Do we have eny other god damn countres on our side or are they going with germany???:bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Those who have accepted payoffs already have revealed their motives, and will cut and run as soon as this crusade starts to unravel. Blair will fall in the UK, but token British forces will stay with us to catch bullets during our bloody retreat from the Mideast. We will have various groups of Arab Contras, but they will be incohesive and unable to achieve strategic force levels. Down the Bush Crusade path, true friends will be hard to find and keep, as they have been in all our large unilateral adventures. Right now many millions of people are on our side. They are deperately trying to explain to their American friends that this ill-conceived Bush Doctrine will be a historic disaster.
I think that they are not going with Germany, but certainly against Bush and his war cabinet of interests. Blair is beginning to pay the price as we speak. The US senate will have to take a stand, constitutional rights are going to be question and abuse of mandate by Bush will pop-up in the next few days more severely. I am still certain that there will be no War, but I’m more scared on a frustrated tantrum attack suffered by our mentally ill president, then the actual thought of attacking Iraq. :m:
The Busheviks, like Saddam, have staked everything they have on confrontation. They would have it if it required shooting GIs in the back outside of CNNs camera frame. I am afraid there is no outcry that will turn them around. The Busheviks are already defeated, but they will not concede until their folly is sealed in blood.
People or governments? Governments are pretty good, relatively speaking: Spain, Australia, Brit, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia People are generally against the war, since they aren't vulnerable to US incentives, diplomatic pressure, threats of marginalisation etc. Spaniards, Aussies, Bulgarians and Brits are all against war. Spain is royally pissed because of their govts support, even though 8 out of 10 are against war. Ditto, the Italians(72% against), same with Brits(67% against) who are similarly disappointed by Poodle. To my knowledge, the only pro-war people is the US, with the possible exception of Kuwait.
try living under a goverment who says to the media that the publics opinion doesnt matter and that he will do whats "in australia's interests" like exposing us to reprisals, like geting fucked over by the US while johnny choses "not to persuew it", like changing our milatry stratergy to better able us to surport the US, not defend our shores this is in the best interests of all australians
do u rember the steal debarcal? this idiotic missile shield that even if it works will defend the US not us and they want the missiles HERE?
Have you heard that it would appear we're getting some very good trade agreements out of this? The removal of some tariffs for example? The US is not "fucking us over" on this, Asguard. You might call it coercion, others might call it incentive, regardless of how you view it, we're still gaining, not losing. And exactly how is a missile shield "idiotic"? The US is developing something which they hope to make their country safer... please, explain to me how this is "idiotic"? Australia, it would appear, might be allowing some of these missiles to be based on our soil... NOT nukes, Asguard. Conventional missiles, used for shooting down nukes. How exactly, again, are we being fucked over here? Seriously, if you think Australia has the defensive capability to "look after itself", think again. We don't. And as long as our population remains as low as it is, in a country this large, we never will.
Again the missiles need to be off shore to give them time to blow up the nuke so even if it DID blow it up WHERE would the radioative garbage go????????????? all over sydny maybe? and they INCREASED tarifs, not decreased, there steel industry was hurt by 11/9 so they increased the tarifs on OURS GREAT reward
From the UK: Pinter vs. Wesker War on Iraq: Pinter vs. Wesker (BBC) Achtung! I would ask that you read these pieces carefully before responding; both are "characterizations" of the politics of the war, selected by BBC World Services. It's a hard thing to determine, though, whether Wesker is merely playing a role or believes that characterization; I'm inclined toward the latter. Which is unfortunate, as it really does seem like he's slamming a certain brand of war-hawk. After all, he's worried about Pinter .... :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
actually it does not work. it cannot shoot down shit. the testing is invariably rigged. rumsfeld said he is going to deploy them anyway. the man is so doing us up the ass it is insane. none of them give a shit! they are like a bunch of frikking thugs that have taken over. i'll find the news article Opponents point to the failure of anti-missile interceptors to hit simulated enemy warheads in two Defense Department tests last year. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters today that a missile defense system need not be perfect in order to serve its purpose. http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/news/2001-05-02/4046.html i can see the admin telling us that we are safe. we have this shield! then the bombs start coming in. One of the problems with all missile defense concepts tested since the 1950's is that Pentagon scientists have never been able to overcome decoys and countermeasures that an attacking country may deploy. While the Pentagon had planned to test the current system with up to 10 decoys, the tests conducted thus far have included only three decoys that were designed to be easy to avoid. http://www.clw.org/nmd/rumsnmd.html
But all indicators are that it will work eventually. I mean, geez, if the Wright brothers had given up because their first engines didn't work properly... Whether it works at the moment or not, as a concept it seems pretty sound to me. Shields up!
It's called Representational Democracy: you vote for people who are intended to make important decisions for you, because you're too damn lazy to get your own self elected on the strength of your convictions so you can make the decisions for yourself, and everyone else, too. Sometimes your elected representatives don't share your opinion on certain matters. Big surprise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There's always next election to make your opinion heard. Oh, wait. Maybe the majority of voters won't listen to your opinions either. Time to kill them all.
Historical, mostly. When the US sets it's mind to achieving something on a technological front, it generally meets with success sooner or later. This is no guarantee, of course, but I expect success rather than failure. Perhaps I'm being optimistic, time will tell.
the way i see it, the decisions have been made before he is elected. you might not recall on how campaigning works...... the bastard promises us the world, we buy it. we vote him in. he then proceeds to systematically rape each one of us.....up the frikkin ass!
yes of course. i however anticipate that we will have force fields around our cities by that time. It is actually rather stunning to contemplate, but there is simply no precedent in the annals of Pentagon waste for a program consuming over fifty billion dollars over fifteen years and producing not a single workable weapon. At least the forty billion dollars spent on the Stealth bomber produced 21 planes, and aircraft carriers are selling for a measly four billion. All this missile defense money has produced a grand total of fourteen actual attempts to intercept strategic missile targets since 1982, of which only two have actually succeeded, with the most recent nine tests failing. These experimental results closely match the actual combat experience of Patriot in Desert Storm -- which was impressive on television but was later determined to have missed far more often than it hit. Clearly, we are no where close to having a reliable shield against missiles aimed at American cities, though not for want of trying. Over the past several years the Congress has heaped unsought billions on the missile defense program, and mandated the rapid development and deployment of a variety of new systems. Citing the consistent inability of anti-missile interceptors to actually hit their targets a high-level Defense Department panel recently concluded that the politicians rush to develop and deploy a national missile defense was merely a "rush to failure." http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/tangled.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-07-01.html http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0216.htm
