Le Carre: United States Has Gone Mad.

by Englishman 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  Blair seems pretty convinced that Saddam is concealing WMD, maybe he and Bush have info that can't be passed out because it would reveal the whereabouts of secret sources.

  In the UK, there is considerable resistance to a campaign against Iraq, but that is because the Brits feel that Blair is conning them, so the resistance is more against Blair than anything else. If Blair could tell us more, most of us here would be delighted to watch the Baghdad Air Show.

  Incidentally, it's reported that 20,000 plus Brits are on their way to the Gulf area. Nowhere near as many as the yanks are sending of course, but they do pack an almighty punch despite the limited numbers.

  Englishman.
• 

  og

  I love the alternatives he presented. Oh wait, he didn't. It was simply your basic bash the USA type of crap that most of us here could care less about.

  Can you not read? The alternative to war is to not go to war. When did war become our only option?

  His other main point is: why Iraq? Any argument made to support war against Iraq would apply to Saudi Arabia as well... but we already control their oil. No Iraqi nationals were involved in 9/11, no link has been shown between Iraq and Al Qaeda, inspectors have found no evidence of WMDs (if Bush is so sure they exist, why can't he tip inspectors to their whereabouts?)

  I love America - and I strongly oppose the policies of this illegitimate president. If you call me a U.S. basher you can kiss my rear end. Like the man said - Peace is also patriotic.
• 

  troucul

  Thanks for fueling the anti-American sentiments, Texas Apostate. You're exactly the type of person people outside of the US have come to fear. And as far as I know, our government has done nothing to prove Iraq's guilt. Just the other day I was watching Donald Rumsfeld telling a reporter that he had no proof of Iraq's WMD. He 'knows' they have it. Yeah, and I 'know' the Red Sox are going to win a World Series in my lifetime.

  Countries being self-sufficient? What, is it so wrong for a country to want to defend themselves? and to want to supply themselves with power? North Korea is facing a severe power shortage. You tell me to do some research. You're a funny guy. You actually think the US is worthy to be one of the only countries to posess nuclear weapons? Isn't the US the only country to have used them during a war? And if I'm not mistaken, Bush has not ruled out the use of them on Iraq.

  I can tell you're one the dwindling number of Bush supporters.

  I watched Micheal Moore the last night and he said something very interesting. Bush, in all his infinite wisdom, rather than being able to find the one man mostly responsible for the terrorist attacks, has instead decided to war on a nation of 20 million people. I can see the logic in that. (yeah right!) Not only that, but 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. NOT IRAQI. And yet our government is content with Saudi Arabia's 'cooperation'. Why are we attempting to punish someone else (no matter how despicable) for a crime that someone else committed? It defies logic.

  Consider this: Saddam Hussein is a Sunni. It is the Shi'ite Muslims (whom he has quelled) who are the more radical, extremist and sometimes violent followers of Islam. You want to get rid of Saddam and open up that can of worms? You want a nation on the brink to go over the edge? Be careful what you wish for, TA.

  And as far as Iran? which is made up mostly of Shi'ites? I think (hope) you can gather where this point is taking you.

  Keep supporting your Holy Roman Empire, TA, because that is the way we are headed.

  Edited by - troucul on 15 January 2003 12:54:16
• 

  TruckerGB

  Just for your information,BBC Radio 2,did a phone poll today on yes or no to war with Iraq.

  Out of the 27000 people that phoned in,an unprecedented amount for a phone poll,the results were,

  Yes. 13%.

  No. 87%.

  Cheers,

  Rich.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  In the words of the immortal Church Lady: "Well isnt that special..."
• 

  Realist

  Texas Apostate,

  if you call sending checks to families left behind actively supporting terrorism then i guess you are right. but then again that would mean you have to call checks for families of killed israeli soldiers also support of terrorism.

  saddam only posed a threat to kuwait and perhaps saudi arabia. he poses a potential threat to US interests in that region NOt the US itself!

  Englishman,

  they can't tell the weapons inspectors where these weapons are??? that is TOP TOP secret huh?!
• 

  email

  I love the alternatives he presented. Oh wait, he didn't. It was simply your basic bash the USA type of crap that most of us here could care less about. Americans are like any group, we bash oursevles daily but take poorly to anyone that tries to do it for us.

  Or maybe he's just a Bush hater.

  AMEN LB...

  I can't agree more... he is a Bush hater... Same as the liberal/Communist media that supports and prints his "thing"...

  I know this is a little long... but here's a essay called Marx Without the Realism
  The intellectual roots of America-bashing I suggest anyone to read it... please...

  http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002911

  Maybe there some of you will find the answer as to WHY some of you hate america so bad...sorry... not hate.. but BASH america...
• 

  og

  Pissoff Email: disagreeing with the current administrations warmongering views is not America bashing.
• 

  email

  Pissoff Email: disagreeing with the current administrations warmongering views is not America bashing.

  Sorry og... then how do you call that now?

  P.S. no need to get personal... we're just posting our personal opinions and debating issues...
• 

  og

  To say that I'm "America bashing" is in itself pejorative. It implies that disagreeing with this administrations views is akin to being a traitor.

  America can be and should be great in peace. Give the low level of proven threat from Iraq, many options remain (I for one don't absolutely rule out military force - I just don't see that it is now warranted).

  One question not yet answered by Bush supporters on this thread is, why Iraq? Why not N. Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya? If WMDs includes bio-warfare agents, lots of countries would qualify. Small Pox and Anthrax is hardly expensive or high tech. Why not, for that matter, Israel? They've been convicted of spying on the US, and they have nuclear arms.

  I've seen the argument made that Saddam should be removed because he is a tyrant that abuses his own people. I could actually buy that, but again - why Iraq? Lots of oil free countries abuse their people; we seem to tolerate them. We stood by as the Khmer Rouge killed their countryment, why is Iraq now so pressing?

  Here's another question: if our enemy is Osama, why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia? His funds, his backers, and the actual bombers came from that country, not Iraq.

  Finally, how are we going to be safer by means of this war? Will terrorism increase or decrease?