.
~Mahatma Gandhi

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
~Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent.
~Issac Asimov

In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell

Peace is constructed, not fought for.
~Brent Davis

some men...in order to prevent the supposed intentions of their adversaries, have committed the most enormous cruelties...
~Clearchus, in Xenophon

Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war.
~Mark Twain

The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.
~Martin Luther King, Jr.

War creates peace like hate creates love.
~David L. Wilson

After every ''victory'' you have more enemies.
~Jeanette Winterson

I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.
~George McGovern

Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"

The greater the state, the more wrong and cruel its patriotism, and the greater is the sum of suffering upon which its power is founded.
~Leo Tolstoy

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin!!

The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
~George Orwell

Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.
~General Douglas MacArthur

That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
~Theodore Roosevelt

Any forces that would impose their will on other nations will certainly face defeat.
~General Vo Nguyen Giap (Vietnam)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
~Thomas Jefferson

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison

The Department of Defense is the behemoth...With an annual budget larger than the gross domestic product of Russia, it is an empire.
~The 9/11 Commission Report

Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
~George Orwell

War is the business of barbarians.
~Napoleon Bonaparte

Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
~George W. Bush

"Is the world safer?
Overall, I´d say yes. The threat to the rest of the Gulf has been removed. The removal of Saddam was followed by the renunciation of the nuclear ambitions by Libya and the end of nuclear proliferation by Pakistan. I think that makes for a safer world."

What threat to the rest of the Gulf?? Saddam Hussein was so powerless and his military so weak and disarmed that he couldn\'t have even invaded my back yard if I lived on the Iraqi border. Are you kidding me ORAC?

Lets go back to school and study the concepts of cause and effect eh ORAC? Just because renunciation of nuclear ambitions and proliferation by Libya and Pakistan came after the invasion of Iraq doesn\'t automatically mean that they are somehow related. Pakistan is an aly in the war on terror and does not fear US invasion so Iraq had no affect on their decision.

By the way, it should be obvious that if the US tried to invade any state possessing nuclear weapons then it would be the end of the world.

15th Sep 2005, 07:58
Cause and effect? Occam´s razor. Believe it was coincidence if you will. Pakistan only seriously began to clamp down on Khan and nuclear proliferation in 2004 after Libya admitted to their own programme and provided details on the parts and help being provided by Pakistan. One followed the other.

Weak and disarmed? The Iraq armed forces were still intact. There were many, including on this site, who thought they would give the US forces a pasting.

15th Sep 2005, 09:22
I strongly urge SAS and WC and anybody else that inexplicably supports this war to read this article:


I would be very interested to hear rebutles to this soldier's extremely solid argument.

If you have none, then welcome to the antiwar movement.

15th Sep 2005, 09:46
Even if you accept the view that the war was wrong, what is the case for withdrawal now? What would the effect be on Iraq? What would the effect be on present and future allies? What would the effect be on the American people and armed forces?

Certainly there should be an exit strategy, but not one demanding immediate withdrawal or one driven by a rigid timetable. The implications and consequences must be clearly understood. The prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. The outcome in Iraq will shape future American policy. A premature withdrawal would usher in total chaos in the region, not just Iraq, as fundamentalists moved to achieve dominance. Wherever there are significant Sunni populations, radical elements would be emboldened and, as in towns and cities in western Iraq now, murder or drive out the Shia, which could lead to full scale intervention by Iran.

The view of the muslim world would be of another failure by America to follow through on it´s promises and a demonstration that Al Qaeda is right and that the USA, and the West, is rotten and can be beaten. The view of the rest of the world would be that the USA cannot be depended upon.

There is no magic quick exit strategy, but the USA owes it to the people of Iraq that, having brought the situation to this stage, that they stay the course until a stable government and state is able to take charge of their own affairs.

15th Sep 2005, 09:47
I read the article....but did not find it compelling enough to change my mind. I can find articles and e-mails by others who have fought there and are currently fighting there, that say exactly the opposite. Do a google search on Major Tammy Duckworth and read her account....she lost two legs and most of her right arm flying Blackhawk helicopters....and she does not resent having served.

I would suggest there are only a few that protest the war (Veterans/current military people) and the vast majority strongly support what is going on.

Whether one supports or protests the war is an individual decision. Either way....one is right to do whatever his conscience dictates.

I served in the Vietnam War and saw people protest and even leave the country to seek asylum in Canada and Sweden. Even then, I did not hold that against them as long as they protested in an honorable way by seeking political help and trying to convert public opinion.

There are some that I still hold nothing but contempt for due to the things they did. Those that went to North Vietnam and made propaganda statements for the enemy while good Americans were being tortured and killed by the same people they were helping.....them I have nothing but loathing for.

The world is a dangerous place and trying to find the right way to achieve peace is a very hard thing to do. I doubt anyone has the exact right answer to that question. Some may claim to have....but I would give them no credence...the answer is too complicated for one man to have with certainty.

By the way Pan, why does supporting the war, constitute having inexplicable reasons for doing so and objecting to the war not?

Why would not offering a rebuttal to your question connote enlisting in the Anti-War movement? You are taking the attitude of either you are with us....or against us that so infuriates some of the Huffy Puffs around here.

I would suggest one reads and accepts articles that supports one's own views.....especially for the Huffy Puffs amongst us. Those of us on the other side oft times read the articles but see little factual information to convince us of the correctness of the opinion being presented. We of the Right tend to look for data, facts, ascertainable information vice mere opinion and feelings. Doesn't automatically make us correct but does make us different in the way we approach matters.

15th Sep 2005, 10:24
LAJ you start your participation on thread by baiting your political opponents and getting personal.
You know the pack drill here, so you're off this thread. And clean up your JB act in general or you're off the forum for good.
Our time too expensive to waste on babysitting intelligent people who think the JB ROE (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144080) doesn't apply to them.

SASless rule 5 of the JB ROE (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144080) is what you need to look at. Like LAJ, you're an old hand here and know the score. Should know it anyway. Stick to the rules or go argue politics somewhere else.
See above about cleaning up your act on JB.

I am deleting both your posts from this thread and keeping a copy of the original in the toolshed for future reference. And don't bother mailing any of the JB Mods to whinge and argue, we've spent enough time on the pair of you as it is.
You don't like our decision, talk to the site's owner.

15th Sep 2005, 11:30
"We of the Right tend to look for data, facts, ascertainable information vice mere opinion and feelings"

I'm afraid its entirely the other way around. Arguments for the war include the likes of "if you don't support the war you don't support the troops" or "you're unpatriotic" or "you're helping the terrorists" or other blatantly stupid remarks.

I have read an insanely large number of articles and news stories and watched the news etc (including fox news) supporting both sides of the debate. I couldn't find a single pro-war article that didn't include some kind of logical fallacy, immoral greedy bias, inaccurate or tainted facts, or just childish name calling (eg Huffy Puffs) and spinning.

The article I posted makes some very striking and critical points, which unless you can refute them leaves no moral or logical justification for supporting the war. And nobody who has replied has found logical fallacies or factual errors in that article. So if this article is correct how can the opposite be also true?

There are opinions and facts, and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But there is only one absolute truth, and I'm afraid the right is very far from it and the whole world sees it. The shrinking minority in America that supports this terrible administration is finally getting the picture.

In response to ORAC, I was not making a case for immediate withdrawal. Bush and his clan made a royal mess of things and its going to be extremely difficult to clean up his mess. I just want the Bush administration to be held responsible for their actions and for the whole of America to learn a good lesson from this so it never happens again.

Orion Man
15th Sep 2005, 11:31
BlueEagle - four of five thousand dead Iraqis ? Hundreds are getting killed every week.

Try the Iraq Body Count or the Lancet's findings for a better estimation.


Orion Man

15th Sep 2005, 11:40
You can draw a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead!

Stan Laurel!

15th Sep 2005, 11:45

If I post an article that makes compelling points about the good things that are happening in Iraq and that area....does that match the article you posted as point....counterpoint? If so, if we then each go on a search and drag in every article we can find that supports our various positions....do we hold a count and see who has the most and thus declare a winner?

I would submit there are so many issues at hand, that separating them into a nice neat ledger book is impossible.

Just as you say....we are in the mudhole...and changing horses is not the right thing to do now....meaning we have to do our best to see this thing through now that it is on. Despite being against the war, you see the importance of taking it to its conclusion hoping for the best possibile outcome even if not the hoped for resolution at the outset of the campaign.

I can assure you that there are many of us that support the war that do not like the way it is going. I can also assure you that there are a lot of us that did not care for the way we got into it. The question seems to me to be able to decide if this fight was coming at some point and whether having it now and in Iraq was the best answer.

Just as we learned from Vietnam....we have learned from this war too. Hopefully, we shall have learned something valuable that will steer us to a better path in the future.

One final comment....we are still learning of secrets held over from World War II....by the US, UK, and Russian governments. What makes us believe that we have heard all of the information used to make the decision to go to war this time? What other information exists that only our children will hear of that entered into play here?

Curious Pax
15th Sep 2005, 12:10
SASLess (and other pro war contributors):

Genuine question - you talk of learning from mistakes in GW2 and earlier. If we can pretend that time travel is a reality, what mistakes were made that you would correct if given a second crack from September 12th 2001 onwards in respect of Iraq.

For what it's worth, and leaving aside that I don't believe that a war was the right way of going about the problem of Saddam, I reckon a huge difference would have been made if the coalition hadn't tried to do things on the cheap. At the time Rumsfeld seemed keen to do it as cheaply as possible (ie with as few troops as possible), but I would suggest that the overall cost of the last 2-3 years there has actually turned out greater for 2 reasons:

- a greater number of troops deployed may have speeded things up a little, and would probably have let fewer of the really bad guys escape to get involved in the current violence.

- more money/time spent on the 'hearts and minds' aspect would have paid huge dividends. The policy at the time appeared to assume that the locals would be so pleased to see the back of Saddam that the only issue for the coalition would be what to do with all the garlands of flowers with which they would be presented. That seems rather naive now. There was always going to be some resistance to occupation, as many people would rather be badly governed by their own people, rather than well by somebody else, but nothing anywhere near what we see now.

15th Sep 2005, 12:24
Well, Orion Man , for now the official Red Cross and Red Crescent statistics will just have to do.

15th Sep 2005, 12:26
I see the major mistake in the conduct of the war was the lack of follow-up troops....the decision not to ban all weapons and.display of weapons...and the inability to seal off the borders. The initial military campaign was a success in any way that it is measured....depsite the lack of a two front campaign that would have allowed the cross border movement to be curtailed early on.

The dis-banding of the Iraqi Army in total was not a good move either....doing a joint unit operation and including a lot of the more moderate units in the security operation thus showing a desire to assist vice occupy the country would have paid off in spades I think.

The civic action side of the war is far greater than imagined...Saddam's Regime let the country's infrastructure deteriorate to the point it was failing to provide the necessary support to the population.

We have allowed the enemy to take more initiative in his operations and thus have presented ourselves as targets vice hunters. The Sunni-Shia strife that stems from many years back will continue to be a problem until the Sunni's can accept the fact they are no longer in control of the government. Some way must be found to convince them of the need to participate in the political process.

15th Sep 2005, 13:10
It doesn't matter what people say to the war pigs constantly defending their hero, brainless Bush - they will NEVER concede that the Washington baboon has really fukced this one up.

Maybe if there was a huge natural disaster in their homeland and Bush sat on his ranch not giving a $hit, maybe then they would not think he was such a hero.

Oh, that's right, that actually happened the other week and the verdict is ... HERO!

15th Sep 2005, 13:18
When ongoing internal problems such as the Irish, Breton, and countless others this might just be more than a year or two.

15th Sep 2005, 13:30
This is very good,

Try it! (http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2005/bush-speech-p1.php)

15th Sep 2005, 13:40
Yes, ban him, ban him now.

How dare PanPan speak the truth!

How can Bush be so evil - he is a man of God!

Wanquer with a wig
15th Sep 2005, 13:46
Bushy Babes luvs it too!!!!!

:ugh: :ugh: :eek: :p :D

15th Sep 2005, 13:47
Not as bad as the Kennedy´s though. Maybe they should ask Teddy and the rest of them to give up their money as well?

Joseph Kennedy bought his Nazi stocks from Prescott Bush. The British thought Kennedy was guilty of treason because his code clerk was tried in London as a Nazi agent and convicted. The President thought he was a Nazi, he was certainly an anti-semite.

Read Lesson 4 (http://www.investinginland.com/joseph_p_kennedy.htm)

More than enough mud to go round... :hmm:

15th Sep 2005, 13:48
As I said ORAC, GWB is no more responsible for his grandfathers actions then JFK. RFK and Teddy were/are for their Dad.

15th Sep 2005, 14:05
Ah, but does the acorn fall far from the tree?

But then who could ever accuse Ted Kennedy of being a "Fat Cat" living in the lap of luxury and not using those very funds to bolster his life style?


Orion Man
15th Sep 2005, 15:13

My understanding is that there is no official bodycount for the conflict. The Red Crescent said it has been unable to access some areas affected by civilian casualties and was ordered out of Falluja by US forces.

The Iraq Body Count uses information from newspapers, local hospital dead lists etc. Many families do not even report the deaths of family members. Their count now shows over 25,000 dead.


Orion Man

15th Sep 2005, 15:28
Al-Qaida’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, purportedly declared “all-out war” on Shiites, Iraqi troops and the government in an audiotape posted Wednesday on an Internet site known for carrying extremist Islamic content. Bloomin' eck they really do hate everyone...let's see, add the above to Americans, Brits, Australians, Spaniards, Italians, Israelis, etc etc...:rolleyes:


Darth Nigel
15th Sep 2005, 15:31
Mother of God, that's my senator right there. But at least he's wearing a coastguard-approved floatation device... hang on :yuk:

SASless, you heartless swine, please cease and desist from posting your collection of Kennedy-porn... although your fascination with the Kennedy men makes me wonder if perhaps you were in the jungle a little too long???

I shall now go and bleach my eyes to see if the image can be made to go away.

And personally I think that politicians of all parties are scum. The ones who make it on to the national stage (especially in the US) are all cut from the same cloth. The Democrats rob the rich to give to the poor (a welfare state that works so well), the Republicans rob the poor and middle-class to give to the rich ("trickle-down economics" named after what happens if you don't shake well after a pee). But the politicians and their cronies seem to do well, even in troubled times ... ah, the stench of corruption and unctious self-righteous ass-holier than thou.

I can count on the fingers of one hand those Congresscritters and Presidents and their acolytes that I would view as men of integrity and honour. And no, none of those are called Bush -- the Bush family from Prescott forwards are good arguments for late-term abortion.

Dunno about John Kennedy (bit before my time, but he got the Apollo program running and managed not to blow the t!ts off the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which has to be worth something) but there's none of the rest worth the trip to Hyannis to spit at.

John McCain seems like a nice chap, a moderate Republican with a military record a little better than the Shrub.

And Jimmy Carter was probably the best human being we've had in the White House, and he was a crap President.

Clearly this system doesn't work -- maybe it's time to petition the Queen to rejoin the Empire. Or we could work it like a sport -- the English can ship the Americans George Galloway and perhaps receive Dick Cheney in return. Seems fair, they've both met and supported Saddam ...

15th Sep 2005, 15:34
Well, Orion Man , for now the official Red Cross and Red Crescent statistics will just have to do. Will Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) do, BlueEagle?

"A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005."

The best metaphor I've heard (from a former Republican Guard Officer of all things) was that Saddam was the lid on a pressure cooker. Exactly, and the Kurds have not even gone into action against the Turkmenistans as well.

I used the expressions like Pandorra's Box and "The Magician's Pupil" in the past.

15th Sep 2005, 15:35
Well despite the mud slinging on this thread, what is beyond doubt is that this is a very worrying development. Yet another potential calamitous situation for poor Iraqi's.

What is clear is that it seems impossible to curtail the insurgents, whenever one part of Iraq seems cleared of them, they simply move onto somewhere else.....

One thing is certain, there is a lot more bloodshed to come and that's the tragedy here.

Very depressing.

15th Sep 2005, 15:39
Just when we're clearing them out of one country they move into another...Afghanistan to Pakistan. These [email protected]<hidden> are just the same whether they are in Iraq bombing civilians, police, and soldiers, or sawing people's heads off, or bombing trains in Madrid or nightclubs in Bali.


brain fade
15th Sep 2005, 16:28
I told you on the eve of the 'war' that invading Iraq would surely be best avoided while you did your best to convince me that it was a jolly good idea.

I think that, had things turned out rosy, it would now be time for me to reach for my hat and also the brown sauce! As it's turned out tho', perhaps you should!

As it is, all folk, including yourself, can debate is how to plan an 'exit strategy'.

Things could scarcely have gone worse in Iraq up to now with 2000 US KIA, c.100 UK KIA, fukc knows how many Iraqi's dead and it looks like things may be about to take a significant turn for the worse. There must be 100 who hate us now for every 1 who hated us before. Happy days.

Now I know you are incapable of changing your mind, along with many who post on these fora but surely doubts as to the wisdom of 'Iraqi Freedom' must now be entering your head. In fact I'd like to postulate that anyone who thinks the Iraq war has been 'worth it' in any way at all up to now must be deranged.

Given that you can't or won't change your mind tho' and acknowledging that you have a good grasp of what's going on, perhaps you'd tell us why YOU think we are in Iraq.



Dave Martin
15th Sep 2005, 16:33
I wonder just how successful a Sunni uprising can be?

Obviously there outside helpers, but we are looking at a population demographic that just won't allow a Sunni victory, surely?

Wouldn't the very best aim of the "coalition" have been to ensure Sunni participation in the constitution/power-sharing, through compromise, with a guarantee that we will leave within, say, a year, if it works successfully.

So, the Sunni's have a bit more power then their population should allow. Gotta be better than a civil war. And lets face it, despite the protestations of many on here, civil war has been on the cards since day 1 of this war, and has never looked as likely as it does now.

What a disaster!

15th Sep 2005, 17:45
"What is clear is that it seems impossible to curtail the insurgents"

In response to Ozzy and OneWorld... What you're quite correctly observing with this seemingly infinite supply of insurgents is the fatal flaw in this so called war on terror. You can kill as many as you want for many years to come and you won't even put a dent in the number, you will only cause it to increase. For every single minute that this war continues like this the insurgents are gaining more and more ammunition for their propoganda to win the hearts, minds, and loyalty of their people. This is where the coalition is failing the most.

Many people worldwide are extremely angry about this war despite having personally lost nothing or very little as a result of it...

So then imagine, if you will, that you are an Iraqi. Its March 2003, you're 18 years old and have just been accepted to study at Baghdad university, you are upset with your government and recognize all the deep rooted problems within your country. But you thank God that you live in relative peace and harmony and you are hopeful for the future. Your dad's business is doing well and he just bought you a modest car. You take your little sisters and your girlfriend for a ride and they love it. The next day some ******** moron from the US decides hes gonna blow the city you grew up in all to hell for absolutely no justifiable reason. Your entire family dies including your baby sister that fell asleep in your arms the previous night. Your girlfriend is maimed and her family killed, your neighbours and friends have experienced similar losses.

Are you pissed? Hell ******* yeah you're pissed! This must be a kind of anger that thankfully you and I cannot even imagine. You are definitely not justified in suicide bombing a bunch of innocent civilians but... come on, what would you do??? Can anybody honestly answer this question?

For every innocent civilian that dies in this illegal war there is at least 1 easy recruit into insurgency.

15th Sep 2005, 18:55
Apart from all the usual tiresome ritualistic position-taking and insults that usually come up on a thread such as this, can anyone enlighten me - what is Zarqawi at? Allegedly the Sunnis want Iraq to stay as Iraq, otherwise with a Federal system, the'yre left with the Kurds with oil, the Shiites with oil, and them in the middle without an @<hidden> in their trousers. I thought you needed some money and power to run a Caliphate?

Then you have the "Muslims of the world unite" routine espoused by the al Qaeda cave videos, followed by al Zarqawi's wee change to a "Kill 'em all - let God sort 'em out" philosophy similar to that espoused by some nutbags nearer to home for me.

Anyone who's dealt with the Arabs knows what you see on the surface is only a pale imitation of what's happening in the background, so what's the PLAN for Iraqi Sunnis?

Smilingknifed, I note you didn't mention the Iraqi jews, many of whom disappeared - the rest were forced to sign their possesions away and were thrown out of the country with the clothes on their back in the late 60's/early 70's when Saddam first made his weight felt in Iraq. As for keeping the lid on the Pandora's box, there are no Saddams or Titos any more - dictators are boring and passe, and Iraq is another Yugoslavia - the hard man is gone, and the inevitable will happen, which is why I believe the coalition did not finish the job after the First Gulf War. The Shiites will bond with Iran, the Kurds will set up their republic and make everyone around them incredibly nervous, and no-one gives a crap about the Sunnis as they don't have oil any more and they had their day in the sun under Saddam.

High Wing Drifter
15th Sep 2005, 19:01
The good news seems to be that Al Qaida has finally blown its cover and by turning muslim against muslim, revealed that by its very nature, it is un-Islamic.
That has been the tactic of radical fundementalists since Sayyid Qutb steered many muslims down this road in the early sixties.

15th Sep 2005, 19:02
That is a really good point of view bear11. I think you’re pretty close to being right about what the future holds for Iraq. Good post.

15th Sep 2005, 19:02
...even if it"s just Wild Turkey on the rocks.

As to GWB benefitting from 'Hitler', per se, well, no, that wasn't my point. I doubt he ever met the man.

It is just that his grand-dad dealt with the Nazis, made some money and salted it away for the use of later Bushes, presumably including GWB, given his obvious failure to earn a living on his own. I mean, set the boy up in Texas in the oil business and discover he cannot discover any. Such a klutz would have starved to death without a family support network, I assume. They finally struck gold with him but he spent a rather long time on the Bush family teat. And but for the Supremes he still would have been the human equivalent of a 'dry hole,' hmm?

I never made an allegation of pro-Nazi sentiments on the part of the Shrub. I doubt he has much of an idea what they were about, actually. I merely maintain that some of the Bush family wealth came from doing business with the Nazis. This would seem to be a matter of historical record.

Part of the fun here is poking these neo-cons with a stick to see them erupt in illogical anger while claiming that they are the partisans of cool logic opposed to over-emotional weirdoes who have a blind hatred for GWB. I am merely attempting to suggest some logical basis for seriously disliking GWB. As an American citizen I must be barred by law from blindly hating the Prez, even assuming that there was something there to hate.

15th Sep 2005, 19:14

At least now you can empathize with us who cared so little for Slick Willie.

Ain't politics great?:ok:

15th Sep 2005, 20:52
SASless, sad thing is that everybody using his/hers common sense saw it coming what's happening now. Read the various links on this forum before the war even started.

Even amateurs like us predicted the increase of insurgence, the non existance of exit strategy, too few troops, instability in the area etc, etc. All these factors are now branded as mistakes. What does that make of the people responsible? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith? In my eyes a complete and utter failure, just like the Katrina aftermath. In fact, what have the Bushites achieved anywayz?

In corporate world these executives would have been dismissed a long time ago :rolleyes:

Onan the Clumsy
15th Sep 2005, 21:13
Don't know why, but I just stuck my head through the door of this thread :ugh:

At least now you can empathize with us who cared so little for Slick Willie. Now I have to go and contradict myself, but that makes me want to say two things:

Firstly that it appears to me at least that one of the major flaws in the Us system, (and I suppose the UK system as well) is that the impression is that if you dislike one candidate/party, you are automatically for the other. I see this used a lot by the right but I'm sure both sides do it.

For instance, I have to admit a certain dislike of the right wing agenda that appears to grip this country, but I would add that I have no feelings one way or the other regarding Clinton. To dislike one party is not, to me, the same as to like the other. I have to admit that it took me a while to figure that out.

Now the contradiction: the previous post is illustrative to those currently in, or rather supporting those in power of how others might regard the administration/republican party/certain people in particular.

The loathing that eminated from the right towards Clinton is quite similar, I think to that felt by today's left for his current counterpart.

Dave Martin
15th Sep 2005, 21:20

As for keeping the lid on the Pandora's box, there are no Saddams or Titos any more

No dictators or hard men any more? Look anywhere in central Asia and you will find exactly that...many of them good friends of ours.

As far as I'm concerned Zarqawi is a hardman for sure. We're far from running out.

and no-one gives a crap about the Sunnis as they don't have oil any more and they had their day in the sun under Saddam.

Was it not Rumsfled or Brzezinski who made some comment about not needed to worry about a bunch of "Heated up Muslims"? Those hotheads went on to become the Taliban and Al Quaida.

Ignore the marginalised and the pissed off at your own risk. They have nothing to lose by seeing the world plunge into the dark ages, seeing your assets destroyed, or indeed the entire global system collapse.

If, during the great periods of economic boom this century we had tried to share that wealth around a little more we probably wouldn't be dealing with this chaos right now.

15th Sep 2005, 21:56
That is often the way it is Ozzy, that’s where the term of “Yellow Dog Democratic” originated from those types of folks. This is NOT am insulting statement or title in the way one could construe. The saying comes from the US south where it was said that people would vote for an old yellow dog if it ran for office as long as it was a Democratic.

I am a Republican (surprise!) and support President Bush, most of the time. I even supported ex-President Clinton on occasion. The current governor of Oklahoma is a Democratic and I voted for him. Why, because he was the better man for the job.

If the Democratic Party ever found a really good candidate for President (like there is a chance of that happening in my lifetime) that I consider better than the Republican candidate I would vote for them.

16th Sep 2005, 00:18
That has happened in neither the USA or the UK....what do you make of that? Each leader was re-elected? What do you make of that? This is not business...and few business managers are fired each year if you really check it. When was the last airline manager sacked?

16th Sep 2005, 00:47
The folks on Ummah.com are totally going spare over this.
The cat has been thrown among the pigeons methinks....LINK (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65377)

16th Sep 2005, 00:53
Who caused Iraqi civilian deaths?
Category Number killed % of total
US-led forces alone 9,270 37.3
Anti-occupation forces alone 2,353 9.5
US-led and anti-occupation forces involved 623 2.5
'Military actions' as defined by Iraq's Health Ministry 635 2.5
'Terrorist attacks' as defined by Iraq's Health Ministry 318 1.3
Predominantly criminal killings 8,935 35.9
Unknown agents 2,731 11.0

16th Sep 2005, 01:04
Calculating death lists is argumentative, pointless, and backward.

The solution to the problem, BlueEagle, is at hand.

Recognise that the people of Iraq are being used, and played, by Al Qaeda and the rest of their ilk.

When that happens - and I believe its starting now - things will quickly get better.

Orion Man
16th Sep 2005, 01:07

And that adds upto ?

US forces alone by your quote is over 9,000. Four or five thousand wasn't it in total ?

16th Sep 2005, 01:08

My loathing of Clinton was not politically oriented...I cared not for his politics but what caused me to absolutely hate the rascal was his misconduct and reprehensible behaviour while in office. I could have tolerated his sexual antics if he had at least constrained himself to doing that within the Residence but when he defiled the office of the Presidency and then committed perjury covering it up....that was just too much. When he held that finger under our nose and lied to the country....he crossed the line. Perjury is a felony....and that should have taken him out of the office.

I don't care for some of George Bush's politics...illegal immigration is one issue...not cutting spending is another....not standing up to the Democrats and going toe-to-toe with them over some issues is yet another....but I do not hate him.

I was raised a Democrat....and when my Democratic party quits roaming in the wilderness and returns to what I believe in....I too will return to the party. The Democratic party left me....I did not leave it.

Right wing Republicans hated Clinton...but at least there was something to hang a hat on when looking for reasons.....Bush bashers started early on long before they had any good reason to do so. As time progresses...I can see why some would come to feel as many did about Clinton but it is for political reasons and not personal conduct.

That is a scary thing to me....that so many seem to "hate" others for their political beliefs. What happened to the civility that used to exist between parties and politicians?

I have said it before....it is my opinon that the Liberal Democrats hate Bush and Conservatives more than they love the country. They have demonstrated that in times that partisan politics should have taken a back seat to what is going on in the country. Issues that should have been embraced by both parties have been politicized to the detriment of the nation and the world in general.

16th Sep 2005, 02:14
Hillary for 08!:O

Onan the Clumsy
16th Sep 2005, 02:30
Now they have journalists telling me what he just said.

I suppose that's in case I missed something :confused:

16th Sep 2005, 02:38
CSI is on....................

16th Sep 2005, 02:55
Civil war is inevitable in Iraq. You can blame Zarquari, Bush, whoever you want. Once Saddam was removed it was inevitable. The only stable countries in the ME are either dictator or monarch led, these people need an ultimate authority.

16th Sep 2005, 05:26
Yes, my numbers are obviously out of date now, nevertheless, 25,000 as a result of the invasion is also a gross exaggeration, nearly nine thousand are the result of criminal activity.

I'm inclined to agree with Maxalt, arguing about the body count is pointless, the figures I quoted came from here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) and when you go here (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/contacts.htm) and look at the credentials of the people responsible for them you too may doubt their objectivity.

The main point of my original post was to bring to the surface the fact that the invasion of Iraq was both legal and UN sanctioned.

16th Sep 2005, 06:03
For Christ sake are there not enough Bush bashing threads here in ‘Jet Blast’ already! Give me a break.:yuk:

Thanks mods, fast work.:ok:

Happy I’m pretty sure it will be Hillary, if she wins reelection in New York. The ultra left has control of the Democratic Party now and that’s why they can’t relate with the common American.

16th Sep 2005, 06:39
Too true SAS, one needs to look no farther than Delta and Northwest for that to be the truth. Not to mention non-US airlines.

But please stop reminding the ‘other folks’ that their opinions do not translate into victories at the polls. Even when they lose they come up with reason that they really had a victory, or they were cheated. Just a bunch of poor losers if you ask me.

16th Sep 2005, 07:17
the invasion of Iraq was both legal and UN sanctioned.

No it wasn't.

The resolution that preceded the War, stated the consequences if Saddam did not comply. Blix and co were never given the time to finish their inspections and come to a conclusion to enable those consequences to be authorised by the UNSC.

Richard Taylor
16th Sep 2005, 07:58
Didn't Saddam ignore 17 UN resolutions before the Coalition removed him?

Wasn't Blix & Co being led a merry dance by Saddam,delays here,hold-ups there when they were trying to inspect?

Is the UNSC worth the paper it is written on.

Nope,& neither are its resolutions.

Is there not a meeting of the UN in New York ongoing,where some countries can't even agree a definition on "terrorism"?

Which countries would those be I wonder? :uhoh: :rolleyes:

16th Sep 2005, 08:23
Didn't Saddam ignore 17 UN resolutions before the Coalition removed him?

And then

Is the UNSC worth the paper it is written on. Nope,& neither are its resolutions

:p :p

So which is it? Either the UN is the rule of law and Saddam broke resolutions and the war was justified.

Or it isn't and the UN should be ignored, therefore what was the legal justification for war?...............

16th Sep 2005, 08:35
Richard Taylor,

If ownership of undeclared WMDs and ignoring UNSC resolutions is a pre-requisite for invasion there are other countries that should by your definition be invaded. I can think of one country that has ignored 66 UN resolutions and is in possesion of WMDs - but that is another can of worms that is best left unopened.

The percieved double standards applied by the powerful Western nations is one of the main recruiting seargants for insurgents and "islamic" terrorists. There are many many more complex and intangible reasons that people will fall into the snare of radical religious groups.

The UN with all its faults - and they are many - is at it's most basic a forum where countries can at the very least attempt to resolve issues before they start shooting at each other. Diplomacy must always be given a chance before going to war. If the UN were to be disbanned what alternatives would any of the "Gods of War" suggest?

16th Sep 2005, 09:35

Whether the invasion of Iraq was legal and UN sanctioned are matters of opinion, not fact.

16th Sep 2005, 11:47
"posted 15th September 2005 12:12

" Had the resumption of hostilities been illegal rest assured, by now half the lawyers in the USA would be in there bringing their case to court, either in the USA or the Hague".

Opinion or fact Heliport?

"The resolution that preceded the War, stated the consequences if Saddam did not comply"

Clearly he didn't and he suffered the consequences. Blix was never given the chance, by Iraq, to finish the job he was given, he was railroaded out.

Spuds McKenzie
16th Sep 2005, 11:54
Blix was never given the chance, by Iraq, to finish the job he was given, he was railroaded out.

It was the US which told Blix and his crew to leave Iraq, because an attack was imminent!!
He wasn't given the chance by the hawks in Washington, because they couldn't wait to get in there!

From USA Today:

U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq

VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.


And as for this statement:
The main point of my original post was to bring to the surface the fact that the invasion of Iraq was both legal and UN sanctioned.
I've got this to add (from FOX NEWS by the way!):

After failing to secure U.N. authorization to use force to disarm Iraq, Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to step down or face war in a speech Monday night.


UN sanctioned my a :mad: e!

16th Sep 2005, 12:00
Blix was never given the chance, by Iraq, to finish the job he was given

No, Blix was given a chance and wasn't allowed to complete his job by the US/UK. He said as much as well. As Robin Cooke asked in his resignation speech, "why the rush?" Saddam was no threat to anyone so why barge in there all of a sudden all guns blazing? The inspections were working, he had no WMD capability, not mechanism to carry them even if he did.

Strange to start a war against somebody so incapable and neutered?

16th Sep 2005, 12:02

"Blix was never given the chance, by Iraq, to finish the job he was given, he was railroaded out".

Should read:

"Blix was never given the chance, by Iraq, to finish the job he was given, as due to total failure to comply and a total lack of co-operation on the part of Iraq, combined with the threat of imminent war, the team was advised to leave ASAP.

So often one sees the well used phrase, "There were no WMD", well that has yet to be proved, all we are talking about is a trailer load of 45 gallon drums, sufficient to wipe out civilisation as we know it yet so small it could have been buried or slipped over the border. Just a bit too early to be making such a definitive statement as, "There were no WMD", perhaps?

16th Sep 2005, 12:10
Quoting Blix....and the Nuke Boss Inspector...

Blix said he had not been able to say definitively that Iraq had no such weapons, but added that he felt history has shown he was not wrong.

"At least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed," he said.

ElBaradei faulted Iraq for "the opaque nature of that Saddam Hussein regime."

"We should not forget that," he said. "For a couple of months, their cooperation was not by any way transparent, for whatever reason."

I should think falling for the trap as we did...for whatever reason...is preferable to thinking as Blix does...and being found to be wrong. The ramifications of that do not bear considering in my view.

Spuds McKenzie
16th Sep 2005, 12:11
due to total failure to comply and a total lack of co-operation on the part of Iraq

UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

"900 inspections at more than 500 sites" = "total lack of cooperation"!?


16th Sep 2005, 12:31
all we are talking about is a trailer load of 45 gallon drums,
Not quite. What we were actually told by Tony Blair was:

“he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes”

16th Sep 2005, 14:32
How does one accept that all WMD's have been destroyed or accounted for in Iraq (or its neighbors if one possiblity is accepted)? A few 45 gallon barrels (Imperial...55 gallon US) and the folks could have been back in the Chem/Bio warfare business.

I found this report that discusses pre-war and post-war information about the WMD situation.


16th Sep 2005, 14:33
Why is a moderator joining this argument using his moderating name? Does his opinion represent PPRuNe?

16th Sep 2005, 16:03
SASless, BlueEagle et all, if you choose not to believe Blix, read the ISG report. It searched Iraq from top to bottom without any obstruction from Saddam.

"WMD Leftovers. There continue to be reports of WMD in Iraq. ISG has found that such reports are usually scams or misidentification of materials or activities. A very limited number of cases involved the discovery of old chemical munitions produced before 1990. These types of reports (particularly scams) will likely continue for some time and local authorities will have to judge which merit further investigation."

Can we finally put this myth away? Elvis has left the building :rolleyes:

In fact, what have the Bushites achieved anywayz? Well, since nobody seems to know, I\'ll answer myself:

Between 2001 and 2004, 4.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty while the upper 2% of the the country’s richest became 55% wealthier. So, say what you will about Bush’s policies. They’re working.

16th Sep 2005, 16:21

I quoted Blix directly twice already in this thread. He clearly stated he could not say with definity if WMD did....or did not exist. What is it about that statement that is hard to understand? The man himself said there is enough ambiguity to the situation to leave either option open. He said the fact they have not been found does not mean they do not exist...it leads one to conclude that but does not definitively prove their non-existence.

He did say the lack of discovery tends to confirm what he thinks to be the case....that the WMD's are no longer in Iraq. You will note he does not say they no longer exist.

16th Sep 2005, 16:35
I concur with the idea....by the way....Delta is ready when you are!

What say....move the UN to say....errrr....Lagos....or Harare....or Mogadishu.....Addis Ababa...Baghdad....Kabul....I can think of lots of places it should go.

What say you?

Venezuela's Chavez wants UN out of United States By Irwin Arieff
Thu Sep 15, 8:17 PM ET

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez used the United Nations on Thursday to fire a broadside at the United States, saying the world body should move out of New York over the war in Iraq.

In a speech to the U.N. world summit, he also said the United States had failed its own people in its response to Hurricane Katrina, accused Washington of fueling terrorism and faulted it for its doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes.

"Today we know there were never weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but despite that, and going over the head of the United Nations, Iraq was bombed and occupied. So the United Nations must be pulled out of the United States," Chavez said.

The three-day New York summit was convened to mark the United Nations' 60th birthday by laying out a plan for multilateral action in the new century on terrorism, human rights, development, peacebuilding and U.N. management reform.

Chavez branded the plan "illegal" for failing to respect anti-poverty goals set by a U.N. summit in 2000 and said the United Nations instead needed drastic overhaul.

"The United Nations has outlived its model. It's not just a question of bringing about reform. The 21st century requires profound changes," he said.

Among changes he advocated were expansion of the 15-nation U.N. Security Council, which has global authority over matters of international peace and security; strengthening the role of the secretary-general, and eliminating the council veto granted the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France.

Chavez noted bitterly that U.S. television evangelist Pat Robertson, a strong supporter of President George W. Bush who called for Washington to assassinate him, remained a free man. Robertson later apologized for his remark.

"This is an international crime, terrorism," Chavez said.

Ties between the United States and Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, have been cool since Chavez came to power in 1998, ushering in social reforms and forging close ties with communist Cuba.

Buster Hyman
16th Sep 2005, 16:40
The UN should get themselves a nice big Nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier and just sail the globe continually....of course, that excludes New Zealand!:}

16th Sep 2005, 16:59
Well when the US waited until the last minute to approve the visa of the Iranian president for his visit to the UN, I realised it was time they moved. I don't care what you say about his politics (I don't like him, to be honest) he is the leader of his country. That country is represented in the UN and should not be reliant on the US to grant visas so that the leaders of those countries can attend.

16th Sep 2005, 17:15
Is there a country that wouldn't require visas?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who would take the UN can have it. It has ceased to serve it's primary purpose and New York is plenty crowded as it is.

I like the idea of a new world organization made up of democracies. NATO, in its best days, was what the UN should have been, but long ago failed to be. Since both are moribund now, a new coalition of nations committed to long-term peace and world order is needed before the world blows itself up again.

16th Sep 2005, 17:25
Seriously, moving it to a country in Africa would be a great move. It would assist in putting the spotlight on the poverty and suffering in that part of the world.


16th Sep 2005, 17:53
Seriously, moving it to a country in Africa would be a great move. It would assist in putting the spotlight on the poverty and suffering in that part of the world.

I don't think either Africa or the UN could stand the scrutiny. But I think they could teach each other a thing or two about corruption.

As Thomas Sowell (a Black economics professor in the US) says: If a nation's wealth depended on its natural resources, then Hong Kong would be dirt poor, and Sierra Leone filthy rich!

16th Sep 2005, 18:25
Don't the USA owe the UN billions of dollars of unpaid contributions?

16th Sep 2005, 18:30

No. BlueEagle was not representing PRuNe opinion.

There is no 'PPRuNe opinion' on political matters.


16th Sep 2005, 18:31
That's the rub, Happytruckin. Sovereign nations in a supernational organization tend to resist when the organization infringes on sovereignty. Hence Japanese and Icelanders will continue to hunt whales. Isn't this not also the biggest problem with the EU?

You're not going to get the US to agree that Israel is a racist nation (unless and until it actually becomes one). You're not going to see us sign on to Kyoto and take an unreasonably disproportionate share of the economic impact while other countries less cognizant of environmental concerns remain unscathed.

The UN veto held by the US has been used very sparingly. Are there any resolutions in particular you have in mind on which to base your feeling that the US would refuse to be bound by resolutions with which it disagreed? And if so, was that refusal a logical protection of sovereignty or not?

16th Sep 2005, 20:02
Between 2001 and 2004, 4.1 million more Americans slipped into poverty

What the USA defines as "poverty" would make 98% of the rest of the world insanely jealous.

One of the biggest problems with the "poverty-stricken" over here is their obesity. Look it up.

tony draper
16th Sep 2005, 20:06
No the UN should not just move, it should have its arse kicked out, and agree, some West African swamp would be the ideal place for it.

16th Sep 2005, 20:50

On January 23, 2004, the head of the ISG (that was the US govt sponsored organisation that was sent around Iraq with no limitations from Saddam), David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed," commented Kay. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the nineties." Kay criticized the intelligence that led to the war in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), saying "we were all wrong and that is most disturbing." Kay's successor, named by CIA director George Tenet, is the former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer. Duelfer has stated that the chances of finding any WMD stockpiles in Iraq are "close to nil."

Kay told the SASC during his oral report the following, though: "Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion-—although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."

I do believe that Saddam had to be dealt with, but not in the fundamentally dishonest way that Bush and Blair hoodwinked their countries electorates.

Darth Nigel
16th Sep 2005, 20:52
Agree that the UN should move out of the US.

Draper mentioned in a previous post (somewhere) that the current incarnation of the UN had outlived it's usefulness. I agree with him. But...

I think that the idea of a global meta-government is a good idea; a place where people could discuss their differences and solve problems without violence is a good thing. But I think that the countries involved have to demonstrate some commitment to making the world a better place, and some strong commitment to the "group good" rather than selfish local interest. There are not too many countries like that in the world.

Sadly, with the US politicking around the International Criminal Court, World Trade Organization, and the UN in general (sending ambassadors whose major function was to be disruptive, for example), it's clear that the American colony only wants the rules to apply to other people. Mind you, this is after all how Dubya has lived his whole life, and he's a role-model to many of the less-deep thinkers on this side of the pond).

So I'd take the US out of the UN too, and move them into the "rogue nation" category.

Might be an interesting experiment to isolate the United States -- would make life on the ground safer in various parts of the world not to have the USAF/ANG flying around bombing Brits, Canadians, civilians, Chinese embassies and occasionally the right target.

And I'm sure the world would be a better place for it.

Onan the Clumsy
16th Sep 2005, 21:06
Is there a country that wouldn't require visas? Maybe I'm missing something, but don't heads of State and similar people swan around the globe under a type of diplomatic protection from all the unpleasentness us real people have to endure?

gas path
16th Sep 2005, 21:52
Trouble is, it would be a tad inconvenient having to get all the wire taps back in place:hmm:

16th Sep 2005, 22:11
Easy Darth, some of those Mass-o' chew sets ANG type boys might lob one on your castle by mistake !!

Spuds McKenzie
16th Sep 2005, 22:44
From the American Obesity Association:

Approximately 127 million adults in the U.S. are overweight, 60 million obese, and 9 million severely obese.

So, according to your logic, barit1 , 69 million Americans are poor, right? :rolleyes:


16th Sep 2005, 23:13
I hope you don't rely on YOUR logic for a meal ticket, Spuds.

The point you can take home from my post is that a high percentage of the US poor are in fact obese, and there is a significant negative correlation between income and obesity.

Whatever our problems, starvation is WAY down the list; poor diet leading to obesity is a much bigger issue. (No pun intended...)

One study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/6) linking poverty and obesity

17th Sep 2005, 00:15
At last....Happy and I fully agree on something.

17th Sep 2005, 00:59
Reports are that rebuilding after Katrina will cost $200 billion. "W" claims that the Federal response will be done without increased taxes by "cutting other programs". But the discretionary part of the Federal budget - except for defense and homeland security is only a bit over 400 billion dollars. Are we going to halve the Federal contribution for education, track every other hurricane, do ATC only on even-numbered days, etc. etc.

More likely the "borrow and spend" new-Republican approach will be used in the end. As Mr. Reagan said, the fact that the rest of the world is willing to fund our debt is an endorsement of US monetary policy.

West Coast
17th Sep 2005, 07:49
I don't think I've seen so much agreement here in years. Get the UN the hell out of the US. The question, what modern country would take it in? We have had to deal with its crap for a long time now its time for some of you luvvies to share the burden.

I'll throw Clinton in if you take it.

17th Sep 2005, 08:18
....and "Bear No Burden" Kennedy, "Band-Aids" Kerry, Jane "Traitor Bitch" Fonda, and "The Bitch" Clinton for no extra charge.

17th Sep 2005, 08:43
Offer it to the French, they don't seem to mind who comes to visit, I'm sure they'd love the cachet, and the representatives would love Paris. Their security services are also, so I am led to believe, as good or better than anyone else at phone and radio taps. ;)

17th Sep 2005, 12:24
Or maybe Britain ORAC,

They seem to accept any old Islamic nut-job Clerics and didn't seem to have any problem inviiting evil Dictators like Pinochet?

Why not give up the whole UN thing and just let the US and Britain run the show, eh chaps? I mean they're the only trustworthy countries out there and always do the right thing?!!!

Sorry, I'm laughing too hard while I'm typing that!! :} :p

17th Sep 2005, 13:11
One of the biggest problems with the "poverty-stricken" over here is their obesity. Look it up. I guess you're not one of the 4.1 million :hmm:

Compared with those people who live on a dollar a day, yes the US poor are millionaires, wasn't it for the fact that they live in God's Own Country, with slightly higher cost of living..

17th Sep 2005, 15:31
....and "Bear No Burden" Kennedy, "Band-Aids" Kerry, Jane "Traitor Bitch" Fonda, and "The Bitch" Clinton for no extra charge. Would someone also take Hillary along with the bitch, please.:E:E


17th Sep 2005, 15:49
And please, PLEASE take Trent "F**k the ni**ers as long as my house can be re-built" Lott, Rush, KKKarl Rove, and Tom "hasn't this hurricane been fun boys?" DeLay....

Lots more you could take as well of course! Including the Whole Bush family, hell, just send 'em home to Saudi Arabia...

West Coast
17th Sep 2005, 18:27
"Their security services are also, so I am led to believe, as good or better than anyone else at phone and radio taps"

No bad at sinking ships in port either. The whole get away part needs work however.

17th Sep 2005, 20:40
Seems as if the latest reports on the UN its admin and general health suggests that the US may well have been sensible to withold funds which would have been sqandered due to poor adminsitration and internal corruption.
There appears to have been such an attempt to avoid domination by the West that the smaller countries have voted in innefficient staff who then either haven't been quite up to the task and or more interested in getting their fingers into the till.

Spuds McKenzie
17th Sep 2005, 22:24
the latest reports on the UN
Like oil for food...

But the US was involved as well. According to a report released Monday by Democrats on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, US imports of Iraqi oil helped finance 52 percent of the secret deals made under the oil-for-food program.

The Texas-based firm Bayoil is accused of being the largest importer of Iraqi oil to the US between 2000 and 2002. During that period, Hussein was typically demanding illegal kickbacks from oil allocation recipients.

Bayoil's owners have been indicted by US courts. "On one hand, the United States was at the UN trying to stop Iraq from imposing illegal surcharges on oil-for-food contracts," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan at a hearing Tuesday. "On the other hand, the US ignored red flags that some US companies might be paying those same illegal surcharges."


West Coast
18th Sep 2005, 07:29
You limeys and other assorted Euros get C-span?

There was a lively debate tonight (recorded from earlier this month) between George Galloway and Christopher Hitchens on all things politics. Hitchens killed him, but that's just my take on it. George spewed venom in random order while Hitchens countered with well thought out arguments backed by facts.

C-Span rebroadcasts events a number of times. If you can find it, I recommend it for all you political wonks and wannabe intelligentsia.

18th Sep 2005, 17:13

As per the Galloway v Hitchens debate, I have not yet seen it but saw it reported on CNN, Sky and the BBC and all 3 called it for Galloway.

I guess it is as you say "just my take on it"



West Coast
18th Sep 2005, 18:47
If you can track it down, I'm sure you would enjoy it.
Not sure about Sky, but I wouldn't expect any less from the Clinton News Network or the Biased broadcasting corporation.

Do you think that media outlets have thier own political biases?
On both sides of the spectrum to make it clear.

JB Mods
18th Sep 2005, 19:40
This to the people whose posts have just been deleted; it's not a threat but a factual prediction based on past experience here.

We JB Mods like to accomodate those JB regulars who enjoy discussing politics. Danny does not particularly like the fact that we discuss polictics here, but he indulges us Mods.
So far, so good.

There is currently a tendency by various protagonists of playing the man rather than the ball and of sticking small snide remarks about others in their posts instead of sticking to facts/opinions about those facts.

We do not wish to have to be online 24/7 to police adults, so if this spitefulness continues we won't be able to catch every small minded silly post in time and will consequently fail to moderate the forum effectively.
Danny will then decree 'no more politics' because hates to see people take advantage of his Mods.

Again, this is not a threat but a fact.
You want to keep up discussing politics, shape up. (and do use the 'report to moderator' button instead of writing revenge posts when someone occasionally attacks your person)

It's no skin off our collective Modnoses either way :) so you choose.

18th Sep 2005, 19:45
Galloway vs Hitchens (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article312968.ece)

18th Sep 2005, 20:50
JB Mods,

Fair enough, but could you explain exactly why Danny has this problem with people discussing politics here?
A genuine question, because I'm baffled.

OW, we'll answer your question to forestall a discussion as this is a take it or leave it situation.
From the ROE:

We'd prefer you not to discuss politics & religion. Two subjects that almost inevitably seem to lead to some people losing the plot completely and Mods having to work overtime.
Mods do not get paid for their work here. So to keep people willing to invest time and effort in modding, it must remain rewarding. Having to sit at the screen 24/7 to keep watch over a bunch of fighting pre-schoolers is neither fun nor rewarding. Discussing politics brings out the pre-schooler in many and thereby creates Mod overload.
Ergo, Danny has a problem.


I guess talking about T*its, farting and endless inane games of "Mornington Crescent" is fine because they\'re not taxing and make life easy. And they\'re not childish?

Whilst we who want to have adult conversations about the important issues facing us (and yes, political discussions do get heated, listen to the House of Commons or the Hitchens-Galloway debate listed above as evidence) cannot do so without being scolded and sent to detention!!


18th Sep 2005, 21:46

Stay on line Lima - your comic book notes on Bush are hilarious.

I want to see everyone eat crow when wee Galloway is found out at last. Slavish acceptance of that little shit's every edict and self serving observation is the sign of a gullible, small mind ! :E

Don't forget his sickening, fawning meeting with Saddam Hussein in 94. Galloway's obvious social Arabist climbing and political jockeying involved public praise of a mass murderer. My Kurdish and Iranian Shia friends would like to discuss that with Galloway.

Look back at his vain, egotistical self serving career from Dundee onwards and listen to his sycophantic Arabist/Pro Palestinian BS enough and you would really want to upchuck if you knew the real man !!

Funny how the nose in the trough has to be a left wing one to be accepted in the UK media. QED Blair and the wicked witch, Mandelson, etc etc (Just my take on it). :}


If you really thought Galloways bluster and prima donna act was anything other than a farce, then you aren't the intellectual I honestly took you for. (Not a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", surely ?)

18th Sep 2005, 21:56
Pilgirm, I doubt too many people have respect for Galloway, his campaign in London was particulary nasty and blatantly racist against Onah King. As the Independant pointed out, Galloway is a good old fashioned blood and thunder political animal, bred on the heat of the hustings and well versed in the nasty vitriol one needs there.

A very unpleasant man who's not afraid to go into the gutter.

Disspointing to hear Hitchens as well though, he seems to be on Bush's staff.....

18th Sep 2005, 21:58
Too true OW

Ever thought of going into politics yourself ? :E

Naaah, you strike me as a well balanced, Guinness drinking Irish American ?


SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1