Ignorance is (Bush`s) bliss...

[Blueangel]

I`ve seen G. Dubya`s address to the US navy several times today, and with each viewing my astonishment at his blatant ignorance increases!
Quote;
"Terrorists brought this war to us...and now we`re taking it back to them."
Will someone please try and educate Bush? Saddam may be the devil himself in the eyes of many, but he is STILL the leader of one of the most oil rich countries in the world and NOT a terrorist! Bin Laden is a terrorist. The IRA were terrorists. The Red Brigade were terrorists. Iraq is a country! Slight difference going on there...
I was further insensed by Bush`s implication that there are only three countries that are trying to stop the UN from becoming..."an ineffective debating society."
Aaaaaarrgghhhhh! Get a grip man! Talk about adding insult to injury!
As Bush slipped deeper into his Texan drawl, I seriously suspected that he`s fallen head first of the wagon. His attitude increasingly reminds me of spoilt little boy who hasn`t got his own way. He may be a (dubiously) elected head of state, but he`s definately no diplomat!

A friend has suggested a way to avoid conflict and save thousands of lives (perhaps Pepsi would like to stump up the cash for this show idea? :D ).
Start a new series of Big Brother asap, starring;
Bush, Blair(the love interest/performing poodle :D ), Saddam, Sharon, Chirac, Kofi Annan, Bin Laden and a modern day Mata Hari to stir things up a bit. Personally, I`d put Ozzy Osbourne in there too as referee. :D

[quietstorm]

Excuse me, but Sadaam is a terrorist, as is the US government, and virtually any country employing an army. Here is the definition of terrorist:

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

[Paul]

Originally posted by quietstorm
Excuse me, but Sadaam is a terrorist, as is the US government, and virtually any country employing an army. Here is the definition of terrorist:
"a radical who employs terror as a political weapon" does not mean a country with an army. This means a person that terrorizes people to what he/she wants.
Paul

[Dr. Web]

it is always interesting when those who bask under the freedoms and protection of a nation, attempt to criticize it the most.

[Horus_Kol]

yeah, doc. its like the people who worry most about being politically correct are usually the majority group in a region.


Generally speaking, an army is something that a nation keeps in order to maintain the security of that nation. Under the Geneva convention (to which must of the Western world are signatories) there are rules of engagement which cannot be broken (or go unpunished if they are).

Targeting civilian populations is a big no-no in the Geneva convention (actually, there are about 5 agreements in this, dating from the mid-1800's to the present).

A terrorist actively seeks to threaten and/or harm civilians, in order to create terror and fear.

I am flying to Switzerland next week - from Heathrow, London. Which is currently being guarded by roughly 450 soldiers and light tanks. I was asked by my boss if recent news would perturb me from my trip - i said no, because I don't believe that hiding will solve anything.

Iraq might not be a terrorist state in the literal sense - but it is a rogue state in that it has not kept to the Geneva convention in the last 20 years (and before, probably) - they have used chemical weapons, targeted civilian populations, held civilian hostages, denied that Allied servicemen were alive but captured.

Is that a good basis of trust?

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Dr. Web
it is always interesting when those who bask under the freedoms and protection of a nation, attempt to criticize it the most.
Meaning?

I am subject to British and European laws and freedoms.
If, perchance, you`re refering to the diabolically offensive quotes from Capital Hill, (e.g."If it were not for The US, France, Germany and Belgium would now be Soviet States."..."If it were not for US intervention they would be speaking German now." ), then I might say that these quotes showed nothing more than an appauling lack of diplomacy to our fellow European states! The US are not going to bring these nations onside by trading insults at such a critical stage in developments.

[fredricknish]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol


Targeting civilian populations is a big no-no in the Geneva convention (actually, there are about 5 agreements in this, dating from the mid-1800's to the present).

A terrorist actively seeks to threaten and/or harm civilians, in order to create terror and fear.



The Iraqi government would say that the people killed were for internal security of the country and this does not break the Geneva convention.

As for Geneva convention it was a convention that was made when conventional war was being fought and now we have things like terrorism and following the Geneva conventions is not practical.Even the US had to break the "Geneva convention for prisoners of war" with the Al Queda prisoners.

A rouge nation is a nation that threatens the security of another country and breaks international laws.I dont belive in the term "Rouge nation",it would be more appropriate to call the leader of the country a "Rouge leader".Just becasue Bush is a rouge leader it would be stupid to call US a rouge nation.

[Dr. Web]

blue,

I was directing that comment towards quietstorms comments about the US being a terrorist nation.

[transmothra]

Originally posted by quietstorm
Excuse me, but Sadaam is a terrorist, as is the US government, and virtually any country employing an army. Here is the definition of terrorist: DUDE! when did you of all people turn Left?!

[transmothra]

Originally posted by Dr. Web
blue,

I was directing that comment towards quietstorms comments about the US being a terrorist nation. but he's practically right, you know. it's widely known that the best guerrilla training in the world comes from the U.S. special forces. and one man's "guerrilla" is another man's "terrorist" ...or "freedom fighter" - it's all different sides of the same exact thing - dirty fighting.

[kevin]

Originally posted by transmothra
DUDE! when did you of all people turn Left?!

hehehe.... that is actually so far left it turned a 180 and is back at right wing radical! :D

[kevin]

Originally posted by Dr. Web
it is always interesting when those who bask under the freedoms and protection of a nation, attempt to criticize it the most.

Interesting indeed! But that is as it should be. Any system of goverment that is as equitable as it can be, should stand up to the fires of criticism, internal or external.

Only a weak or corrupt system of goverment must silence the people (and communications) that seek to criticize it.

Be glad of the people that stand up and speak, you know who they are. Its the ones that don't speak, or speak only a pack of lies, you have to watch out for. ;)

[entimp]

Here we go again YAY!!!

Getting back to Blueangels comments... I totally agree. The rhetoric coming from both sides of the Atlantic will only solve to drive the so called terrorists harder at us. Doesn't anyone see this? The world is crazy and it is only getting worse. I had to think twice about going to London... but I am going to go... Bush and Blair are only stirring up a hornets nest to fulfil their on needs, well Bush's at any rate. There is no place for the so called political talk that is coming from the US or GB.

We shall see, maybe, hopefully, oh well in my wildest dreams, Blair stick his hands down his pants grab hold of something substantial... Will he have the balls to do a u-turn after the events of Saturday when the public get to show who they support and who they don't?

What the Mirror should do is rally the UK public into a jesture they aranged a few good years ago. England still being a fairly anti-european country, even more so then had a run in with France.

The Mirror arranged thousands of Brits to turn up at the White cliffs of Dover and give France the sign at mid-day and shout: 'Up Yours Delors!!!'

Maybe we should arrange something along the same lines for the pseudo PM that seems to be running our country from the White House... let everyone converge at the nearest point to the US on these troubled Isles and give it to Bush Stright.

Isn't it about time England got it's Bulldog back and kicked the Poodle in to touch.

[entimp]

Actually it wasn't the Mirror that pulled of the 'Up Yours Delors' stunt, it was the Sun... same differance.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Dr. Web
blue,

I was directing that comment towards quietstorms comments about the US being a terrorist nation.
Sorry Doc!
Just me being too hasty and hot-headed again. Oops!

[Dr. Web]

I usually don't dally in politics or religion... for neither wins friends.

Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction. Have twelve years of 'peace' disarmed him of those weapons?

War isn't the only option, but its a better guarantee at getting those weapons out than trusting Saddam to do it (which we know that we cannot trust).

And Kevin, its not that QS can't speak his mind... he should use his head before he speaks.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by kevin
hehehe.... that is actually so far left it turned a 180 and is back at right wing radical! :D
:rofl:
:eek: YIKES! Has quietstorm turned into Tony Blair?
Originally posted by entimp
We shall see, maybe, hopefully, oh well in my wildest dreams, Blair stick his hands down his pants grab hold of something substantial...
Did you really have to put that mental image in my head? I shan`t sleep now.:D
Originally posted by entimp
Maybe we should arrange something along the same lines for the pseudo PM that seems to be running our country from the White House... let everyone converge at the nearest point to the US on these troubled Isles and give it to Bush Stright.
Might I suggest we all line up along the Cornish clifftops and send Bush a big...KISS MY :moonie:
Just a thought!
I really liked what the Australian women did last weekend. 700 women stripped off and spelt out the words `NO WAR` with their naked bodies, on a hillside outside of Sydney.
Hope you have a great time at the demo and report back safely...Our man on the spot...Live from Hyde Park...Good on ya! ;)

[KWJams]

Originally posted by Blueangel
[B]Did you really have to put that mental image in my head? [B][QUOTE]

I agree :mad: Pub/Bath House language like that does not belong here.

[QUOTE]
I really liked what the Australian women did last weekend. 700 women stripped off and spelt out the words `NO WAR` with their naked bodies, on a hillside outside of Sydney. [B]

You know what is so sad about that BlueAngel?

A couple of months ago there was teenage girls in Saudi Arabia that were forced back inside of a burning building to their deaths because they did not have head scarves on. :(
Think about that. :arcade:

They hate us because they see our society as being immoral and depraved.

Wonder where they could have gotten an idea like that? }:-)

[Blueangel]

No offence meant KW, but I can`t agree with your comments.

Firstly, entimp`s remarks are a typical example of the satirical nature of British political commentary. From the likes of `Private Eye` to the broadsheets, it is normal and accepted to poke fun at our leaders if it gets the point across. In this case, it isn`t the act proposed for Blair but the emotion that would be behind that action, that creates the appropriate image for the reader. Blair IS behaving like a man who has been castrated by pressure from others...and it`s against the wishes of the people he represents and his own Cabinet and Government Ministers.

As for the acts of the Australian women...I whole-heartedly applaud them!
There is nothing immoral about the naked human body and they have used this to create the desired impact. GOOD ON THEM! The true immorality displayed in your example is that the lives of young girls were sacrificed to appease a moral code. Every culture has it`s own morality regarding women, but, as a women myself, I would far sooner see the female form used to promote peace than sell cars!

[KWJams]

Does that mean talk like that is acceptable around children, or while sitting around a table with strangers? :eek:

This is a public forum not a bath house or pub!

On the naked women it appears that you completely missed my point. :rolleyes:

They hate us because they see our society as being immoral and depraved.
Wonder where they could have gotten an idea like that?

I saw the women protestors in Central Park on the news.
They were giggling and prancing about full of glee! They were there too titillated themselves by doing something risqué nothing more!
I'm sorry but there was no anger or solidarity of resolve they were showing.
Under the circumstances, they look foolish!

Let's see :arcade: Berka's or get naked and prance around?

From one extreme to the other whacked out extreme! :(

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by KWJams
On the naked women it appears that you completely missed my point. :rolleyes:
I didn`t misunderstand your point, I merely have my own opinion. If Saudi men look at western women with scorn and see us as an example of western depravity, then that`s their problem and, thankfully, not mine! This is not the place for me to expand on my views on this matter. Just one thing...before anybody jumps to the conclusion that I`m a feminist, I`m not! I was brought up to see myself as being equal to any other member of society and don`t feel the need to preach it. I`d rather just live it. :)

[Paul]

I have to agree with KW on the whole naked women thing. Wether you like Bush or not, the fact is that Saddam is killing 1000s of his own people. He is not cooperating with the UN. There is evidance that he has weapons of Mass Distruction and that he has not destoryed them. In my eyes Saddam is a terrorist just waiting to blow. All we asked him to do is cooperate with the UN, he denied so why shouldn't we do this? Right before WWII we let Hitler get away with invading countires and building weapons, when we finally said something it was too late.
Paul

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by hacker
Wether you like Bush or not, the fact is that Saddam is killing 1000s of his own people. He is not cooperating with the UN. There is evidance that he has weapons of Mass Distruction and that he has not destoryed them. In my eyes Saddam is a terrorist just waiting to blow. All we asked him to do is cooperate with the UN, he denied so why shouldn't we do this? Right before WWII we let Hitler get away with invading countires and building weapons, when we finally said something it was too late.
Paul
Granted, Saddam is a perilous loose canon! Many of his people are being killed by him...AND by the sanctions imposed on Iraq!
Bush was asked on many occasions by the UN to supply conclusive information to back his claims against Iraq, and repeatedly refused! What Powell eventually put forward was not viewed as being conclusive.
Saddam is in breach of the UN on over 20 counts...but Israel is in breach of the exact same code of conduct on over 60 counts! Go figure!
As for Hitler...Britain jumped head first into that one the moment he invaded Belgium, and rightly so.

[Paul]

Originally posted by Blueangel

As for Hitler...Britain jumped head first into that one the moment he invaded Belgium, and rightly so.
If they "jumped head first into that one" why did Hitler still have all the resources to go and invade Poland. When he did that Europe finally said that's enough. We can not wait until Saddam strikes to say "that's enough".
Paul