Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on January 05, 2009, 09:23:07 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7812811.stm
Bush : 'Muttley!! Do Something! I'll give you a Medal!'
Blair : 'Yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah!'
-
Eh Bush's last hurrah. Everyone will see right through it.
-
/me laughs at the bottom of his lungs, wheezing for every chuckle.
-
John Howard as well?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA....oh dear oh dear that's a good one.
-
I'm not really fussed by this, I know most people thinks that Bush was being a clot for going into Iraq and that, but in my opinion at least they were trying to get rid of terrorists as well, even if that might have been a 'secondary objective' :p. Or perhaps I need to look into it more. :nervous:
EDIT: I'm not trying to defend Bush or anything - just giving my opinion that getting rid of terrorists was a good intention, I think. If he did indeed do something naughty, then of course that's not a good thing, no matter what it is. :nervous: Or maybe I'm just ignorant. :(
EDIT 2: Yes, I am ignorant. Sorry. :nervous:
-
Perhaps.
-
I'm not really fussed by this, I know most people thinks that Bush was being a clot for going into Iraq and that, but in my opinion at least they were trying to get rid of terrorists as well, even if that might have been a 'secondary objective' :p. Or perhaps I need to look into it more. :nervous:
You need to look into it more. There were next to no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion. Saddam imprisoned and tortured anyone who tried it. Bush and Blair were repeatedly warned that going into Iraq would lead to an increase in terrorism, both in Iraq and from sympathisers in the rest of the world. They ignored the advice and by doing so increased the amount of terrorists in the world.
Yeah. That deserves a medal. :yes:
-
I apologize, sorry. And I did see the sarcasm. I trust your information, Kara.
Wow... That is an Epic Fail, especially if Saddam prosecuted the terrorists (not that he should have tortured them, but anyway). :no: :no: :no: Although Saddam was evil anyway, unless I'm making myself look like a fool again. :nervous:
EDIT: Oops, forgot you quoted me, Kara. Never mind.
-
I apologize, sorry. And I did see the sarcasm. I trust your information, Kara.
Wow... That is an Epic Fail, especially if Saddam prosecuted the terrorists (not that he should have tortured them, but anyway). :no: :no: :no: Although Saddam was evil anyway, unless I'm making myself look like a fool again. :nervous:
EDIT: Oops, forgot you quoted me, Kara. Never mind.
From what I know, he wasn't neccessarily THAT bad, he had some harsh methods of human treatment, but then again, look at gitmo (guantanamo for those not familiar), school was free in iraq, they had ELECTRICITY and RUNNING WATER, and basically life was fine as long as you didn't piss off saddam or anyone related
-
Saddam was an evil bastard. He's one of the most ruthless tyrants of the 20th century. Never assume that he wasn't. Even his own family weren't spared from his tyranny.
But for all his faults he was a pretty secular leader. He considered the rise of fundamentalism in Iran to be a danger to his own power. I'm not going to claim that he didn't support terrorists either cause he most certainly did. But even there, the ones he supported were fairly secular ones like Abu Nidal (who he ended up having shot anyway) or the People's Mujahedin of Iran.
America's War on Terror was a campaign to root out fundamentalist organisations like Al-Qaeda. Iraq, being one of the most secular Islamic nations was completely the wrong place to invade.
-
Yeah well his individual actions (and those of his close friends/staff/etc) were most definetly evil, the majority of his population (excluding those that were being brutally persecute for obscure crimes... and his soccer team if you heard about that) were doing fine. I'm not in any way endorsing his actions, but the way most of the country lived was close to normal considering what life may have been in other parts of the region.
In terms of the actual invasion, I completely disagree with nearly everything that was fed to the public about the conflict, and the conflict altogether. IMO, Afghanistan was at least justified, "If you crash our own planes into our buildings, we WILL come over there and rip the turbans off you extremist bastards", I totally agree. But two wars on the same hand is something I believe is a huge tactical mistake. We only WANT Bin Laden, there isn't a lot we can do about the Paki's, and no-one has given us an invite to come and send the Middle East on a backward Spiral, yet it happened anyway
-
:wtf: is this bull****?
-
:wtf: is this bull****?
u referring to my post?
-
I think he was referring to the concept of Blair getting a Medal for helping Bush screw up countries on a Global scale.
-
I think he was referring to the concept of Blair getting a Medal for helping Bush screw up countries on a Global scale.
that IS bull****
-
Really? Take a look at the cost of the war and you might think otherwise.
Why do you think America is in such dire monetary situation at the moment? Umonitored spending from one hand, unrestrained greed from the other.
-
Really? Take a look at the cost of the war and you might think otherwise.
Why do you think America is in such dire monetary situation at the moment? Umonitored spending from one hand, unrestrained greed from the other.
I was referring to the whole blair getting a medal for helping bush **** it all up, and btw, we all saw this crisis coming, it was pretty much inevitable from the start of 08
-
America's War on Terror was a campaign to root out fundamentalist organisations like Al-Qaeda. Iraq, being one of the most secular Islamic nations was completely the wrong place to invade.
Yeah, so if we bombed anyone it should have been Saudi Arabia, they've been funding schools in muslim countries to push religious extremism using our very own petrodollars. Plus all but two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
-
I was referring to the whole blair getting a medal for helping bush **** it all up, and btw, we all saw this crisis coming, it was pretty much inevitable from the start of 08
Well, I doubt they will hand him the Medal and say 'Here's for helping **** up the Economy' ;)
And, actually, the problem with the economy has been brewing for far longer than that, the cost of the War in Iraq since it started is $585 Billion and climbing (source : http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home) however, the National Debt was a cause for considerable concern back in '06, '07, in fact, despite being not a big fan of Nader, he was actually saying that the US was in for a 'Hard financial landing' back in 2001, though whether that was a case of luck or judgement, we will never know.
-
yep lets bomb the home an centre of opec , then well really stop the problems .........
ooops comercial interests lets attack the country that our petrol companies have the least control in .....
it has no scense and never did or will, until american international politics start taking human rights seriously then nothing will change
-
Yeah, so if we bombed anyone it should have been Saudi Arabia, they've been funding schools in muslim countries to push religious extremism using our very own petrodollars. Plus all but two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even Bush wasn't a big enough twat to think that attacking Saudi Arabia would result in less Islamic fundamentalism. :p
Besides the Saudis own a large chunk of America anyway.
-
Besides the States probably paid for as many of the madrasa schools on the border of Pakistan as the Saudis did anyway.
-
:wtf: is this bull****?
u referring to my post?
I think he was referring to the concept of Blair getting a Medal for helping Bush screw up countries on a Global scale.
The latter is correct.