So, I was just wondering, since everyone knows that Bush is only trying to overthrow Saddam for the oil, what is Blairs' reason? And Im only being half-assed sarcastic here. Does he/Britian have anything to gain? Just curious...
Ever since world war two, when the U.S. helped England against the axis forces, England and the U.S. have been inseparable twins. The U.S. is the biggest and toughest guy on the block so the English try to stay as close as possible to them in case they ever need their help again in some future tiff. Plus, they belong to the same white, old boys club.
He basically has it down right there. And remember, most of us physical race "americans" basically came from England. When america was first discovered by Christopher Colombus back around the 1500's or whatever it was (though supposedly some Spanish person discovered it, and Colombus was only given credit due to the line of demarkation - and there are alot of accounts of humans living here before then, but that's besides the point). Remember the Boston Tea Party and all that, we dumped the England King's tea into the ocean off our boats (and he got pissed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Well basically most of us "americans" are actually of British/ English, or Scottish descent, we just adopted the term american. You can see their language over there still being english, and they pronounce lady like lattie, and they spell color like colour. It doesn't take long to see how similar britian is to america. So we kind of had a bond since then. But the guy who posted above me, his reason is probably more to the point.
and they pronounce lady like lattie,Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Have you ever heard an English person speak??or are you judging by the very fake accents that American actors use?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Uh, ok, sorry. But I was just trying to point out the similarties and slight differences. I guess it is just the media feeding us garbage again. I don't think I've heard a real english person say that. My apologies.
Thats OK Clarentavious,there was no offence taken. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You people are so anti-US you'll disregard anything written in the news as being false. We all know that the media is used to spread propaganda, and of course this is not a good thing. If, however, you assume this is ALWAYS the case, you may find yourselves in a world of trouble. Regardless of whether or not you believe the United States' actions led to the 9/11 attacks, it would be totally irresponsible to assume that no more will be forthcoming, or that the cowing of Afghanistan will stop them. The only warning you will get is when a major city disappears in a cloud of smoke... it won't be an American one in all likelihood, it'll be somewhere a little closer to the Mid East, like maybe Europe. And then, you'll all turn around and say "gee, i guess the media was right... they DO have (insert any kind of weapon of mass destruction here)". You're willing to wager everything you have that Iraq DON'T have them? Stupid.
I second that. I for one could give a shit whether you think Bush is on some sort of personal vendetta to get Saddam. Where do you people get such ideas?!?!? That right there is in the top 10 of the dumbest things I've heard all year. I am genuinely concerned that a regime in Iraq, run by Saddam Hussein, is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This is the one guy on the planet who we KNOW will use them. The same guy that gassed INNOCENT Kurds several years back will have no qualms about launching WMDs at our forces in the area, the Israelis, or any other country he wishes to intimidate. Not to mention his likely willingness to share his developments with terrorists that are just itching to deploy WMDs on OUR SOIL!!! Wake up and smell the bullshit people are shoveling. Saddam is more than just some petty dictator, he'll be a real big problem if the world continues ignoring him.
...And just how do you know he'll use them? Seems to me that if the US decided to start a war, then most definitely he'll use them. Word from Iraq is that the US can send weapons inspectors in at any time. Iraq wants to avoid a war at all cost. They pretty much know that if GWBush starts a war, it's not gonna stop until Iraq looks like ground zero. Make no mistake about it. This will not be a war to stop Suddam from getting WMD's. This will be all about OIL. Control for the middle east. Also you make reference about the gassing of the innocent. Have you ever bother to research were Suddam got the gas from? The good old US of A. We supplied the gas. We supplied the gas and weapons even after it was known what it was being used for. Strange how most of the terror created on this planet was/is financed by the USA.
*stRgrL* Well said Emfuser and Squid! Well said... Wait a minute. It doesn't say CNN next to Emfuser. You believed what he said?. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely... Without a doubt, Saddam Hussein knows very well who gave him what and when. Whether it was the beatings he received as a child from his stepfather Ibrahim Hassan, or the weapon he controlled at the age of 20 for the assassination of a communist back in his home town of Tikrit who was a prominent supporter of the military ruler Abdel Karim Qassim. Scince 1979 Saddam Hussein has been in control of a country flush with billions of petrodollars. This is an individual who became an interrogator and torturer at the infamous 'Palace of the End', the royal residence in Baghdad which was turned into a torture chamber under the Baathist regime. I'm sure Mr. Hussein learned all about how a country is to be ruled from pure experience in the field. He rules by fear alone, terror and torture his prefered methods of leadership. Now ask yourself a simple question. Would you want this guy in control of balistic missiles, VX nerve gas, A NUCLEAR WEAPON!? NO! NO! SHIT NO!
I was speaking with someone from Iraq once on IRC, and I thought it was a good opportunity to ask what the locals there actually think about Saddam. So I asked. The person said they could not talk about such things, in case others were listening/watching. So I got nothing at all from that. I guess that says something.
Can't we talk about us dumping the King's tea into the harbor? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
perhaps saddam need weapons to defend himself from warmongering states perhaps after the last war the fucker knew it was just a matter of time before uncle sam paid another visit as for personal vendattas, check out the us govt hatred of castro, members of both houses kept this going for decades solely because of the miami's cuban lobby. i think the average american would love to vacation, invest, fuck etc over there saddams army a third of the size it was most will quit fighting (surrender to cnn) where is the evidence of these weapons? let those who believe this shit enlist now, and get yer kids to do the same "I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq. With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.) The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections. In direct contrast to these findings, the Bush administration provides only speculation, failing to detail any factually based information to bolster its claims concerning Iraq's continued possession of or ongoing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. To date no one has held the Bush administration accountable for its unwillingness - or inability - to provide such evidence. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notes that ``the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'' This only reinforces the fact that the case for war against Iraq fails to meet the litmus test for the defense of our national existence so eloquently phrased by President Lincoln. War should never be undertaken lightly. Our nation's founders recognized this when they penned our Constitution, giving the authority to declare war to Congress and not to the president. Yet on the issue of war with Iraq, Congress remains disturbingly mute. Critical hearings should be convened by Congress that will ask the Bush administration tough questions about the true nature of the threat posed to the United States by Iraq. Congress should reject speculation and demand substantive answers. The logical forum for such a hearing would be the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, the senators entrusted with such critical oversight responsibilities shy away from this task. This includes Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran who should understand the realities and consequences of war and the absolute requirement for certainty before committing to a course of conflict. The apparent unwillingness of Congress to exercise its constitutional mandate of oversight, especially with regard to matters of war, represents a serious blow to American democracy. By allowing the Bush administration, in its rush toward conflict with Iraq, to circumvent the concepts of democratic accountability, Congress is failing those to whom they are ultimately responsible - the American people. " http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
Spookz If this is true, why is making biological weapons? I read a report that he is making smallpox, camelpox and anthrax. I dont see those as being appropriate for defending a country, I see those as a way of killing whole lot of people.
Well, here I must say that the USA is developing such things more than Iraq is. I'm not sure about the legitimacy of developing such things. The US has deployed such things in the past, and so has Iraq.
Why do you think governments do that? I mean, honestly, is there any good that could come out of making these biological agents? I dont think anyone should be making them, just for the fear that they could and most likely will fall into the wrong hands.
