| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| PM Blair dresses down MSM |
| 2005-07-27 |
| Just a sample - Read the whole thing... Question: More civilians have been killed by the Americans and the British than have been killed by these attacks. Prime Minister: Excuse me. First of all - I don't accept that at all incidentally - but secondly there is all the difference in the world in us taking action against these terrorists and as will happen when military action is taken innocent civilians get killed. We deeply regret every one of those lives. They don't regret the loss of innocent, civilian life. They rejoice in it, that is their purpose. And all the instability in Iraq would stop tomorrow if these terrorists and insurgents stopped. And my point to you Adam is, I am making a more fundamental point because I actually don't think the public is in quite the position that you think they are. Yes, it is true that of course they see these issues as linked in some way. Yes they do. But they also know perfectly well that we cannot give these people any shred of justification for what they do. And when people say, and I have read this over the past few days, people talk about this as if we are doing this in Iraq, they are doing this here. There is more or less an equivalent. Until we get rid of this frankly complete nonsense in trying to build some equivalence between what we are doing helping Iraqis and Afghans get their democracy and these people going in deliberately killing wholly innocent people for the sake of it, until we eliminate that we are not going to confront this ideology in the way it needs to be confronted and my point to you is this, it is time we stopped saying OK we abhor their methods, but we kind of see something in their ideas or maybe they have got a sliver of excuse or justification. They have got no justification for it. Can I say, OUCH! And one other thing I want to say whilst I am on this subject if I might, neither have they any justification for killing people in Israel either. Let us just get that out of the way as well. There is no justification for suicide bombing whether in Palestine, in Iraq, in London, in Egypt, in Turkey, anywhere, in the United States of America. There is no justification for it period and we will start to beat this when we stand up and confront the ideology of this evil. Not just the methods but the ideas. When we actually have people going into the communities here in this country and elsewhere and saying I am sorry, we are not having any of this nonsense about it is to do with what the British are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan, or support for Israel, or support for America, or any of the rest of it. It is nonsense, and we have got to confront it as that. And when we confront it as that, then we will start to beat it. Read the whole thing... And we think GWB has problems with the press.... Geez... |
| Posted by:BigEd |
| #99 Well they also hired Boris Johnson who is about as right wing as you can get. That's the advantage of living in England, you get a variety of views, something which is obviously discouraged in the States and on the discussion board. It explains perhaps why you are all out of touch with reality. |
| Posted by: Snetch Crising8884 2005-07-27 18:06 |
| #98 From the 60 minutes TV program CBS 5/12/96 Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. Rather sums up the concern Americans have for Iraqis |
| Posted by: Snetch Crising8884 2005-07-27 18:01 |
| #97 You're living in a dream world Frank. |
| Posted by: Snetch Crising8884 2005-07-27 17:55 |
| #96 Anything to the left of Genghis Khan is left wing compared to you Secret master. The Guardian actually holds the centre ground in real life and Tony Blair admitted that the 400,000 figure was untrue. Won't stop you continuing to use it though I suppose. The 400,000 figure was invented by the White House, passed to Tony Blair and the world's media, just like WMD and links with terrorism. |
| Posted by: Snetch Crising8884 2005-07-27 17:49 |
| #95 Facts Lawrence? You don't have any facts just fantasies. I see your moderators are busy deleting my facts already, obviously too sensitive for your eyes. Live in ignorance if you want, keep denying the truth as long as possible. Your Government-your problem. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:44 |
| #94 PM admits graves claim 'untrue' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:15 |
| #93 Sorry I can't help Matt. If you do succeed I will change my IP address especially for you. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:14 |
| #92 Secret Master have you been brain washed in some way? You seem totally out of touch with world opinion. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:13 |
| #91 Kalle- Well actually yes I would prefer Saddam to the Mongol hoards. Certainly less people losing their lives, hospitals, electricity and water in a much better state than now. As for your mention of Abu Nidal that's a very tenious link at the best. Saddam and Bid laden were not exactly the best of pals. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:11 |
| #90 Please yourself, it won't stop me. Secret Master-Norm Coleman was made to look the fool he is. As for just buying Saddam's oil that's not the point, it's a simpleton's view. The idea was to control the world's second largest oil reserves, pump oil as fast as possible, and undercut OPEC forcing world prices down. It hasn't worked of course because Iraq's oil supply has been routinely sabotaged. But this is an indication of what was at stake.; "In the past, dependence on oil has cost our economy dearly. Oil price shocks and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel from 1979 to 1991 cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion, almost as much as we spent on national defence over the same time period and more than the interest payments on the national debt. Each major price shock of the past three decades was followed by an economic recession in the United States. With growing U.S. imports and increasing world dependence on OPEC oil, future price shocks are possible and would be costly to the U.S. economy." (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Spring 2002.) |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:09 |
| #89 If the war wasn't approved by the UN it's an illegal war. Mass graves? Most have been caused by the USA and no, it's just a fantasy about industrial shredders, just as WMD, links with terrorism etc. Now this is real; Pentagon Blocks Release of Abu Ghraib Images: Here's Why http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000990590 By Greg Mitchell Published: July 23, 2005 6:00 PM ET NEW YORK So what is shown on the 87 photographs and four videos from Abu Ghraib prison that the Pentagon, in an eleventh hour move, blocked from release this weekend? One clue: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress last year, after viewing a large cache of unreleased images: "I mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.â They show acts "that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhumane," he added. A Republican Senator suggested the same day they contained scenes of ârape and murder.â No wonder Rumsfeld commented then, "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse." Yesterday, news emerged that lawyers for the Pentagon had refused to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release dozens of unseen photographs and videos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by Saturday. The photos were among thousands turned over by the key âwhistleblowerâ in the scandal, Specialist Joseph M. Darby. Just a few that were released to the press sparked the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal last year, and the video images are said to be even more shocking. The Pentagon lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material. They had been ordered to do so by a federal judge in response to a FOIA lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see the images of the prisoner abuse scandal. One Pentagon lawyer has argued that they should not be released because they would only add to the humiliation of the prisoners. But the ACLU has said the faces of the victims can easily be "redacted." To get a sense of what may be shown in these images, one has to go back to press reports from when the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal was still front page news. This is how CNN reported it on May 8, 2004, in a typical account that day: âU.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld revealed Friday that videos and âa lot more picturesâ exist of the abuse of Iraqis held at Abu Ghraib prison. "âIf these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse,â Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. âI mean, I looked at them last night, and they're hard to believe.â âThe embattled defense secretary fielded sharp and skeptical questions from lawmakers as he testified about the growing prisoner abuse scandal. A military report about that abuse describes detainees being threatened, sodomized with a chemical light and forced into sexually humiliating poses. âCharges have been brought against seven service members, and investigations into events at the prison continue. âMilitary investigators have looked into -- or are continuing to investigate -- 35 cases of alleged abuse or deaths of prisoners in detention facilities in the Central Command theater, according to Army Secretary Les Brownlee. Two of those cases were deemed homicides, he said. "âThe American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,â Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. âWe're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.â âA report by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba on the abuse at the prison outside Baghdad says videotapes and photographs show naked detainees, and that groups of men were forced to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped. Taguba also found evidence of a âmale MP guard having sex with a female detainee.â âRumsfeld told Congress the unrevealed photos and videos contain acts 'that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman.ââ The military later screened some of the images for lawmakers, who said they showed, among other things, attack dogs snarling at cowed prisoners, Iraqi women forced to expose their breasts, and naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other. In the same period, reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped uncover the scandal, said in a speech before an ACLU convention: âSome of the worse that happened that you don't know about, ok? Videos, there are women there. Some of you may have read they were passing letters, communications out to their menâ¦.The women were passing messages saying âPlease come and kill me, because of what's happened.â âBasically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys/children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out.â |
| Posted by: Thuque Ulavitle9640 2005-07-27 16:15 |
| #88 Well at the moment it looks like the USA is creaming off all the oil revenue. Yes oil is $60 and that wasn't planned, but neither was the oil line being popped very few days by the "insurgents". Incidentally and as a matter of interest, if you don't accept the obvious, what do you think the illegal invasion was all about, if not for oil? |
| Posted by: Thuque Ulavitle9640 2005-07-27 15:43 |
| #87 Blair may be intelligent & articulate, compared to most American politicians, but it's easy to see through him particularly when he switches to his "emotional mode". Yes I would prefer Georgie Galloway, he made mincemeat of that dumb Senator, or Gordon Brown. Blair is a liar, he's not trusted by the majority of British people. As for the reasons the USA spent $200 billion "liberating Iraq" and turning it into a moonscape, that was oil, not a single doubt about it. |
| Posted by: Glese Grerenter3024 2005-07-27 14:49 |
| #86 Blair is just digging a bigger hole for himself. He says there's no justification for terrorism, quite rightly, but he forgets there was no justification for the Iraqi oil war and that he had to lie to get the UK involved. The sooner he goes the better. |
| Posted by: Glese Grerenter3024 2005-07-27 13:51 |
| #85 #32 Well I will change my IP address if necessary. I explained that last night. |
| Posted by: Unererong Uloluper5507 2005-07-27 17:01 |
| #84 The maximum mass graves found under Saddam's time amount to 30,000 and not the ridiculous claim of 400,000 made by Bush. These mass graves were the result of a war between Iraq and Iran when both sides used gas supplied by the USA. Colin Powell's turkey shoot resulted in mass graves of over 100,000 and the latest genocide since Mar 2003 amounts to over 120,000. This of course doesn't include the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children killed by the vindictive sanctions, but these of course were buried individually in most cases. The only proven cases of oil bribes actually involve American companies or individuals. As for the UN being used as an evil tool, that's true in a way, the USA has vetoed more resolutions than any other nation and some very good and beneficial resolutions at that. There was no excuse for the illegal invasion, no WMD, no links with terrorism, no human shredders, no torture chambers although there are now. The USA has acted illegally and will eventually be called to account. |
| Posted by: Unererong Uloluper5507 2005-07-27 17:00 |
| #83 Have you forgotten already how Powell went to the UN with a pack of lies about WMD in order to try and get another UN Resolution authorising an invasion? Why do you think he did that? |
| Posted by: Unererong Uloluper5507 2005-07-27 16:44 |
| #82 This may be a shock to you but the US doesn't get to write International Law, Hitler thought the same thing until 1945. It was of course the sanctions that the USA threatened to veto any attempt to relinquish that caused starvation and the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. I asked for the reasons you lot think Iraq was invaded if it wasn't for the oil. None of you have so far managed to come up with an excuse. Incidentally MODERATOR I was promised last night that I was able to post contrary views to the right wing rabble that you have on this forum as long as I didn't become abusive. As you will note all the abuse has come from your regulars. Why are you so frightened of hearing contrary views? |
| Posted by: Unererong Uloluper5507 2005-07-27 16:36 |
| #81 The morality of International Law is much more suspicious than Bush's FORMER connections with the Oil industry: It arose as a mutual recognition of the divine right of kings, who were given, by that same law, the "freedom" to slaughter their own citizens with as much abandon as Saddam has to his own citizens. Even though the term "crime against humanity" was not invented until the 20th century, that does not detract from the fact that it describes actions that had been done for millentia before that. The Church, at the time, demanded that such crimes be punished, usually by one king invading and conquering another. The kings made agreements among themselves, fabricating the basic tenets of mutual non-interference so that they would not be under threat from each other. They then would cite "international law" to the church and justify non-intervention on the basis of needing to "keep one's word". Those citing International Law in the face of systematic murder are the New Pharisees, more intent on ensuring that the letter of the law is kept while ignoring the human suffering being excused and overlooked by it. And like the Old Pharisees, the New Ones only recognize violations of morality when OTHERS do it, but never when THEY do it. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2005-07-27 22:20 |
| #80 Ed - you might wanna Macro that true response for all the good it does against "true believers" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 21:50 |
| #79 Great reply Steve. I only wish verifiable facts meant anything to a hard leftist like Oxford. A few clarifications: 1. The number of known mass graves is now over 300 with an estimated 500,000 bodies (Der Spiegel, May 20 2005). 2. Iraqi mustard gas was of Soviet process and the equipment for Tabin, Sarin, and VX came primarily from Germany. 3. That bogus UNICEF report was written by officials of Saddam's Ministry of Health and isn't fit to be toilet paper. 4. Don't forget Iraq got 13% of its arms from France. Iraq owed each of these countries a lot of money for those arms. 5. This year about 800 Iraqi civilians/month are dying with terrorist car bombs and criminal (Sunni and Baathist) gangs taking almost the whole total. 7. Too bad it isn't an oil war. Think of the 20 million barrels/day of sweet, sweet crude in the Persian Gulf for the taking and 10s of millions of Arab refugees streaming into Europe for Oxford to genuflect over. A true win-win. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-07-27 21:38 |
| #78 Or he really could be fron Jersey, New Jersey that is. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-27 21:08 |
| #77 OR: he could be a student keeping weird hours or a net admin pulling the late shift or ..... |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-27 20:53 |
| #76 he's on the janitorial staff and can only access computers after real users are gone? Hellooooo Mr. minimum wage! Can you say "Malt vinegar with them chips"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 20:26 |
| #75 "Blair is a liar, he's not trusted by the majority of British people." Ummm, so that's why the majority of British people voted for him? I read this as being some Paki or Saudi who's attending summer school at Oxford. He can't go home for the summer because either: a. He's on the shit list back at home, or... b. He doesn't have a valid U.K. visa anymore and won't be able to come back, or... c. His welfare benefits would end if he left that long, or... d. He failed "Introduction to Logic" and has to take it again, or... e. All of the above. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-27 20:12 |
| #74 ...I bet you have to submit to something It depends on what the meaning of SUBMIT is... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 19:30 |
| #73 second paragraph should read: Our bullying apparently consists of denying Saddam Hussein..... |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-07-27 18:51 |
| #72 Just after 9-11, Guardian pig Charlotte Raven produced a terror-apologist screed entitled "A Bully With a Bloody Nose is Still a Bully," the bully in question being the United States. Our bullying apparently consists of Saddam Hussein his ambition to massacre Shiites and Kurds and resume his quest for weapons of mass destruction. Another cause of grief and resentment among the Islamofascists and their British whores is, of course, our failure to allow a new Holocaust in Israel. In fact, Raven's column is pure projection, since her anger and that of her Muslim masters is based purely on our failure to accede their terror-backed demands. A few weeks later, a different Guardian trollop demanded that the dead from the WTC be left unidentified so the money that would be spent on this could be donated to third world dictators as an absolution of American sins. It is one thing to criticize, it is another to incite the murder of innocents. Al Guardian goes beyond even the latter, not only inciting the murder of innocents but taunting their grieving families by dehumanizing the murdered. Raven needs her own rather prominent nose hacked off and handed to her, or perhaps cooked first and served up to Fisk, Pilger, and Galloway as their final meal. I am not engaging in simple invective when I call these people whores. Arab investors and philanthropists own the academic community and the investor class in the UK. The media beasts are second order prostitutes, catering not to the paymasters directly but to the first order prostitutes who do. They are worse than Streicher, who committed his depraved acts for a nominal salary. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-07-27 18:48 |
| #71 You seem totally out of touch with world opinion. Kind of like Winston Churchill was when he and Great Britain held out alone against the Nazis in the darkest hours of WWII. I pray that fighting spirit remains on your island, and that you are an aberration. |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-27 18:37 |
| #70 I don't know about having 1/2 of your brain removed, but I bet you have to submit to something |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 18:34 |
| #69 The Guardian actually holds the centre ground in real life. If your name is Vladimir Lenin it might be. Otherwise it might be just be what is is a low circulation TRANZI rag. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-27 18:33 |
| #68 Julius Streicher: Follow his path, share his fate. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-07-27 18:32 |
| #67 Another unsufferable display of pompous authoritarianism by an ignorant Euro-bigot. Has Oxford really sunk so low? Given what has happened at my alma mater of Cornell, it is at least possible. The Guardianistas and like-minded media tools are probably the most evil and depraved large group of people in history, Nazis and Bolsheviks notwithstanding. Some of the latter totalitarians acted from principle; hateful, perverse and demonic priniciples it is truth, but principles just the same. The media beasts incite terrorism and taunt its victims out of greed and a kind of sadistic joy in otherwise useless power of their own nihilism. They are vermin and they should be exterminated. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2005-07-27 18:30 |
| #66 Thanks Ed! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 18:27 |
| #65 The moonbats love international law. You know, Hitler WOULD have effectively written international law if the allies hadn't put paid to his reign of terror. Whether our course of action to protect ourselves (and our feckless compatriots in the West) against this century's totalitarianism is correct or not can be discussed, but don't even try to suggest that it is illegal for us to protect our nation. Internation LAW is a fiction beloved of Tranzi fools and leftist fellow travellers. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-07-27 18:23 |
| #64 OK - "The Duke" |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 18:21 |
| #63 Is it true that to be a Socialist Worker at Oxford, they require for you to submit to surgery and have 1/2 of your brain removed? Just wondering? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 18:20 |
| #62 BigEd: I think I like myself better as John Wayne. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 18:17 |
| #61 Ima now wonder that maybe it is boris, most paki cleaners don't have this sorta time. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-27 18:16 |
| #60 It explains perhaps why you are all out of touch with reality. As opposed to an academic from Oxford? HELLO! Link: I've been to Oxford! I've been to Oxford! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 18:14 |
| #59 Piece of shit anti-American fuck. Let's all get together and make excuses for ME powers and give them a break? And all those poor powerless countires, lets make America leave them alone, am I hearing you right? Too bad British Academia is working so hard to paint the US as evil. Perhaps you should stick to your coffee house chatter with your islamofascist boyfriend. You understand the bombers, and why they hit your subway, assmunch? Do you feel sorry for them for suffering under the evil West? Take your happy ass to live in Waziristan then bitch boy. So, piss off Oxford boy until you have something valid to say. Sorry Fred et all, I couldn't let this one slide. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-07-27 18:13 |
#58 Secret Master: Or as John F'ing Kerry calls him, Gin Jess Khan |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 18:12 |
| #57 logic and cost effectiveness have no effect on teh ill |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 18:11 |
| #56 Further, if we wanted to go to war for oil, we�d invade Alberta. It�s closer. And less well defended. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-07-27 18:10 |
| #55 Frankly my dear, I don't give a damb... about world opinion. (For our moonbat friends.) |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-07-27 18:09 |
| #54 If you are trying to convince me that Madeleine Albright is an idiot, consider me convinced! |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 18:07 |
| #53 The Guardian actually holds the centre ground in real life Which is why they have dedicated Marxists on staff and hired a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Let's all stop feeding the troll. He's just an idiot looking for attention. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-07-27 18:04 |
| #52 Anything to the left of Genghis Khan is left wing compared to you Secret master. Link: That's me. Handsome devil, no? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 17:57 |
| #51 :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 17:57 |
| #50 the guardian will not be in business in 5 yrs - Britons are waking up to teh cancer within, and it may extend to comfy sinecures at Oxford for |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 17:53 |
| #49 Heh. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-07-27 17:53 |
| #48 He's gone? That's too bad: I enjoyed being called a member of the "Right Wing Rabble." Or maybe that should be Wight Wing Wabble |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 17:51 |
| #47 Facts Lawrence? You don't have any facts just fantasies. I see your moderators are busy deleting my facts already, obviously too sensitive for your eyes. Live in ignorance if you want, keep denying the truth as long as possible. Your Government-your problem. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:44 |
| #46 Secret Master have you been brain washed in some way? Not unless you count my Anglican education. You seem totally out of touch with world opinion. Naw, kid, I just don't care about world opinion. Listen the article you provided also says that "Forensic examination of grave sites has been hampered by lack of security in Iraq, amid widespread complaints by human rights organisations that until recently the graves have not been secured and protected." I would also like to mention that al-Gaurdian is not exactly a respectable news source. It's more like the Pravda of the British left. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 17:31 |
| #45 UU5507: a quick rebuttal, you deserve nothing more. 1) Various UN and non-US NGOâs have been excavating the mass graves in Iraq. The 400,000 number is firm and from them. More are being uncovered every day. If it was only 30,000, would that mean it was okay for Saddam to murder women and children? 2) The U.S. did not supply poison gas to either Iraq or Iran in their war; both sides made their own. The ingredients for chlorine, phosgene, and nerve gas are common, and any moderately technical, industrial society can make them. It is not hard. Even you could do it with a bucket of ammonia and a bucket of bleach (donât try this at home). 3) The sanctions did not kill 500,000 children; that was a number Saddam bantered around. Virtually all of the images and words put out by the Iraqi regime during the time of sanctions was a lie, and is acknowledged as such -- bitterly -- by Iraqis today. There was no DU poisoning, and the âdead babiesâ parades were expressly organized by Saddam to dupe people like you. If we accept that the sanctions were harmful, to the extent that children were dying, removing the sanctions by removing Saddam would be good, would it not? 4) The U.S. did not arm Saddam. According to the UN Agency for Disarmament, which monitors arm sales around the world, the USSR/Russia provided Saddam with 57% of his foreign arms purchases. China supplied another 13%. The US provided 0.03%. Note that the Iraqi army was equipped with Russian tanks, not American, used Russian AK-47 rifles, not M-16s, flew Russian aircraft, not American, and so on. 5) The number of Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the liberation, and in the time thereafter, is about 25,000. This includes the civilians killed by the Baâathists and jihadis. 6) The liberation was not illegal under American law. American law does not recognize the UN Charter as supreme, nor does it recognize other international conventions as supplanting our own Constitution. The U.S. Congress expressly authorized the action, and that makes it legal for us. Iâll say it again: we donât recognize international law as superior to our own. 7) If we wanted Iraqi oil, we could have bought it. Dick Cheney would have negotiated for it over breakfast and a tortured Kurd. Saddam offered to sell us oil at below-market price if we dropped the sanctions. Further, if we wanted to go to war for oil, weâd invade Alberta. Itâs closer. 8) There were numerous, extensive links between Saddam and international terrorists, including Al Qaeda. This has been documented by several investigators. Saddam supported various Palestinian terrorist groups, supported terrorist groups in neighboring countries, and had contacts with Al Qaeda that included protecting various al-Q people. That will do for a start. However, you'll be in read-only mode for R-burg, as I will shortly be trolling your ass. AoS. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-27 17:28 |
| #44 Enough of this moron. No more feeding the trolls. He has said he would prefer Saddam back in power. He does not deserve response-one from the other readers of this site. He will have judges far more harsh than us to deal with in the future. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-07-27 17:25 |
| #43 We've seen this story before. The Leftist drone will make wild charges, cut and past in text from lying tranzi moonbat sites that we've all seen a hundred times pasted in by previous (or the same?) moonbats, then change topics and accusations as each is refuted with the same facts as the moonbat yesterday was hit with. BORING. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2005-07-27 17:23 |
| #42 Editors, I read through this thread and the troll is doing what he did last night, which is to throw out a bunch of allegations, long quotes from dubious sources and not respond to counter-arguments. In addition he (I doubt its a she) is using abusive terms and phrasing like 'rightwing rabble', which I suspect is unconcious and standard in the circles he moves in. Yesterday he was entertaining for a couple of hours, today he is just noise. I propose you TROLL him. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-07-27 17:21 |
| #41 ROFL! We haven't had an asshole this determined since Boris' glory days! |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-27 17:17 |
| #40 PM admits graves claim 'untrue' http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday July 18, 2004 The Observer Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:15 |
| #39 Sorry I can't help Matt. If you do succeed I will change my IP address especially for you. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:14 |
| #38 Secret Master have you been brain washed in some way? You seem totally out of touch with world opinion. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:13 |
| #37 Kalle- Well actually yes I would prefer Saddam to the Mongol hoards. Certainly less people losing their lives, hospitals, electricity and water in a much better state than now. As for your mention of Abu Nidal that's a very tenious link at the best. Saddam and Bid laden were not exactly the best of pals. |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:11 |
| #36 Who do I believe, kid, these guys or you? If so, why? What are your sources? Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodiesâtheir arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies. "We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq." If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II. Come on now: put down that copy of Das Kapital and go have a pint. I seem to remember The Eagle and Child on St Giles was pretty nice. Tolkien and CS Lewis used to drink there if I am not mistaken. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 17:11 |
| #35 Can't figure out this linking concept, can you? |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-07-27 17:11 |
| #34 Please yourself, it won't stop me. Secret Master-Norm Coleman was made to look the fool he is. As for just buying Saddam's oil that's not the point, it's a simpleton's view. The idea was to control the world's second largest oil reserves, pump oil as fast as possible, and undercut OPEC forcing world prices down. It hasn't worked of course because Iraq's oil supply has been routinely sabotaged. But this is an indication of what was at stake.; "In the past, dependence on oil has cost our economy dearly. Oil price shocks and price manipulation by the OPEC cartel from 1979 to 1991 cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion, almost as much as we spent on national defence over the same time period and more than the interest payments on the national debt. Each major price shock of the past three decades was followed by an economic recession in the United States. With growing U.S. imports and increasing world dependence on OPEC oil, future price shocks are possible and would be costly to the U.S. economy." (Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Spring 2002.) |
| Posted by: Thineter Hupomogum5832 2005-07-27 17:09 |
| #33 So, UU you DO wish Saddam were still in power. Shall we return him to power? after all, he's never done anything bad, according to you. And if he did, it was all the USA's fault anyway, right? Just one question to settle your claims, just ONE: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal? that will take care of your "no links with terrorism". And everything else you say can be and has been refuted. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-27 17:05 |
| #32 Yes I would prefer Georgie Galloway, he made mincemeat of that dumb Senator, or Gordon Brown. Blair is a liar, he's not trusted by the majority of British people. Georgie? Georgie?! Most Londoners at this moment, apart from the mooks who voted for him, would like to beat him to death with a shovel. 'I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability.' Strewth. Chat with any Iraqis in the UK? Any Kurds? Dick. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2005-07-27 17:03 |
| #31 Yes, I'm sure you will. In the meanwhile, we'll just filter out this second name, issue a strongly worded report to your Internet Service Provider ... and take a few other steps we don't need to discuss here. |
| Posted by: rkb 2005-07-27 17:03 |
| #30 Um Fred, what's the IP class this twit is using? I'd block randomly 25 at a pop. Most wankers have a short attention span and are easily frustrated. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-27 16:56 |
#29 Fooey! Ima love the GG 4859 This n stinks smells like dead Trotsky meat. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-27 16:54 |
| #28 Yes I would prefer Georgie Galloway, he made mincemeat of that dumb Senator, or Gordon Brown. Blair is a liar, he's not trusted by the majority of British people. As for the reasons the USA spent $200 billion "liberating Iraq" and turning it into a moonscape, that was oil, not a single doubt about it. What kind of fool believes that.... oh, yeah, that's right: you're a student from Oxford. My son (or maybe daughter), we have a little saying in the United States: you have been educated beyond your intelligence. Let me help you out: 1) George Galloway is a political water boy who cringes for the highest (or perhaps lowest) bidder. That was the Marxists/Greens, now itâs the Muslims. Whatever: he will go to any length keep his cushy job feeding off of the public trough. Just like most other politicians. 2) The ability to yell tired platitudes louder than Sen Norm Coleman can ask you questions does not make you an intellectual giant. It doesnât even make you an intellectual. It just makes you loud. 3) If we wanted Saddamâs oil we simply could simply have bought it from him. It would have been easier and cheaper in both the short as well as long term. A ten-year-old could tell you that, so please donât insult anybodiesâ intelligence by implying that Bush and Blair somehow could not. 4) I spent some time there back in the 90's: great architecture, good food, pretty girls. Forget about arguing with us, leave your dorm room, and go have some fun. Life is too short. 5) You know, we had one of you Oxford guys as president. His "grasp" of foreign policy was remarkably similar to yours. A nice guy, but a very bad president as his inaction helped to create exactly the situation we are arguing about right now. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-07-27 16:53 |
| #27 Should we put Saddam back in power? let him torture and murder forever? You, GG/TU/UU are disgusting and there is no innocent reason for your propaganda. You do not deserve to live in the free world. Keep up your work and your life will be short. The liberation of Iraq was and is a noble act, principally motivated by American self-interest: the end of a murderous tyrant who has supported terrorists for decades, the spread of free institutions in the Middle East, and the positioning of military forces to take out other tyrannies in the Middle East. There is no need to beg for UN permission for such good deeds, on the contrary it has become evident that the UN is a tool used by evil forces to perpetuate tyranny around the world. We've had enough of it. We don't need any more of your contemptible lies. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-27 16:53 |
| #26 There's a huge difference between contrary views and outright lies, you, whatever your name is. The mass graves in Iraq were certainly not caused by U.S. soldiers and you know that very well. As for the war, Saddam Hussein violated several resolutions which the U.N. passed, but was too greedy (based on the fact that several members of the U.N. were accepting oil bribes under the condition that they would not uphold their own resolutions) to enforce. Therefore, if Saddam's war crimes did not justify it already, the U.S. had a perfect excuse for going to war. I suggest that you better familiarize yourself with reality before you make any more allegations against the United States. |
| Posted by: Educated 2005-07-27 16:51 |
| #25 You quote int'l law to justify your support for evil. I point to the fact that International law (the ICC, etal) have no jurisdiction over their betters. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 16:39 |
| #24 International Law? Show me that? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 16:37 |
| #23 So long, Thuque Ulavitle9640. I'm sure you'll crawl back from under that rock with a new name soon. This one is on the Poop list. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-07-27 16:28 |
| #22 How freaking dumb are you? The NYT has already posted a correction of that article. But then, of course they have since THEY ARE RUN BY THE US GOVERNMENT!! (Cue scary music) And if it were for oil, why didn't we just do a deal with Saddam? Everyone could have made millions. Oh, that would be logic getting in the way wouldn't it. That nasty for profit business mentality. Go back to crawling your feet up the wall and trying to suck your own dick. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-07-27 16:24 |
#21 ...said in a speech before an ACLU convention |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-07-27 16:19 |
| #20 UN trumps US war approval? Bwahahahah - Go f&6k your UN approval. We don't need it. Same UN that gave Saddam Oilfor food money to spend on palaces while his people starved and were killed? You immoral assholes preach anything to me, you'll get a shiner at best. Liars and tranzi whores for a minor-league hitler is all you are. The only thing you should convey is your apologies to the dead in the mass graves /rant whew! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 16:18 |
| #19 If the war wasn't approved by the UN it's an illegal war. Mass graves? Most have been caused by the USA and no, it's just a fantasy about industrial shredders, just as WMD, links with terrorism etc. Now this is real; long tendentious reposting of an article deleted by moderators - learn to link, please |
| Posted by: Thuque Ulavitle9640 2005-07-27 16:15 |
| #18 LOL. DocB methinks they are siamese twins and therefore technically not tag teaming. The surgery to split them couldn't be contemplated because it was found that between the two nutters there wasn't even a full brain, let alone enough for two human beings. Funny, it seems the heart was also atrophied to about 20 sizes too small. All in all not very good for a human but just right for a lemming and one half. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-07-27 16:10 |
| #17 Oh my a totaly blind fuckwitt. Illegal war? According to whom? The TRANZIs? The MSM? Anyone who counts. You "enlightened" types were happy with the mass graves, industrial shredding of people and government workers who job descriptions were rapist. Take your silly games and be gone. I am guessing this assclown has an "Oxford" IP. It's the same old tripe. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-27 16:04 |
| #16 Incidentally and as a matter of interest, if you don't accept the obvious, what do you think the illegal invasion was all about, if not for oil? Woooohooooo!! GG and TU, tagteam moonbats! |
| Posted by: docob 2005-07-27 16:01 |
| #15 It's all about oil, all right. Just cost me $42.00 to fill my tank. Thanks, Mr. Blair! /sarcasm |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-07-27 15:46 |
| #14 Well at the moment it looks like the USA is creaming off all the oil revenue. Yes oil is $60 and that wasn't planned, but neither was the oil line being popped very few days by the "insurgents". Incidentally and as a matter of interest, if you don't accept the obvious, what do you think the illegal invasion was all about, if not for oil? |
| Posted by: Thuque Ulavitle9640 2005-07-27 15:43 |
| #13 GG - Ah, you are a sharp one. Galloway's opportunism and psuedosocialist talk warms your wee little heart does it. Feels good so it must be. You like living in a free, democratic and civil society? Best not cast your lot with a demagogue like Galloway. By the time you wake up to become disillusioned the choices will no longer be yours to make. You'd trust him would you. Humor me more laddie! When he's dead and gone you'd find his legacy impossible to shrug off. His ilk live for lemmings like you. They feed on them. Hundreds every day. On a related topic when would you prefer the more calculating and cold-blooded among the IRA to start up again? Oh, and what of the shia and kurds in Iraq anyway? Perhaps you are correct GG. In the end the war might be in part about oil and how the revenue from that pumped out of Iraq might benefit the shia and kurds as well as a sunni clique and their minions. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-07-27 15:40 |
| #12 Lockin' n' loadin'? |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 15:35 |
| #11 Kalle, About your #7, I think it may come to that in the end. The GG's of the world "believe," and cannot be convinced otherwise. My grandfather used to say that only a fool arges with a fool. If true, where does that leave us? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-07-27 15:33 |
| #10 Oooh, GiGi, moonbat of the moonscape. Why don't you call him Bliar while you're at it. And can't you see it was cheaper to turn Iraq into a moonscape for the sake of Haliburton experiments, rather than going to the moon again? $200b is cheap. Plus we needed to destroy Iraq so that oil prices would rise to $60. Next we'll turn Afghanistan into a moonscape too! Oiiiiiiil! Oiiiiiink! |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-27 15:11 |
| #9 Yep, a fuckwit is amongst us. Shields Up! Lol! |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 14:55 |
| #8 Blair may be intelligent & articulate, compared to most American politicians, but it's easy to see through him particularly when he switches to his "emotional mode". Yes I would prefer Georgie Galloway, he made mincemeat of that dumb Senator, or Gordon Brown. Blair is a liar, he's not trusted by the majority of British people. As for the reasons the USA spent $200 billion "liberating Iraq" and turning it into a moonscape, that was oil, not a single doubt about it. |
| Posted by: Glese Grerenter3024 2005-07-27 14:49 |
| #7 How did we in the West end up with so many fools who so obviously seek to undermine everything we do for freedom and prosperity? you know, journalists who "ask" questions begging moral equivalence, posters who "know" it's all about oil, demonstrators who "support" our troops, and millions who march for Saddam. This is not a rhetorical question. I am puzzled by the sheer number and audacity of these fools. If it were the 18th century I'd long have killed dozens of them in duel. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-27 14:46 |
| #6 GG3024 - The "oil war" tag is at best specious on the facts but go ahead, suit yourself. There were some very good justifications for the ouster of Saddam Hussein but you'll be forgiven for taking the myopic short term view. My personal favorite comes to mind at the moment. Although they may not care for the present mayhem and uncertainty or be thrilled about the need for foreign troops on location, you'd be hardpressed to find more than a few kurds or shia (a large majority of Iraq mind you) who'd have Saddam or a sunni dictatorship again. As to Blair he is surely not without his shortcomings but I'd put it to you that he has been one of the more intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, sincere and effective leaders since (now put down your cup laddie) Thatcher. Would you refer to have Precious Georgie Galloway or similar scum at the helm? Indulge us and propound upon why it was that London got targeted and what it will take to change that state of affairs. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-07-27 14:38 |
| #5 2 years of debunking the same lame tired memery and there' still a large reservoir of morons, tools, and fools. Sure thing, GG. Please, read it in one sitting for maximum effect. Then FOAD. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 14:28 |
| #4 oil war - speaking of tired lies and liars |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-27 14:05 |
| #3 Blair is just digging a bigger hole for himself. He says there's no justification for terrorism, quite rightly, but he forgets there was no justification for the Iraqi oil war and that he had to lie to get the UK involved. The sooner he goes the better. |
| Posted by: Glese Grerenter3024 2005-07-27 13:51 |
| #2 I'd only ask that he reverse this tiny bit, as it would make all the difference in clarifying the actual war underway: "ideology of this evil" Then he'd get my vote, moronic domestic policies or not. On this occasion he has truly stepped up and delivered. Good on ya, Tony. Thx, BigEd - I wanted to see the reference to Israel that Tony (UK) mentioned this morning, and which Rooters (IIRC) left OUT of their twisted Jooo-hating agenda-driven half-assed reporting. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 13:25 |
| #1 Just reading the questions is enough to make one retch. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-07-27 13:21 |
