FAO anti Bush / anti war crew

FAO anti Bush / anti war crew

Some threads to ruck it out with a few pro war yanks, sign up man...

http://www.ibiza-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=27688

http://www.ibiza-forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=27725&start=25

hes just a dick i think whowont stop till he has control of the world

I think you've missed the point there Mark, Moore's aim was to point out the corruption that was going on. Saudi militants have attacked America but he does NOT attack Saudi Arabia BECAUSE they have such a stake in the American economy.

It wasn't just the fact that they are his "friends"

That's what makes it a big deal really.

You can compare this to the likes of Iraq who have never attacked America, but he attacked Iraq to "liberate" the Iraqi people. 100,000+ innocent civilians have died so far, which is far from liberation, and the violence is only getting worse.

Of course, in his vocabulary, liberate actually means steal their oil.

Did someone say oil?

"So what" 100k+ civilians are dead, in a country that has never attacked America??? Bombings every day, not to menion the British lads who are out on the front line getting blown to shit doing Bush's dirty work.

"Why would you attack your friends"

Err....because their "friends" were responsible for the 3000 or so deaths as a result of the September 11th Terrorist Attacks??

Why would they attack a country which has never done anything to them?!

Can't belive you can say "so what" to that like.

The UK/US companies with oil contracts will be making millions and millions of pounds. They are exploiting a national resource of Iraq, which could provide for the futures of millions of Iraqis, to line their own pockets.

You don't think this is wrong?

Wars can often be started because of the actions of one party. in WW2 for example - The Nazi Party. Your logic would suggest that two countries would never go to war becuase of the actions of one group...what you have said there could easily be applied to WW2, and indeed many other wars......"Germans were part of the Nazi Party but it wasnt Germany the country who attacked, only the Nazi Party." It doesn't work that way though.

Of course the circumstances are slightly different as that is a political party as opposed to a terrorist group, but surely the principal is the same.

An (apparent) big factor to why America would never attack Saudi is becuase of how much it contributes to the American economy. Therefore, an attack on Saudi would not benefit America (from Oil etc) like Iraq can/has. That was a main point also.

What reason was there to attack Iraq when they have done no more to America than Saudi Arabia or any other country with no history with Iraq??

Now Bush is on about invading Iran to stop their Nuclear research!

Why should he have the right to decide who can and who can't conduct nuclear research?

Wasn't done by Afghanistan the country either, but they were invaded and deposed in short order anyway. Doesn't seem to have affected Al Quaida's offensive capabilities too much either, looking at Bali, Spain, etc.

Yes, every government has an element of corruption to it - such is the nature of power - but surely, in a government that has a controlling stake in world affairs, in the military, political and economic speres, we should aim to expose and root out this corruption as much as possible? Not doing so is mere apathy, and is a myopic course of action, to say the least.

Also, I realise that this is your message board, Mark, but could you not use a little more standard English in your posts? I had to read your offerings here a few times, as they seemed unclear.

Harry

Bit uncalled for, having said that I can't be arsed reading your posts cause your so self righteous and full of your own opinions.

Uncalled for? I wasn't flaming, just making a polite and respectful request. At the end of the day, it's not like i was trying to insult Mark.

There is a difference between holding strong opinions, which I do, and being opinionated, which I am not. I don't think it's fair of you to imply I'm full of my own self importance etc, just because I enjoy a good debate, and actually have meaningful opinions on a range of subjects.

Sadam need to be taken out.

End of story.

Couldn't we just have waited until he died before installing a puppet reigime? I doubt if that would have caused the a 10th of a million deaths. If anyone has figures on how many died each year of Saddam's rule, they might be able to contradict me on that?

Harry

Saddam ordered the deaths of 46,000 Kurds and Shia's (mainly in retaliation to their siding with Iran in the Iran/Iraq conflict).

The US has directly killed 200,000+ Iraqi's (including Shia's and Kurds) since 1991.

The US has indirectly killed anywhere from 250,000 to 1 million Iraqi's between 1991 and 2003 due to it's illegal sanctions causing malnourishment and insufficient healthcare.

Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion uncontested contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.

Makes ya think?

Fair enough, Saddam did need to be stopped.

But that was just the excuse they needed to go to war. There was no mention of it until then.

Blair was even aware of the fact that the WMD claims were only speculation at the time of the war and he still went for it.

When the WMD claimes were proved wrong, they switched their "justification" to Saddam.

Removing Saddam from power has thus far done absolutley nothing to make Iraq a better and safer place for it's people; it's worse. Most of the planet is worse off because of this war.

There could have been a much better way to get rid of him. And I bet less people died in a year under his rule!

So, its by no means "end of story" in all fairness mate

Do you have any source to back up what you are saying that shows an actual improvment to the Iraqi way of life?

And on top of all that, why did we need to butt in in the first place?? Few other countries went, and most of them have now seen sense and withdrawn.

It's all so Blair stays mates with Bush, 'all about becoming the 51st State.'

Fair dos with having to juggle thread replies, Mark.

If we offer problems with no solutions (which I disagree with), then do you offer solutions when there was no problem? Case in hand, for example?

Harry

They are known facts and is not at all shite.

They awarded the contract to an AMERICAN COMPANY FOR THEIR OWN ECONOMIC INTEREST

I can't believe your attitude to be honest, it stinks.

Not a single comment with any sympathy for Iraqis. Not a single reply to anything I said. Who gives a toss who wins an oil contract, it's Iraqi oil and should be left to Iraq, not stolen and sold by bastard Americans to line their own pockets.

And now news has just come in that a full scale attack has started on Fallujah.

One English solider is already dead, this makes a total of 4 britons in a week who have been killed.

But of course, "thats life and shit happens"

No actually,

THIS is why Kerry lost.

http://www.bushflash.com/wmf/vm.wmv

Kerry lost cause of an Orange Spv??

woops had wrong link on clipboard

sorted.

was gonna say they're not that powerful.. they're shit actually

I would say otherwise but this most definatley is not an appropriate thread to be discussing a phone.

Feel free to make a post and argue