Support the troops?

My best mate once hit Billy Bragg at a Billy Bragg concert. what an upstart he is.

Basically Billy Bragg rants out spiels of shit between each songs and then made comments about how bad Alice Cooper is. My mate likes Alice Cooper and after the show went up to Billy Bragg and said "I thought your support act were great" to which Billy Bragg said "Thanks, thanks a lot" to which my friend retorted "But you were a pile of shit". Billy Bragg went forward to hit him so my friend landed him one first.

I love that story.

 

Billy Bragg is a communist. End of story. I do like his music though.

And Saddam took power because we was a smart, ruthless thug. There wasn't all that much mystery to it, he rose through the ranks. He was a member of the Ba'ath party since 1957, when he was only 20. We didn't "create" him (how, in a lab? like Frankenstein?).

He got 99% of his weapons from countries other than the US. His financial backers were the Gulf states that were even more afraid of Iran than there were of Iraq.

Hard as it may be to imagine, things happen in this world which are not the fault of America.

 

No denial issues... the WHOLE premise was NOT wmd..it was in part that and failure to comply with resolutions..
I think the reluctance to get into the semantics of the resolutions [as a arguement can be made either way] has been thus overlooked and WMD given as the ONLY reason.. This being something tangiable and something we can observe.. now that inteligence on WMD has been proven and admitted to be flawed.. those apposed can jump and down with hindsight and claim ''they knew''.. IF the inteligence was not flawed.. i wonder how the arguement would go now ?..

I have not seen daily discusions on ALL the resolutions, going on around here..have you ?.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, spelled out the UK Government's legal basis for military action in a parliamentary written answer.
He argued that the combined effect of previous UN resolutions on Iraq dating back to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait allowed "the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security".



IRAQ: RESOLUTION 1441

1. You have asked me for advice on the legality of military action against Iraq without a further resolution of the Security Council. This is, of course, a matter we have discussed before. Since then, I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock (the then British ambassador to the UN), who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration from their perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1471655,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857347.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1654697,00.html

can you point to a few sources that highlight what you consider to be the reason i have 'serious denial issues'

Even if i considered it to be 'illegal' ... then i think i would highlight Kosovo as a 'illegal war' that was FULLY justified..

 

pro war springs to mind matty lad ..........pss question = was 9/ 11 a inside job?......you tell me mathew without sounding like a mp .

 

that comin from someone called wacky .........yeah right ........takin me herbal meds man .....wtf are you on .

 

*a bit confused* it seems we're looking at this from different fronts..
Bushco, against UN advisement, sent the US head-first into war on the basis that they Saddam DID have, for undeniable certainty, weapons of mass destruction; I understand Saddams incomplaince with resolutions is a factor the UN involvement, but Bush didn't wait for the UN.
pardon me for jumping to conclusions; I overlooked the fact that you're in the UK.

 

you mean daddy Bush never sold him some, while in the CIA, in the late 80's?

 

People will always turn a blind eye on the parts of history they don't like. So, there's no point arguing with someone about that point of biological weapons. It's like I tell Adam, don't argue with a blind person about what the color blue looks like. Or don't argue with the insane. Or ignorant. All very pointless ventures...

Peace & Love

 

Right now.....Just chewing a little khat.

 

Now you're just being silly.

 

I'm not normally pro war but in this case I was and still am. Saddam is gone. You should rejoice at that.

As for the rest of Iraq its a bit of a stupid point to leave now. All these protesters hit the street nearly every Saturday now and none of them have a clue what is going on in Iraq. They all think they know more than the government.

The government gets its information from advisors of which a great number will be in Iraq. So unless you are in Iraq and can see what is going on can you really say "pull the troops out now". Do you know what will happen if the troops come out now? Another dictator will rise and Iraq will be back to square one.

As for 9/11 inside job. Who knows? Do you know? Is the official story any more ludicrous then the other theories I've read about. No. I don't know categorically know the truth and neither do you.

 

who knows ? somebody must know " truth will finally come out one day "lets hope its soon .gary dont know if you have seen thread on rainbow forum and read the post titled = brothers and sisters i beg of you ( if not ) can i ask you to take the time to watch the doctumentary 9 / 11 "its on for about an hour " if you do watch it ( hopefully with a openmind ) ..........tell us if you still think the same as before watching it ............plane hits twin towers"towers fall like a deck of cards " yeah right " dont think so " . theirs a saying- you can fool some of the people some of the time " but not all of the peoples all of the time .

 

by the way are you gary mathew or mathew gary ?....... good to talk though..........cheers billy

 

We ALL went there on the same rationale.. i CAN see why you may have thought otherwise..

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html

What do you mean by 'pro - war' as in 'Pro iraq war' or 'gun blazing war lovin hawk'... well let me give you a clue anyway THE FIRST ONE..

How does supporting the actions taken..make me a terrorist.. ?.

No i don't believe it was a 'inside job'.... you will have to read about 2000 posts to realise why .. i would be happy to answer any particular question regarding that view.. so i don't end up typing lots and lots randomly.


wakiiraqi..thanks .....but paul is a old 'friend' i don't mind him calling me any name he wishes or whatever he wishes.. as long as he does not bring my momma into it..

 

fucken pleb ........what about bringin daddies into it ( lovely with bangers and mash ) but do you prefer hp . mathew to ever think you think that i would bring parentage into it (dear oh dear oh dear ) how on earth would you think such a thing ( bang outta order ) their you go hurtin me fellings again ..........you rotten scoundrel........now yer crossed off my christmas card list . ..........and for fucksake stop pulling toungues ........must fly ,,,,have a goodnight ....................chow

 

Hhahahahahahaha

YOU ..... have you short term memory loss or something ?.

Because i am a big believer in OBL being a real figure and not scotch mist.. OBL at some time had a revelation to stop being a rich son of a wealthy family.
I also believe that OBL is NOT working for the CIA in any way shape or form [any more ]....... I think OBL got a bunch of useful idiots to go fly planes into some buildings ..and then went onto send some people into Iraq to blow the shit out of many many many people... regardless of who and what they believe...all the name of JIHAD ....NOT 'fighting the capitalist imperialists'.. as this rhetoric is i believe just formulated to play into the hands of quite a considerable amount of people you just might find within forums like this..

Is that alright ?.






Whether real or manipulated, these photographs demonstrate nothing beyond the trivial. As much as we may enjoy poking fun at our politicians, they aren't so clueless that they don't know binoculars don't work with the lens caps in place, or would stand confusedly staring through capped binoculars at total blackness for several minutes at a time. Hardly anyone among us hasn't accidentally raised a capped pair of binoculars to his eyes for a few moments before realizing the problem; the difference is that most of us don't have a crowd of photographers hanging around us all day long just waiting to snap such a picture of the moment. Also, there are reasons why binoculars (especially types used by the military) shown in a photograph might appear to be capped when they really aren't: the lenses could be coated with a non-reflective material to cut down on glare and prevent gleams of light from reflecting off the lens and revealing one's position to the enemy, or the binoculars could be NVD (night vision devices) which also work in daylight (provided they have caps with small holes in place to block out most of the
light).

I'm a real spoil sport hehehehehe

http://www.snopes.com/photos/binoculars.asp

 

I can assure you we are different people.

I've seen the video on the other thread and basically you can read as much into that as you can the official story. So called experts saying how buildings fall.

I write software for a living. How the fuck would I know which one is telling the truth.

I do however remember seeing 2 planes hit a building. I do know more bombs have gone off elsewhere around the world.

The only thing that concerns me is the 9/11 job was executed so professionally where the London bombings were bomb by numbers. The bombers (considering they were from the UK) had no idea about the format of London.

If they had wanted to upset White Britain they would have come in from the south and attacked Waterloo (especially the waterloo and city line). They could have killed thousands in a minute.

Instead they targeted coming in from the north and spread out evenly (ish) by going south on the northern line. They could have hit at that time of day 75% muslims if they had been a little less lucky.

 

I don't know about y'all, but I don't feel "safer" since the war in Iraq began (as if that war was gonna eradicate terrorism and protect "democracy").

We had no business being there in the first place, and now we have more Muslim enemies then ever, having pissed everyone off and de-stabilizing the country, so we're less safe. I've heard figures of 9 billion a month that war is costing America.

Hey, I've got a wild idea, why don't we take a portion of that 9 billion, and instead of bombing the shit out of people, spend it on expanding the Peace Corps. I mean, the whole point of war in the first place is to influence foreign policy so that it goes in our best interest, right? You can influence foreign policy by providing aid as well.

So now you've got this other government entity besides the military, and maybe you make the Peach Corps like the "war corps" in the sense that you provide food, medical, and education benefits similar to those found in the military, and you open it up to people who don't have college educations, make it as accessible as the military. People could learn trades while helping disadvantaged people in other countries.

Imagine that, the world would love us, and we have the resources to pull it off, too...

...nah, it'll never happen...

 

the ferry leaves

 

I was alive then, and many were just that. Many were involved in the war through no part of themselves, they were drafted, but once there, they allowed themselves to be involved in attrocities. I also had friends that returned from nam broken and without support from the government that sent them there. To pretend that I supported what they were doing would have been a lie, and would have lengthened the amount of time we were involved in something we never should have been.