Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Feb 26, 2003.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Actually I think the article is about right and has been fairly obvious from the start.
Just wish the polies where more up front about it.
Of course that is a contradiction in terms
Bush does not care for the Iraqi people; they could rot in hell for all he cares, so any notion of freeing them from Saddam is BS, as is the implicit threat from them.
As if, what tosh.
If he was serious about war on terrorism and its effects, what a joke, any war will increase the likely hood of reprisals which are also more justifiable after killing loads of Arabs.
If he has to pick on any Arabs they should be the Saudis who definitely had a hand in 9/11 by funding AQ.
Even more Ironic is that a Labour government is more willing to use brit forces whilst having the least empathy with them, and providing the least support.
As usual they left it to the last minute to send troops caring more for politics than soldiers lives.
Anyone see Blairs publicity "Meet my people" stunt go wrong on TV tonight?
Just watched Newsnight, Portillo seems to think there is a bigger revolt brewing.
Time for a new campaign?
Support Our Troops Not Tony....
I was dabbling with photoshop to try and make a banner but it keeps going wrong. For some reason, I can't seem to stop his nose growing a foot long...
With this report, and last night's obvious 'revolt' in The House - surely there has to be questions over the legitimacy of Mr Blair's actions??
Why? At worst, he's still got two-thirds of all MPs behind him, and (this being a democracy) that means it's about as legitimate as it gets..........
Leave cries of "but it's not legitimate" to the woolly thinking brigade, along with "but it's only the Americans who say he's got WMD"..... you have to laugh at the how that argument started to look a bit shaky with the whole "Nope, no WMDs in Iraq. None. It's all lies. Ohhhh, wait a minute, we've just found a couple of hundred, wonder where they came from, those pesky kids"
At the end of the day, there's a nutter with WMD, who has consistently worked on serious (i.e strategic) delivery systems. You don't design and build IRBMs unless you want to do some serious threatening. Has everyone forgotten the whole "Supergun" thing?
Tony Jeapes wrote a letter to the Times, and pointed out that if PIRA could hide tons of Semtex in countries where tens of thousands of police and army spent thirty years searching for it, how in h*ll will "more inspectors and more time" find anything in Iraq if Saddam's mob aren't cooperating?
So, do we try and force him to disarm now, or do we wait until he's got a credible strategic deterrent? (Hey, the US and USSR were building ICBMs in the 1960s, so I don't think that it's beyond reason that Iraq could develop one)
They used to be named Labour and then suddenly they were called "NEW LABOUR", god only knows what Tony will call them after this lot ??
Separate names with a comma.