That picture is the bain of arguing with 14 year old Americans about the war!!!!
Dam you walker.
Dam you walker.
A letter to Bush
- Thread starter Burb
- Start date
He's OK, standing there, we'll probably mistake him for a Challenger and leave him alone... the first unfreindly no-fire incident of the war.
You English are a funny lot . . .
In a Benny Hill kinda' way
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/07/ndemo07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/07/ixnewstop.html
Could not get a link to work, but cutting and pasting does.
In a Benny Hill kinda' way
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/07/ndemo07.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/07/ixnewstop.html
Could not get a link to work, but cutting and pasting does.
I Just dont understand why the UK would want to go to war with Iraq, seeing as more British troops died by the hands ( itchy trigger finers rather ) of the Americans in the last Gulf war. And the same thng is happening now, the yanks should get some skills of 'baller and shoot the target, not their own troops, civilians and so on.
Ok ignoring all the reasons behind why America and the UK went to war, if we are going for the "liberation" reason and to end all suffering, where will the Bush & Blaire Parade go next??
The congo has just suffered a 1,000 civilian massacre, will bush's administration look into this?
Apparantley 50,000 people have been killed in the last 4 years.
Skynews
The congo has just suffered a 1,000 civilian massacre, will bush's administration look into this?
Apparantley 50,000 people have been killed in the last 4 years.
Skynews
You English are a funny lot . . .
If the troops are the ones killing the Iraqis, how do they resolve this solidarity with the troops, as they "pretend" to be the victims of the troops out of protest?
The Iraqi leadership is (and has been) killing far more Iraqi civilians than the coalition, yet they believe that "their" Government should not be allowed to get away with ending that?
Is there a logic I am missing here?
If the troops are the ones killing the Iraqis, how do they resolve this solidarity with the troops, as they "pretend" to be the victims of the troops out of protest?
The Iraqi leadership is (and has been) killing far more Iraqi civilians than the coalition, yet they believe that "their" Government should not be allowed to get away with ending that?
Is there a logic I am missing here?
I expect we'll see the same response as Rwanda - too little, far too late.
Fact is, despite the media dressing, this war - any war - is about self-interest. And for those that disagree, try living without petroleum and plastics. See I don't mind accepting I'm a part of things provided people are honest about their motivations.
What clouds the political moral issue (if that isn't an oxymoron) is the fact that this tyrant was armed - and armed whilst under embargo - by the West who wanted to play Kingmaker in the Middle East. Kinda like when Bin Laden was armed and trained to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, and look how well that turned out. If the UK and US want to eliminate potential thrreats to their security (and I have no doubt that Saddam is one, quite apart from the privations inflicted on his own country), perhaps they should be more careful in who they choose to support in future.