Bush set for another Term as Prez, WTH?

I'm curious what people from England have to say about their own country's involvement in Iraq...

I was listening to the radio the other day and I heard a recording of a meeting of Parliament (I think this was some special "lunch" type debate that happens every so often?), where a member was quoting things from Bush's State of the Union like "continue the programs to search for evidence of programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction". Tony's Blair's reply to this was something like "THERE CAN BE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT ABOUT THE EXISTANCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT!"...

What was the name of the English Gov't official who killed himself out of shame at having provided loads of "intellegence" on Iraq that ended up fueling the fires of the war? I think his name was David Kelly?

I agree that america is in a very bad way, and has been for a while. The American gov't (the Republican Party in particular) seems interested in eliminating the Middle Class, so that there are basically only slaves and masters (once more).

But, I think people from England should recognize that thier own gov't HURLED themselves at Iraq (if I remember correctly, they even had troops inside the country, ready to go, before we did?). England also ignored the UN and all the vocal countries like France & Germany who strongly opposed the war, just like we did. An English traveler who came to my bussiness even went so far as to say: "Do you know how expensive gas is in England? It's outrageous, of course we're going to Iraq, we want the oil, just like you!"

While I don't disagree with the points you guys have made, I don't see Tony Blair as being all that much different from George Bush, with regards to war monging in Iraq. England was THE partner in crime for the war.

Spotlite

ps Zerochan: Having spent a lot of time in Japan myself, I can understand why someone wouldn't want to live there. Living in America, we're in a unique position that not many countries have: hundreds of different kinds of people living together as a community.

When Japanese people walk down the street in almost any American city, no one would think of them as a "foreigner". In fact, people probably wouldn't give it a second thought. This isn't true in Japan. I think having to live life every day as a "gaijin" can be mentally taxing, even during short visits. Even when you've built a friend group of Japanese, the barrier that exists between Gaijin and Japanese will always remain. I've never had someone do a literal "double-take" at the sight of me before, in Europe, Mexico, Canada...

I'm not saying all Japanese have this attitude, but walking down the street in Tokyo, meeting thousands of faces every day, it is undeniably there. The most classic example is people not wanting to sit next to you on the subway, even during rush hour. that blew my mind.

But, I love Japan, and given the chance, I would like to live there for a given time, but it wouldn't be for too long, I don't think I could handle having to be an Alien in the street every day.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, after all this bullshit I'm seriously thinking about living in Japan. I mean, not to say that Japan doesn't have it's share of problems, but I just am awed at the stupidity, racisim, and corruption of our government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some would say those characteristics of the government are precisely Japan's problem...

 

Australia seems to be in the same sort of situation as England. Joined the war, (probably for a guarantee of free trade) against the majority of the people's opinions, and both had some of the largest anti-war protests seen. I don't know anyone that is a proud member of the Coalition of the Willing and I don't know anyone that thinks that Bush is smarter than a peanut.

Really everyone knows it's BS but who's going to really do anything about it I don't know. No one here is affected by the war - it just changed the conversation that people have over lunch. It's not that people don't care or are too stupid they just don't care enough. The Australians that it did affect were the troops and the politicians, but even with elections coming up I would be surprised if there was a change of party. The opposition party (labor) has had internal conflicts and a change of leader when they should have been criticizing the government for its involvement in the war. People don't want to change political parties during a conflict and the last time the labor party was in power was long enough ago to make people cautious. You have the Greens but they are not a big force. The really scary thing is that the labor party now has gone out of it's way to say that it has a good relationship with the US. Even if they get elected they could just go on with the same stance as the current government. Really people know that Australia shouldn't be in this but will the people change anything with the election? - I doubt it.

 

I think the difference between Bush and Blair as far as Iraq is concerned is that Bush was the driving force for the invasion, and Blair went along because he was promised good things in return for his cooperation. I think he underestimated the political consequences of following Dumya's lead. When Bush visited Britain, he couldn't even appear in public becuase there were so many protesters. Come election time, Blair will reap the shitty harvest he has sown...

You are right on target when pointing out the squeezing of the middle class. Layoffs, Elimination of benefits like health insurance, the problems go on and on. Levels of personal debt are at all time highs in the U.S. As a perverse response to this, Bush and the GOP controlled congress passed a law that changed bankruptcy laws in America. According to the old laws, if someone filed for bankruptcy, their credit rating would be ruined, but their debts (except for student loans, generally) would be forgiven. Now the bankrupt still have their credit ratings ruined, but credit card companies can garnish their wages to collect money!! For families just scraping by, buying groceries and gas with credit cards, this seems grossly unfair.

Bush knows upon which side his bread is buttered. Campaign contributions from wealthy credit card executives help him more than sticking up for America's struggling families.

Here is something funny, funny in the way that makes you want to projectile vomit at the tv that is: If Iraq ever becomes a democracy, like Bush says he wants, they will likely elect a leader very similar to Iran's ayatollahs. I have seen the Shiite cleric's picture in the newspapers. 54% of Iraqis want an Islamic gov't. That means Iraq could very well go from being ruled by Saddam Hussein to being ruled by Ayatollah Husseini (that maybe the Ayatollah's middle name or something, but you get the point). If you remember, the U.S. supported and armed Saddam in the 80's because he opposed Ayatollah Komheini in Iran.

The funnier thing is that critics of the war pointed this out before it got underway. Like all other voices of reason, they were insulted, called unpatriotic, shouted down, and/or summarily ignored.

 

[ QUOTE ]
kungfusmurf said:

I was watching the 2004 debate of the democratic candidates last night and boy are we fucked for another 4 years. Who are these freaking morons?

Particularly Liberman this guy graduated from Yale Law School and sounds like a complete idiot. Especially every time he tries act Howard Dean man his credibility just goes out the window. Man where’s Hilary Clinton when you needed her, LOL. But she too fucking to come in now.

/versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think alot would change if our generation voted, instead of having the Elderly vote for us. This the exact reason why alot of politicians are focusing on medicare and not Funding for our schools, and Scholorship programs. I put in my voters registration so I can decide who I want to be in power.Than again even though you think you put the right person in power, they do a complete 180 n fuck you over.

 

Sorry our generation is too busy taking drugs, having sex and playing VF. So voting is too much of a distraction from our present focuse on having fun while disgarding for the future and gobal development of humanity. By taking our attention away from all that is so Whatever! /versus/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

On a serious note, it seems that Kerry is going to be the democrat nominee for the challenge against Bushboy. He does seem to have a pretty good background for the job. He's veteran from for the tour of duty in Vietnam and was injuried in battle. He's also been a democrat all of his life fighting for the working class.

Only thing Kerry needs to do is to stick it to bush and not let him run away from the questions. And if he does make him pay for it.

 

Vote. Vote. Vote. Annoy friends and family and strangers and get them to vote.

You wanna see what we're up against?
See what happens when someone says something bad about Bush:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20040114CroMag.html

 

While I didn't particularly support the UK going to war on the terms it set out, I think the outcome will probably be for the best for the people of Iraq assuming some sort of stable democracy forms in Iraq.

One thing I'm sick of hearing is how France and Germany's "peace-loving" stance should've been heeded more by the UK. People who say this should consider the harsh truths about France and Germany's relationship with Saddam's Iraq. Here's just a few facts:

- In 2000 France became Iraq’s largest European trading partner. Roughly 50 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program

- Trade between Germany and Iraq amounted to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.

- In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts from Saddam for German trucks and spare parts

- Iraq owes France $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ‘80s.

Same goes for Russia and China - both these countries had massive investment in Iraq before the coalition removed Saddam Hussein. It's hardly surprising they were the first to condemn the military action when it was announced.

So much for these countries supporting the people of Iraq....they were quite happy to let the UN impose anothe 10 years of crippling sanctions for their own ecenomic benefit. Thousands of Iraqi people died every year due to these sanctions and the thugs who ruled unchallenged in the Bath party.

I think the main problem with what's happened with the US & UK intervention is the feeling of humiliation felt by normal Iraqi's that foreign troops have effectively removed a dictatorship for them. Perhaps if the US had held to their promise and armed the Kurds during the 1990s uprising things could've been different. Instead they stood back and watched them get slaughtered.

Dosen't world politics suck......

 

MAXIMUM said:

[ QUOTE ]
While I didn't particularly support the UK going to war on the terms it set out, I think the outcome will probably be for the best for the people of Iraq assuming some sort of stable democracy forms in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the majority of Iraqis are allowed to elect their government, they will probably get a gov't similar to Iran's, since the country is 54% shiite. Iran is suppossedly developing nuclear weapons, or they may have them. If they become diplomatically closer to Iraq, maybe they would share nuclear technology. Wouldn't that be ironic? Not exactly the new balance of power in the region that Dumya had in mind...

[ QUOTE ]
One thing I'm sick of hearing is how France and Germany's "peace-loving" stance should've been heeded more by the UK. People who say this should consider the harsh truths about France and Germany's relationship with Saddam's Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not unusual for these countries to condemn or refuse to participate in this war. Have they been starting any other wars against nations with no provocation? Their refusing to invade Iraq was in keeping with international law. It does not make sense to vilify countries and try to cite their shady motivations for merely following international law. The burden of proof when it comes to determining nations' intentions should fall on a war's initiators.

[ QUOTE ]
Same goes for Russia and China - both these countries had massive investment in Iraq before the coalition removed Saddam Hussein. It's hardly surprising they were the first to condemn the military action when it was announced.

[/ QUOTE ]

The gov'ts of both of these countries are so immoral that it hardly matters whether they condemn or support the war. Think about Chechnya and Tibet and Taiwan. That said, just because both of these countries were against the war, doesn't make the war justified.

[ QUOTE ]
So much for these countries supporting the people of Iraq....they were quite happy to let the UN impose anothe 10 years of crippling sanctions for their own ecenomic benefit. Thousands of Iraqi people died every year due to these sanctions and the thugs who ruled unchallenged in the Bath party.

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of people felt the sanctions were unduly harsh. Weapons inspectors had found little evidence of Iraq possessing WMD but still the sanctions continued. There was probably not justification for this. Saddam's gov't wasn't really reaking the havoc on the populace like it once did. The no-fly zones largely protected the Kurds. The regime's genocidal salad days were years behind them. Saddam had been, in effect, neutered before the invasion even began.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the main problem with what's happened with the US & UK intervention is the feeling of humiliation felt by normal Iraqi's that foreign troops have effectively removed a dictatorship for them. Perhaps if the US had held to their promise and armed the Kurds during the 1990s uprising things could've been different. Instead they stood back and watched them get slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ]
The U.S. has been down this road before. Remember Robert McNamara's surprise upon finding out that the Vietnamese insurgents viewed theirs as an anti-colonial (rather than communist) struggle. Aren't Iraqis right to question U.S. intentions in their country? Think of all the fucked up countries in the world today: North Korea, the Congo, Iran, Myanmar, etc- some where the case for humanitarian intervention is certainly stronger, some where the potential threat to the world is obviously greater. Why Iraq?

 

Go Kerry Go Kerry Go Kerry. Destroy Bushboy in NOvember!
KIll KIll KIlll! /versus/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

Taken from a recent Cox News Service article by Bob Deans:

<font color="white">Calling the invasion of Iraq "a war of necessity," President Bush said Sunday "we had no choice" but to confront the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein might put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.

With inspectors so far unable to find such weapons in Iraq, Bush said Iraq's ability to make them was reason enough to go to war, given Baghdad's history of having used chemical and biological arms.

And Bush said the United States could not wait until threats became imminent before confronting them to protect the country.

"It's too late if they become imminent," Bush said in an interview broadcast on NBC television network's "Meet the Press" program. "It's too late in this new kind of war," he said, referring to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.</font>

The logic behind this gives every other nation on earth justification to start a war with the US. I find it disturbing. I wish he would just come out and say "we did this for the oil." It's an ugly truth, but I prefer brutal honesty over bullshit ass covering.

I predict if Bin Laden is captured this year, the news won't be revealed till late October. Bush may still lose the election, though. His concession speech may include he following "The WMDs have been found, they were strategically placed in my ass all along."

 

Here is a silly question. Whats the last you even heard from or of saddam hussein? They captured him and bam he was gone like a cheerleaders panties on prom night.

 

If Bush gets Osama, then he will most likely win his 2nd term. /versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

I have a bad feeling that Bush just might Win in NOvember for some reason. Fuck I hate it when I'm right. /versus/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

Yes, Bush nabbing Osama in October is the nightmare scenario. Like a reverse of the "October Surprise" in 1980! Bush's numbers are down now. I honestly have no idea how his numbers are as high as they are. The media coverage has been ridiculously favorable to Bush and his puppeteers. He can tell lie after outrageous lie and the press acts like it is fine. I do not like Clinton but compare the following in terms of real scandal substance and the media coverage:

1. Bush's awol versus Clinton's ROTC deferment and declining the defferment

2. Bush's Harken Oil versus Clinton's Whitewater

3. The Bush administration's outing of a CIA agent versus the Clinton administration's Travel Office firings.

4. Bush leading the nation into war based on an egregious mountain of lies versus Clinton lying about getting his dickie sucked by a rotund intern.

To make all this worse, the average American thinks we have a "liberal" media.

 

The solution is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm with you though. In a case like this, you can only do one thing -- which is what I did. Get a globe, spin it, wherever your finger lands - move there." (Amongst others)

[/ QUOTE ]


Move to Sweden. Deep down you know you want to (deep deep down to the right you know I'm right).

P.S The babe rumors are absolutely true; I've been to alot of places and Sweden really has the best - I shit you not. For example English girls might have nice bodies but they're always mingled in the face yeah?




/KiwE (Lives in a rather small country that still manages to be cutting edge on IT, Sports, Music in a nice nature enviroment with nice summers, stay out of war completly and did I mention the girls?).

 

Re: The solution is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
KiwE said:
For example English girls might have nice bodies but they're always mingled in the face yeah?


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh....."yeah!"....whatever mate. British girls are fantastic. They're not all blond, don't have silicon pumped in their tits and for the most part don't judge you on wealth or the car you drive.

Also, a "date" with a British girl generally means they like you and you're likely to get a shag, unlike American girls who'll go out with any dork just for a free meal

 

Re: The solution is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
MAXIMUM said:

[ QUOTE ]
KiwE said:
For example English girls might have nice bodies but they're always mingled in the face yeah?


[/ QUOTE ]

Eh....."yeah!"....whatever mate. British girls are fantastic. They're not all blond, don't have silicon pumped in their tits and for the most part don't judge you on wealth or the car you drive.

Also, a "date" with a British girl generally means they like you and you're likely to get a shag, unlike American girls who'll go out with any dork just for a free meal

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahhaa.. typical european spewing his mouth about what he thinks American culture is like. Stop watching tv. It only shows 1% of how America actually is. hahahahhahaha

 

Re: The solution is easy.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a "date" with a British girl generally means they like you and you're likely to get a shag, unlike American girls who'll go out with any dork just for a free meal

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying British girls don't have standards? Wow, maybe for once I don't have to be ashamed about being born here...

I assume British girls are ridden with STDs, then?