»Spain withdraws from Iraq«
|
|||
 So this guy stands for Election with the promise that "If I win I'll bring our troops home from Iraq". And he wins and true to his word begins the withdrawal of Spanish troops. He is then criticised by the (British and US) media for having "Betrayed his people and his country, and given in to Terrorism" Go figure. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqSpain withdraws from Iraq |
|
|||
 If this carries on then it will be Britain and America against the entire world...we are doing ourselves no favours by acting like the Bush monster and having a go at people who don't want to be in this war! 'School bully' keeps coming to mind for some reason  posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Problem with the Iraq thing is that it divides the forces, Bush is waging two wars (though at times you wouldn't think so), the first is "The War on Terrorism" (A stupid title at best) and the second is "Iraq". The Newly elected Leader of Spain has the right idea He acknowledged that Spain went into Iraq dispite 90% of the people opposing it. This is what democracy is supposed to be about. One of his first speeches in office outlined that he would be concentrating his efforts on helping Bush fight Terrorism. The resources released from Iraq will help to prevent further attacks on his home soil. So while some people bleat on about "possible links between Iraq and Terrorism" as the justify additional troops, they overlook the fact that while the farmer is out on a hunting party with his mates, the foxes are eyeing up his chickens. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 The new president of Spain always said: If the war in Iraq isn't legalized by the UN then he will withdraw the troops. That was before the election. Now he fulfills what he has promised. Probably Poland is the next one to withdraw. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 last i remember there hasn't been any real terrorist activity in england? no big threats no big explosions. wonder why posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agent Zero: last i remember there hasn't been any real terrorist activity in england? no big threats no big explosions. wonder why Ok, let's examine this. Sept 11 2001 - WTC Attack Sept 20 2001 - whitehouse.gov... Oct 7 2001 - Bombing of Afghanistan Begins And then, while Blair is wandering the globe on goodwill missions in support of Bush's "Anti Terror" thing... Nov 1 2001 - rte.ie... (I wouldn't be surprised is this didn't make the US news) posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
oh im so sorry, im wrong...a car bomb that hurt no one. wow im sorry that you guys had to experience that...it must of been horrible compared to 9/11 which killed over 5000 people. Marl that didn't appear on out TV cause it wasnt that big of a deal...whoopy a car bomb that hurt no one went off. great...i wish you were in the US on 9/11 and watch the plane hit the second tower, cause i watched it then i saw the buildings fall. it is burned into my brain forever. but im sorry you had to have such a small igsinificant thing happen in your country. oh and you said "The War on Terrorism" (A stupid title at best). what would you call it? i think its about as plain and to the point as you can get. i mean seriously...cmon. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: you said "The War on Terrorism" (A stupid title at best). what would you call it? Since "terrorism" is the war of non-countries and "war" is the terrorism of countries maybe one could call it "Terrorism on war" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
so your saying, you cant waige war on terrorism but you can waige terrorism on terrorism? hmmm...the terrorism on war thing sounds pretty dumb. war isnt the terrorism of countries where does it say that? do you need to hear the deffinition of terrorism again? posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: war isnt the terrorism of countries where does it say that? do you need to hear the deffinition of terrorism again? No? No houses bombed? No victims? No blood? And please don't tell me something about "just wars". Every country says it's just. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agent Zero: Oh im so sorry, im wrong...a car bomb that hurt no one. wow im sorry that you guys had to experience that...it must of been horrible compared to 9/11 which killed over 5000 people. That doesn't even warrant a response. Agent Zero: Marl that didn't appear on out TV cause it wasnt that big of a deal... Precisely. While America stomps across the world eradicating terrorists, It's (alledgedly) closest friend is attacked. Why should America care about that. And before you repeat "no-one was hurt", let's not forget this is the same country that Jailed a British girl for joking about having a bomb in an airport - no-one was hurt then either but I bet it made the news. Agent Zero: whoopy a car bomb that hurt no one went off. great...i wish you were in the US on 9/11 and watch the plane hit the second tower, cause i watched it then i saw the buildings fall. it is burned into my brain forever. So why would you wish that on me? to teach me a lesson, to show me about loss?... Agent Zero: but im sorry you had to have such a small igsinificant thing happen in your country. ...and still you learn nothing. Agent Zero: oh and you said "The War on Terrorism" (A stupid title at best). what would you call it? i think its about as plain and to the point as you can get. i mean seriously...cmon. In a war you have an enemy, who is the Enemy? (I imagine you'll say "terrorists, dumb ass" orsomething) OK, then, how do you know when you've won the war? (when all the terrorists are dead) And how do you know when that is? How exactly would a "War on Terror(ism)" end? Currently the U.S. is seeing terrorists in every shadow, everyday crimes are being checked for possible terrorist connections, security gets tighter and tighter and your rights are slowly eroded. This is a war that you cannot win, simply because it's a war with no end. And the biggest casualty of this war is your liberty. posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Jailed a British girl for joking about having a bomb in an airport Worse: Jailed someone who said "Burning Bush" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
nice points but still the facts way against you. your pretty little country is not threatened daily like ours. i live near a big city, seattle to be exact and a few years back there was a man planning to blow up the space needle new years night. it didn't happen cause he was caught at the canandian border!(they are good for one thing) but there are reports almost everyday of some sort of new threat emerging. im scared shitliss and the only way to stop terrorism is to take down the terrorists. the war will end when all the major cells are gone. sure there will always be terrorists but if you get most of them and scare off the others, you wont have too much trouble anymore. posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: sure there will always be terrorists but if you get most of them and scare off the others, you wont have too much trouble anymore. The future will tell. Bombs will be smaller and more explosive, you will need just 1 freak to blow New York off the map and Bush wants to introduce new atomic weapons: Atom bombs that can be carried. Happy Birthday, New New York. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Agent Zero: nice points but still the facts way against you. your pretty little country is not threatened daily like ours. Good Grief  For as long as I can remember we've been picking bodies out of burning buildings so don't presume to tell British people that we don't know about fear. Terrorism didn't start with 911.
The biggest contribution that the U.S. made towards the reduction in terrorism in England was to stop funding the terrorists. There I've said it, I promised myself I wouldn't because it might be too much for some to take, but we need to get it out there - if only to help you understand. Until Bush declared is little war, the biggest Terrorist threat in the UK was from the I.R.A. an organisation which was supported (for decades) by certain U.S. Corporations. Coincidentally, a Christian Terrorist group which seems to be off bush's radar. 
Don't beleive me?, well would you believe a world respected source such as news.bbc.co.uk... (I searched CNN, but for some reason couldn't find a mention of it)
I post this in the hope that it might (in part at least) explain to our American friends one of the reasons that 911 didn't shock and outrage us as much as you would have liked it to. ** Slips on flame retardent pants ** posted by Marl64 |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3 Next
Goto page
1, 2, 3 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 2 December 2008, 01:14 php B.B. |