expatbrit

Joined

• started 226 topics
• posted 3,137 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by expatbrit

• 
  73

  Iraq's Tortured Children

  by ThiChi in

  1. social
  2. current

  iraq's tortured children .

  some witnesses had direct experience of child torture .

  by john sweeney .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  LB:

  Over the years I have worked on disagreeing with someone without disliking them.

  Try agreeing with someone without liking them. That's bloody difficult!

  Expatbrit
• 
  188

  Is this a place for children?

  by xenawarrior in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  sorry, call me a b*$ch if you'd like but is this really a place for a 13 year old child to be hanging out?

  is the chat room really a place for kids?

  i know i wouldn't let my 14 year old near this place.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/48684/1.ashx.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Since nowhere (to my knowledge) is this site specified as "adults only", it seems to me we all have a responsibility to act in a manner that recognises that young people may be observing. This includes the chat room, which is also not designated as "adults only".

  I understand and agree with Xena's point. Put it another way. If a group of adults are in a bar or a restaurant acting in an adult/sexual manner, and a child walks in, should they change their behaviour once they have become aware of the child? To me the answer has to be yes.If you want to act out of the norms of accepted public behaviour, it is your responsibility to go somewhere else that is private, such as a specified "adults only" room.

  The header to this site boldly states "everyone welcome!" Seems like that's not the case.

  Expatbrit
• 
  73

  Iraq's Tortured Children

  by ThiChi in

  1. social
  2. current

  iraq's tortured children .

  some witnesses had direct experience of child torture .

  by john sweeney .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Oh but Thi Chi, that's all just evil American propaganda. Probably authored by George Bush while he was eating the liver of a newborn (as shockingly revealed on www.saddamhowwidewouldyoulikemyanus?.com, where you can get the facts about the evil West!).

  OK back to the reality. The anti-war protestors may delude themselves that they are for "peace" and preventing a humanitarian disaster, but there has been no peace in Iraq for 20 years, and the humanitarian disaster has been happening for twelve years.

  The bottom line is that by opposing the only feasible method of removing Hussein's regime, the anti-war crowd are passively supporting the continued torture and murder of children.

  Expatbrit
• 
  41

  What bothers/worries you most about the war ?

  by m0nk3y in

  1. social
  2. current

  there seems to be quite a few concerned people out the regarding this war in iraq and for good reason.

  so what exaclty is bothering you about it, does it involve the very real fact that alot of innocent blood could/will be shed ?

  are you fearing this could all be a part of bible/wts prophecy ?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Too bad some of the populace there have forgotten the lessons they learned over 50 years ago in dealing with tyrants.

  Yes, far too many willing to say "I'm all right Jacques." But not all, fortunately.

  Expatbrit
• 
  45

  'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation

  by Xander in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read:subject: america's madness - john le carre .

  the united states of america has gone mad .

  john le carre .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  The point of trying for a second resolution (why is it called the second? It's the seventeenth or eighteenth, isn't it?) was to demonstrate that the US/UK were trying to exhaust all diplomatic efforts to find a solution. They went above and beyond what was necessary, in other words.

  Expatbrit
• 
  45

  'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation

  by Xander in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read:subject: america's madness - john le carre .

  the united states of america has gone mad .

  john le carre .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Termite:

  The point is that the UN has already authorised force. Such force was "suspended" but was not terminated. The suspension of force was contingent upon Iraqi compliance with existing UN resolutions. If they did not comply, the suspension of force lapses.

  Resolution 1441 was a last ultimatum for the Iraqis to comply. They have not complied. The suspension of force has therefore lapsed. No further UN resolution authorising force is necessary because existing resolutions already authorise force.

  I would like to know when the US and Britain will sort out the problems in North Korea . And when will they liberate all the other oppressed peoples of the world

  I hope after they sort out Saddam. Just because they can't sort out all the problems at once is no reason to avoid sorting them out one at a time.

  As for the aftermath, I would like to ask, what about the beforemath? In arguing against a war you argue for the continuance of the status quo, which has caused the premature death of around 700,000 Iraqi children (see http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/48581/686873/post.ashx#686873).

  Unfortunately, there is no other way. Saddam Hussein will never submit to diplomacy. The only way to get rid of his regime is by force. It is the only way the Iraqi people can have any hope of an end to their suffering and misery.

  Expatbrit
• 
  88

  Bush just wants the oil!!!

  by dubla in

  1. social
  2. current

  i posted this on another thread, but i thought a new thread might help get the ball rolling: .

  i have a simple question for all those that believe this war is solely about oil: .

  what exactly do you believe bush is going to do with the oil fields after the war?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Valis:

  The link is a good read, but it presents what you could call a "best case scenario" if you're feeling generous. It doesn't really give a realistic view, rather glossing over the timescales of the assumed "oil bonanza".

  The fact is, Iraq's oil fields require massive amounts of time and money to even return them to pre-1991 levels. Currently, production is declining by about 100,000 bpd a year. A number of years of investment (up to about $40 billion) is needed to increase production to 5 million bpd. And any revenues will be eaten up by country reconstruction (estimated at $25 to $100 billion) and paying off Iraq's debt (about $100 billion). It would be decades before US companies saw any return on investment, if ever!

  The money can be found (but what's the point?), but time is the real factor here. As mentioned it is OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia who are the key oil players. Now, do you really think they will sit by and let the US have a couple of decades to develop Iraqi oilfields without responding/retaliating first? It is simply not a feasible scenario that America can sit in Iraq, occupy the country and develop its oilfields for its own personal benefit over the course of decades.

  For further reasoning on this, here is a summary article from the Economist:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/48581/687945/post.ashx#687945

  and this link is to the Council on Foreign Relations report (pdf. A long read, but the sections on "The Lure of Iraqi Oil" and "Oil and Iraq - Opportunities and Challenges" address this issue:

  http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Post-War_Iraq.pdf

  Expatbrit
• 
  45

  'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation

  by Xander in

  1. social
  2. current

  interesting read:subject: america's madness - john le carre .

  the united states of america has gone mad .

  john le carre .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  The current UN resolutions DO NOT allow Saddam to be invadad NOW

  Yes they do, and the Attorney General confirms it.

  Text of Attorney General's statement, as quoted on BBC:

  All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:

  1. In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.

  2. In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area.

  Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.

  3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

  4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

  5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

  The authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today

  6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

  7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

  8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.

  9. Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended.

  Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.

  I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses.
• 
  88

  Bush just wants the oil!!!

  by dubla in

  1. social
  2. current

  i posted this on another thread, but i thought a new thread might help get the ball rolling: .

  i have a simple question for all those that believe this war is solely about oil: .

  what exactly do you believe bush is going to do with the oil fields after the war?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Still waiting for some solid economics from the people saying that the war is all about oil.........

  Expatbrit
• 
  13

  Armegeddon -This is how I'm afraid it will go

  by berylblue in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  and i can't shake this.

  and that's why you are going to have to die.

  i love my real people so much, that i can't have you around spoiling things for them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  expatbrit

  Death would be preferable to an eternity serving a God like the one described in your post.

  Expatbrit