Britain says no,Blair's political future doubtful.
taranaki
03-12-2003, 04:58 PM
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,912493,00.html
Looks like Bush's hopes of any respectability in this campaign just went up in smoke.Who's left?Nobody wants this war.
Looks like Bush's hopes of any respectability in this campaign just went up in smoke.Who's left?Nobody wants this war.
Toksin
03-12-2003, 05:15 PM
Bahahaha
Sorry, I'm all for Saddam being gone but...bahaha...just funny to see things blow up in Bush's face.
Sorry, I'm all for Saddam being gone but...bahaha...just funny to see things blow up in Bush's face.
jon@af
03-12-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by taranaki
Nobody wants this war.
Indeed they do not. It's been this way for a while, who would expect it to change any? It's not like people who were against it in the first place are gonna all of a sudden decide "hmm, I GUESS war is ok, as long as I dont have to go." Many people say it is necessary, to which I retort, war is never necessary, it is merely a shoddy means to an end, that sometimes takes longer than one might wish it to.
Nobody wants this war.
Indeed they do not. It's been this way for a while, who would expect it to change any? It's not like people who were against it in the first place are gonna all of a sudden decide "hmm, I GUESS war is ok, as long as I dont have to go." Many people say it is necessary, to which I retort, war is never necessary, it is merely a shoddy means to an end, that sometimes takes longer than one might wish it to.
1985_BMW318i
03-12-2003, 08:51 PM
Actually with the newest amendments to the proposed resolution even the idiots that are twofaced to Blair have backed down. It appears that the "revised" resolution has a much better chance of being passed. With the exception of France which like always in the past is self serving. Russia has even said they like the wording of the proposal Blair has put forth
taranaki
03-13-2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Actually with the newest amendments to the proposed resolution even the idiots that are twofaced to Blair have backed down. It appears that the "revised" resolution has a much better chance of being passed. With the exception of France which like always in the past is self serving. Russia has even said they like the wording of the proposal Blair has put forth
Blair is the leader of the biggest socialist party in Britain.He was elected to serve his membership,not run around with his tongue up George Bush's ass.If anyone is a two faced idiot,Blair must surely qualify.Any prime minister who ignores the democratic will of his people should be ditched.And as for France being self serving,it would be hypocracy in the extreme for any pro-Bush supporter to level that accusation.This war is not about taking out terrorists,or liberating oppressed Iraqis,it's about getting George Bush off the hook for making such a poor show of his first[and hopefully only] term in office.When you remove all the rhetoric about Iraq,what has he done for America?Squat.He hasn't even delivered up Osama Bin Laden to answer for the Sept 11TH attacks.He bought his way into power with tax cuts and has nothing left to bribe the public with come the next election.
Actually with the newest amendments to the proposed resolution even the idiots that are twofaced to Blair have backed down. It appears that the "revised" resolution has a much better chance of being passed. With the exception of France which like always in the past is self serving. Russia has even said they like the wording of the proposal Blair has put forth
Blair is the leader of the biggest socialist party in Britain.He was elected to serve his membership,not run around with his tongue up George Bush's ass.If anyone is a two faced idiot,Blair must surely qualify.Any prime minister who ignores the democratic will of his people should be ditched.And as for France being self serving,it would be hypocracy in the extreme for any pro-Bush supporter to level that accusation.This war is not about taking out terrorists,or liberating oppressed Iraqis,it's about getting George Bush off the hook for making such a poor show of his first[and hopefully only] term in office.When you remove all the rhetoric about Iraq,what has he done for America?Squat.He hasn't even delivered up Osama Bin Laden to answer for the Sept 11TH attacks.He bought his way into power with tax cuts and has nothing left to bribe the public with come the next election.
jon@af
03-13-2003, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by taranaki
Blair is the leader of the biggest socialist party in Britain.He was elected to serve his membership,not run around with his tongue up George Bush's ass.If anyone is a two faced idiot,Blair must surely qualify.Any prime minister who ignores the democratic will of his people should be ditched.And as for France being self serving,it would be hypocracy in the extreme for any pro-Bush supporter to level that accusation.This war is not about taking out terrorists,or liberating oppressed Iraqis,it's about getting George Bush off the hook for making such a poor show of his first[and hopefully only] term in office.When you remove all the rhetoric about Iraq,what has he done for America?Squat.He hasn't even delivered up Osama Bin Laden to answer for the Sept 11TH attacks.He bought his way into power with tax cuts and has nothing left to bribe the public with come the next election.
W3rd Mr. T.:smoker2: You Da Man
Blair is the leader of the biggest socialist party in Britain.He was elected to serve his membership,not run around with his tongue up George Bush's ass.If anyone is a two faced idiot,Blair must surely qualify.Any prime minister who ignores the democratic will of his people should be ditched.And as for France being self serving,it would be hypocracy in the extreme for any pro-Bush supporter to level that accusation.This war is not about taking out terrorists,or liberating oppressed Iraqis,it's about getting George Bush off the hook for making such a poor show of his first[and hopefully only] term in office.When you remove all the rhetoric about Iraq,what has he done for America?Squat.He hasn't even delivered up Osama Bin Laden to answer for the Sept 11TH attacks.He bought his way into power with tax cuts and has nothing left to bribe the public with come the next election.
W3rd Mr. T.:smoker2: You Da Man
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-14-2003, 02:04 AM
saying that nobody wants this war is as accurate as the term "free" nothing is free and it may actually be a majority doesn't want a war
some people don't know what to think - ME for example
some people want to stop the suffering of the Iraqi people by regieme change -
some people want the oil
You saying that "nobody wants a war" is just YOU projecting your thoughts onto others thus meaning its unsubstantiated.
some people don't know what to think - ME for example
some people want to stop the suffering of the Iraqi people by regieme change -
some people want the oil
You saying that "nobody wants a war" is just YOU projecting your thoughts onto others thus meaning its unsubstantiated.
taranaki
03-14-2003, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
some people don't know what to think - ME for example
You saying that "nobody wants a war" is just YOU projecting your thoughts onto others thus meaning its unsubstantiated.
quite obviously the first quote has a bearing on the second.If you can find someone who REALLY WANTS a war,bring him on.Better yet,drop him off in the centere of Bagdhad,and see if he still really wants a war.
For the benefit of the amateur shrink in the thread,I'll rephrase the statement. Idon't believe that anybody wants a war and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.Even George Bush has said that he doesn't want a war,and he's the asshole who is doing his damnedest to start it!:D
some people don't know what to think - ME for example
You saying that "nobody wants a war" is just YOU projecting your thoughts onto others thus meaning its unsubstantiated.
quite obviously the first quote has a bearing on the second.If you can find someone who REALLY WANTS a war,bring him on.Better yet,drop him off in the centere of Bagdhad,and see if he still really wants a war.
For the benefit of the amateur shrink in the thread,I'll rephrase the statement. Idon't believe that anybody wants a war and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.Even George Bush has said that he doesn't want a war,and he's the asshole who is doing his damnedest to start it!:D
NSX-R-SSJ20K
03-14-2003, 04:40 AM
I'm only picking on your claims
i know one or two people that want war with iraq and i don't think they're about to sign onto here so you can bash them
They believe in their country and their president and believe that what he is doing is right. Some of my friends have said bomb the bastard.
BBC's question time last night also showed that there is still alot of labour members who still support tony blair
the idea that no one supports him is brought thought by opposition to a war and Tabloid newspapers
It also showed a conservative politician who support tony blair even though in doing so it doesn't really present that politician with any advantage over the opposition he also pointed out that it would be too easy to take advantage of the situation.
In reference to everyone would like to have a peaceful resolution. I believe there is no such way in some instances. Conflicts of interest stop such a situation from being attainable. IE France wanting its oil.
These where the guests
Ann Clwyd, Labour MP; Michael Ancram MP, deputy Tory leader; Simon Hughes MP, LibDem home affairs spokesman; Roseanna Cunningham MSP, SNP deputy leader; Matthew Parris, columnist for the times.
Ann Clwyd supports war for humanitarian reasons who recently visited northern iraq
Michael Ancram supports war for humanitarian and the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1871308.stm
and any thought that President Bush is being hasty is ridiculous Iraq has had 12 years to disarm not stock pile and the talk and diplomacy surrounding the idea of war has being going on for 5 months with no development in any agreement
The idea of a 2nd resolution was proposed by France and now is vetoed by France because the French are Volitile in their political thinking. I don't paticularly think that it makes any sense what so ever to take action like this it seems to be self contradictory but apparently that is french politics.
i know one or two people that want war with iraq and i don't think they're about to sign onto here so you can bash them
They believe in their country and their president and believe that what he is doing is right. Some of my friends have said bomb the bastard.
BBC's question time last night also showed that there is still alot of labour members who still support tony blair
the idea that no one supports him is brought thought by opposition to a war and Tabloid newspapers
It also showed a conservative politician who support tony blair even though in doing so it doesn't really present that politician with any advantage over the opposition he also pointed out that it would be too easy to take advantage of the situation.
In reference to everyone would like to have a peaceful resolution. I believe there is no such way in some instances. Conflicts of interest stop such a situation from being attainable. IE France wanting its oil.
These where the guests
Ann Clwyd, Labour MP; Michael Ancram MP, deputy Tory leader; Simon Hughes MP, LibDem home affairs spokesman; Roseanna Cunningham MSP, SNP deputy leader; Matthew Parris, columnist for the times.
Ann Clwyd supports war for humanitarian reasons who recently visited northern iraq
Michael Ancram supports war for humanitarian and the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1871308.stm
and any thought that President Bush is being hasty is ridiculous Iraq has had 12 years to disarm not stock pile and the talk and diplomacy surrounding the idea of war has being going on for 5 months with no development in any agreement
The idea of a 2nd resolution was proposed by France and now is vetoed by France because the French are Volitile in their political thinking. I don't paticularly think that it makes any sense what so ever to take action like this it seems to be self contradictory but apparently that is french politics.
Cbass
03-14-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
and any thought that President Bush is being hasty is ridiculous Iraq has had 12 years to disarm not stock pile and the talk and diplomacy surrounding the idea of war has being going on for 5 months with no development in any agreement
It's ridiculous to suggest Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, because they haven't. Iraq claims to have destroyed all of their biological weapons after the Gulf war, although there were no UNSCOM inspectors to verify this. So, the US and Britain claim that is a lie, even though they have no evidence to support that claim. My point of course is that there need to be UN inspectors to verify and oversee the disassembly and destruction of those weapons. The UNSCOM team oversaw the destruction of many of those weapons before 1998, when Richard Butler chose to withdraw them, confident he had started a war.
Now this was the first inspection team, which was admittedly rife with CIA and Mossad agents. The US explained that away of course, they have experience with those weapons :rolleyes:. Of course, who is going to know more about overseeing the destruction of weapons of mass destruction than the intelligence specialists?
Even though that team was comprimised by an espionage agenda, they still confirmed many weapons destroyed. Now it has been nearly 5 years since those inspectors left Iraq, so for the last 5 years, they have had no opportunity to have their weapons verified as destroyed. For all we know, they destroyed every chemical weapon they still possessed. We can't know for sure.
I do not believe a word I hear from either the US or British major media outlets regarding the inspections, I believe the full transcripts prepared by Blix, available at www.un.org Since both the US and Britain are pushing for war as soon as possible, you can rest assured their propaganda machines are in full effect, to convince you that this war is necessary, which it is NOT.
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
The idea of a 2nd resolution was proposed by France and now is vetoed by France because the French are Volitile in their political thinking. I don't paticularly think that it makes any sense what so ever to take action like this it seems to be self contradictory but apparently that is french politics.
Hmm, does anyone recall about three months ago when I said
"Wow, I didn't think the US propaganda machine could be working against France so quickly"
Rest assured, it is in full swing now.
and any thought that President Bush is being hasty is ridiculous Iraq has had 12 years to disarm not stock pile and the talk and diplomacy surrounding the idea of war has being going on for 5 months with no development in any agreement
It's ridiculous to suggest Iraq has had 12 years to disarm, because they haven't. Iraq claims to have destroyed all of their biological weapons after the Gulf war, although there were no UNSCOM inspectors to verify this. So, the US and Britain claim that is a lie, even though they have no evidence to support that claim. My point of course is that there need to be UN inspectors to verify and oversee the disassembly and destruction of those weapons. The UNSCOM team oversaw the destruction of many of those weapons before 1998, when Richard Butler chose to withdraw them, confident he had started a war.
Now this was the first inspection team, which was admittedly rife with CIA and Mossad agents. The US explained that away of course, they have experience with those weapons :rolleyes:. Of course, who is going to know more about overseeing the destruction of weapons of mass destruction than the intelligence specialists?
Even though that team was comprimised by an espionage agenda, they still confirmed many weapons destroyed. Now it has been nearly 5 years since those inspectors left Iraq, so for the last 5 years, they have had no opportunity to have their weapons verified as destroyed. For all we know, they destroyed every chemical weapon they still possessed. We can't know for sure.
I do not believe a word I hear from either the US or British major media outlets regarding the inspections, I believe the full transcripts prepared by Blix, available at www.un.org Since both the US and Britain are pushing for war as soon as possible, you can rest assured their propaganda machines are in full effect, to convince you that this war is necessary, which it is NOT.
Originally posted by NSX-R-SSJ20K
The idea of a 2nd resolution was proposed by France and now is vetoed by France because the French are Volitile in their political thinking. I don't paticularly think that it makes any sense what so ever to take action like this it seems to be self contradictory but apparently that is french politics.
Hmm, does anyone recall about three months ago when I said
"Wow, I didn't think the US propaganda machine could be working against France so quickly"
Rest assured, it is in full swing now.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025