Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Very deep. Why do you dislike Tony Blair? I'm not English but I think he's a very good person, and has done some great things for the UK in his term.
dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy
FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. You really are quite ignorant on the subject. u6795 wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:38 Very deep. Why do you dislike Tony Blair? I'm not English but I think he's a very good person, and has done some great things for the UK in his term. You're from Georgia, all you'll know about Britain is what you read/hear from your neo-conservative or liberal (assuming you're one of the two previous ideologies) news sources. But like all PMs he did have his ups and downs.
tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Now that's got to be the most bullshitest thing I ever heard. Saddam killed only those who stood against him...what else do you expect a dictator to do? Kiss his citizens? This whole BULLSHIT about Saddam is all exaggerated...yes, he was a bad man and he tortured those who stood against him but the figures are more exaggerated by Western media. I like Bush but think of all the lives lost due to his decision to screw Iraq. And Saddam killed thousands...not millions.
IronBalls wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 02:59 tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Now that's got to be the most bullshitest thing I ever heard. Saddam killed only those who stood against him...what else do you expect a dictator to do? Kiss his citizens? This whole BULLSHIT about Saddam is all exaggerated...yes, he was a bad man and he tortured those who stood against him but the figures are more exaggerated by Western media. I like Bush but think of all the lives lost due to his decision to screw Iraq. And Saddam killed thousands...not millions. Where is the source of this infomation? Our, or your goverment doesn't need to kill people to keep power. Saddam deserved what he got, taking one person's life is enough to have you own taken imo.
IronBalls wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 20:59 tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Now that's got to be the most bullshitest thing I ever heard. Saddam killed only those who stood against him...what else do you expect a dictator to do? Kiss his citizens? This whole BULLSHIT about Saddam is all exaggerated...yes, he was a bad man and he tortured those who stood against him but the figures are more exaggerated by Western media. I like Bush but think of all the lives lost due to his decision to screw Iraq. And Saddam killed thousands...not millions. Well I'm glad to see you have a very good handle on the case. Because well, I'm sure all those sources with pictures of thousands upon thousands of corpses being pulled out of the ground are just exaggerated. Or the FACT that people would disappear forever for going 5 over the speed limit. I forgot facts and sources are useless when it comes to concluding anything. You always come out to reinforce to everyone how stupid you are with a monumentally retarded post.
FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy You sound like an left wing peace loving tree hugging pile of shit. Please leave my great country.
u6795 wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:38 Very deep. Why do you dislike Tony Blair? I'm not English but I think he's a very good person, and has done some great things for the UK in his term. He has done fuck-all for the people of Scotland and you wonder why we dislike him? Who fucked it into the British Fire Service? Tony Blair and his Red Hand Gang. At least with Maggie Thatcher you knew where you stood unlike the weasel called Blair. He is the "smiling assassin". Every single one of them have their own personal agenda and it does not involve Joe Public.
tzarmind wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 03:13 IronBalls wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 20:59 tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Now that's got to be the most bullshitest thing I ever heard. Saddam killed only those who stood against him...what else do you expect a dictator to do? Kiss his citizens? This whole BULLSHIT about Saddam is all exaggerated...yes, he was a bad man and he tortured those who stood against him but the figures are more exaggerated by Western media. I like Bush but think of all the lives lost due to his decision to screw Iraq. And Saddam killed thousands...not millions. Well I'm glad to see you have a very good handle on the case. Because well, I'm sure all those sources with pictures of thousands upon thousands of corpses being pulled out of the ground are just exaggerated. Or the FACT that people would disappear forever for going 5 over the speed limit. I forgot facts and sources are useless when it comes to concluding anything. You always come out to reinforce to everyone how stupid you are with a monumentally retarded post. I knew I will get such a reply from you all. You people never accept any comments/suggestions, eh? Stubborn pigs...good luck winning in Iraq cuz you already lost.
IronBalls wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 11:29 tzarmind wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 03:13 IronBalls wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 20:59 tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. Now that's got to be the most bullshitest thing I ever heard. Saddam killed only those who stood against him...what else do you expect a dictator to do? Kiss his citizens? This whole BULLSHIT about Saddam is all exaggerated...yes, he was a bad man and he tortured those who stood against him but the figures are more exaggerated by Western media. I like Bush but think of all the lives lost due to his decision to screw Iraq. And Saddam killed thousands...not millions. Well I'm glad to see you have a very good handle on the case. Because well, I'm sure all those sources with pictures of thousands upon thousands of corpses being pulled out of the ground are just exaggerated. Or the FACT that people would disappear forever for going 5 over the speed limit. I forgot facts and sources are useless when it comes to concluding anything. You always come out to reinforce to everyone how stupid you are with a monumentally retarded post. I knew I will get such a reply from you all. You people never accept any comments/suggestions, eh? Stubborn pigs...good luck winning in Iraq cuz you already lost. You make me laugh. Even if Saddam only killed those who opposed him, how the fuck can you justify that? He's still killing his citizens simply because they disagreed with him. You don't see that happening in American politics. You're not seeing Democrats being executed left and right and tortured simply because they oppose the Bush administration, do you? No, I didn't think so. There's no fucking way you can justify killing millions of people because they simply oppose you. Give me a break.
Liberating a country from an authoritarian government to a democratic government, from a dictator who abused his own people even his own followers, used chemical weapons against his own Iraqi citizens, and brought geopolitical instability to the entire Middle East ............... is not an evil "oil driven" campaign. Hell, our oil prices in the U.S. are going up real high again, not down. When you look through history, there are countries who harbor terrorists or ideologies of violence - and they've always been met with opposition. In the last 20 years or so, however, there have been very few nations that have had the gonads to say "we're going to do something about the Middle East". The U.S. and U.K. were two nations that stood close to each other and I can tell you that U.S. citizens were quiet pleased to see this sort of alliance. I've served 5+ years in the U.S. military, proudly, and in the intelligence community. I had absolutely no choice whatsoever in the fact that I had to read military intelligence (both local and global) from a read board, daily. And some of the things I read just simply disgusted me. I am not saying that mistakes haven't been made or that the tail end of the operation was completed properly -- because there are many opposing perspectives that I do agree with. But generally speaking, this truely was a justified war, and anyone with their noses outside of a public newspaper would know that. I'm not here to flame one side or the other, but I really wish that people would take the time to research the events that lead up to this war, the events of the war, and the events following the war; rather than simply assuming what political agendas were and that it was the motivation for the war: it's simply absurd.
one point though... the way i see it if they really want a change they will make it happen... look at the revolution in russia... prime example of the people making it happen.
FrAM wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 19:40 one point though... the way i see it if they really want a change they will make it happen... look at the revolution in russia... prime example of the people making it happen. Those people were scared shitless and they had Saddam to thank for that. The people were threatened with the lives of their family. They didn't dare try to revolt. You try starting a revolution with violent eyes and ears all around you. Then you can tell me how easy it is... if you're still alive.
There have been enough posts and topics on Iraq. Lets keep on the topic of Tony Blair. If you are American and can ONLY spout BS then stay the fuck out of the topic. After-all that is what you tell the Brits when we reply to your posts on the US Goverment. Back on topic. What has Tony Blair did for the UK (except Iraq)?
puddle_splasher wrote on Sat, 19 May 2007 11:13 Back on topic. What has Tony Blair did for the UK (except Iraq)? Made taxes go up. underpaid the NHS. underpaid schools. forcing children to go to school. made it possible to sue for just about anything. Made it hard for me to fly my model airplane. Speed cameras (which cause crashes, just for more money). Allows anyone to just walk into the county then provide them with everything Allowed someone to die, with just giving the killer "dangerous driving without due care and attention"
Looks like all of us Brits think the same way about Blair!!
well when was the last time there was an AWSOME leader of a country.
gamemodding wrote on Sat, 19 May 2007 07:33 puddle_splasher wrote on Sat, 19 May 2007 11:13 Back on topic. What has Tony Blair did for the UK (except Iraq)? Made taxes go up. underpaid the NHS. underpaid schools. forcing children to go to school. made it possible to sue for just about anything. Made it hard for me to fly my model airplane. Speed cameras (which cause crashes, just for more money). Allows anyone to just walk into the county then provide them with everything Allowed someone to die, with just giving the killer "dangerous driving without due care and attention" Taxes went up for the government to manage the country I believe. Schools are underpaid for a reason.. I don't know why though. Children are forced to go to school for a reason... to learn. You people insult us in being "STUPID!" and "FAT", and schools are suppose to oppose to that. But complaining that the government is forcing children to go to school as that argument going on... just no. We need to be as smart as possible to live a well managed life. The sue thing... I know, it's bullcrap. Most Americans wished that people won't sue for pointless things. Umm... how did US make it hard for you to fly a model airplane, and how the heck can a speed camera cause crashes? We don't purposely allow just anyone to walk into the country! we have country border guards everywhere near mexico! Although we are the melting pot of the world, terrorism happens seldomly. I don't know what you are talking about. But perhaps the police didn't know that the killer wasn't a killer? Yeah... If you notice, this is mostly (or all) the governments fault. It's true, a lot of Americans hate their own government. There is a bunch of conspiracies that someone cracked the ballots and had bush when, but then... kerry is also a ass.
This is about the UK, not the US. The cameras cause crashes because people speed, the slow down suddenly for them. I can't fly my airplane because laws on the transmitter, the "noise" disturbs people and it is "dangerous". I have to fly it on private land, but anything that our "generation" find fun. There is a law against. We should have a choice weather we want to be tramps or not, there are some times when going to school is not needed at all.
I don't know much about the education situation over there, but requiring children to attend school until they're 16 or so (18 if I had it my way) is a good idea. Speed cameras don't cause accidents here, so I don't see why they'd cause accidents there. Plus if you slam on you breaks because of a speed camera, it wasn't the cameras fault - it was your fault for speeding in the first place. The transmitter thing is debatable, but considering you're a much smaller landmass I can kinda understand the law. As for the topic itself, I can't say much about Tony Blair other than the following: The US citizens truely appreciate the alliance and comradery of the British people and their leadership. I know that many nations have been arguing about what to do about this and that - but I can tell you as a U.S. citizen that I've never run across another citizen that wasn't happy with Britain and their support for our sacrifices in the war. Rather than focusing on the bad things, nations are close as ours need to start focusing on the positive advances. Blair wasn't necessarily bad in that area: he did what he felt needed to be done and it was very much appreciated by the American people. I know he is your leader and not ours, but all things considered he wasn't a bad guy at all.
fl00d3d wrote on Sun, 20 May 2007 01:44 Plus if you slam on you breaks because of a speed camera, it wasn't the cameras fault - it was your fault for speeding in the first place. Speed cameras have been erected in the UK as a means to generate money for the Local Authority and not for the Police (They only enforce the penalty). Generally speaking the cameras were supposed to be erected in places where there were at least one fatality or 2 serious pedestrian accidents. We all know that this is not the case. The cameras are mounted everywhere and even if people are travelling at the correct speed, particularly on a dual carriageway, there is a tendency to slap on the brakes from 70 mph to 60 mph or less, thus the driver behind brakes and so on down the queue until BANG! CRASH! there is an accident. Speed cameras are in fact proven beyond reasonable doubt to be causing crashes and some Local Authorities were forced to remove them and to have the total amount of cameras capped at a specific level until further notice. All this in the name of Blair. Keep in mind that he is but a puppet. He can stand and talk, sure he can but so does a ventriloquists dummy who also has the strings pulled for it.
gamemodding wrote on Sat, 19 May 2007 15:33 puddle_splasher wrote on Sat, 19 May 2007 11:13 Back on topic. What has Tony Blair did for the UK (except Iraq)? Made taxes go up. underpaid the NHS. underpaid schools. forcing children to go to school. made it possible to sue for just about anything. Made it hard for me to fly my model airplane. Speed cameras (which cause crashes, just for more money). Allows anyone to just walk into the county then provide them with everything Allowed someone to die, with just giving the killer "dangerous driving without due care and attention" legend
puddle_splasher wrote on Sun, 20 May 2007 03:36 All this in the name of Blair. Keep in mind that he is but a puppet. He can stand and talk, sure he can but so does a ventriloquists dummy who also has the strings pulled for it. Yeah, you elected him and he represents the people. Same goes for a country (U.S.) that rips on their president.... YOU VOTED FOR HIM, PEOPLE! Maybe people will start taking the time to research their candidates instead of ignorantly voting for the "wrong" person. (Not personally knocking you or anyone for that matter - just getting it off my chest in a generalized way).
[*]underpaid schools. [*]forcing children to go to school. The main problem with this is that half the schools in this country are no longer run by the teachers, they're run by the gangs and the chavs.
They're not run by teachers full stop. They are run by dictators.
fl00d3d wrote on Mon, 21 May 2007 19:46 YOU VOTED FOR HIM, PEOPLE!
zunnie wrote on Tue, 22 May 2007 20:50 fl00d3d wrote on Mon, 21 May 2007 19:46 YOU VOTED FOR HIM, PEOPLE! OH NO I DID NOT But the democracy won.
Democracy is an illusion lol, its a trick to keep the people happy, you never noticed they will do what they want anyway? ..
They always do. That is why I do not believe any of them.
zunnie wrote on Wed, 23 May 2007 11:37 Democracy is an illusion lol, its a trick to keep the people happy, you never noticed they will do what they want anyway? .. hes right
Yeah, but at least I live in a country that has the right to bear arms. >=)
fl00d3d wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 12:33 Yeah, but at least I live in a country that has the right to bear arms. >=) and cause like a bunch of people 2 die in school shootings? Tony blair was ok from the americans who support Iraq...others not so much...
fl00d3d wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 12:33 Yeah, but at least I live in a country that has the right to bear arms. >=) If you ask a Ned in the street why he carries a knife he will tell you "Cause the others carry knives and might stab me so I need a knife to defend myself". Now if you ask the same question but substitute knife for gun, he will say "Cause the others carry a gun and might shoot me so I need a gun to defend myself". Therefore if no-one carried weapons, then there would be no need to defend ones self with knifes and guns. Thankfully the UK is a country that does not "have the right to bear arms" and long may it last.
Another thing, the UK is the ONLY country that has rubbish everywhere on the streets or at least a very bad country for it. When i go on holiday, poorer countries than the UK are actually cleaner.
That's also why you lost a lot of land on the North American continent and why you'll never be able to overpower your government if they grow too powerful.
puddle_splasher wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 14:36 fl00d3d wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 12:33 Yeah, but at least I live in a country that has the right to bear arms. >=) If you ask a Ned in the street why he carries a knife he will tell you "Cause the others carry knives and might stab me so I need a knife to defend myself". Now if you ask the same question but substitute knife for gun, he will say "Cause the others carry a gun and might shoot me so I need a gun to defend myself". Therefore if no-one carried weapons, then there would be no need to defend ones self with knifes and guns. Thankfully the UK is a country that does not "have the right to bear arms" and long may it last. ...in theory that works. In practice, it means that the only people who would have a gun are not law-abiding citizens. Stop me if you can't see the flaw.
It's that way in the U.S. too because I have a legal right to "bear arms" but I don't ... yet the criminal up the street has one because he got it on the black market. And that reality is in all civilizations regardless of law. In fact its probably worse in countries that prohibit weapons.
I disagree. Per head of population we have very little incidents involving guns. What that proportion is in other countries is unknown to me. When violence involving guns in the UK make the headlines, it is because we have so few incidents. Long may we be prohibited from bearing arms. But that was not Tony B. that introduced the policy.
I'm not informed enough on English schooling to form an opinion about it. But Scottish schooling as far as it goes is decent, and I currently go to a pretty tacky looking school that struggles for textbooks etc. I don't think we can fully blame Blair for the state of schools though. But education does need to be worked on, and constantly worked on. If I had my way I'd remove advertising directed at children, make them start school at an earlier age, setup programs on making informed decisions and researching information. Information and education are both the key to a democratic society working properly. And to be honest Gamemodding you will hate school because like everyone at your age you're an angsty teenager who is sick of everything. Just like we all were. With regards to chavs, I don't know a great deal about chavs down in England. But with regards to neds up in Scotland. They are fairly easy to deal with in school. There are a good couple of methods for dealing with them though.
You could say that, and a lot of people do say that. It runs deeper, though. In school, we are not treated as individuals. We are not allowed to express an opinion. The teachers don't care if we get good grades or not, we've actually been told this. Everything we do is watched over as if we are totally and utterly stupid. Uniform is a big part of the school, and i don't mind at all wearing dress codes and looking "smart". It's just when you don't look smart and uniform is terrible. The teachers look at you as if you're just scum. I had a week working (voluntary) at a hospital. I had to wear shirt, tie black trousers and shoes. I had to do stuff that weren't particularly good jobs, EG: unpack 100 computer and 100 monitors and store them but i would much rather have a job there than go to school.
gamemodding wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45 Another thing, the UK is the ONLY country that has rubbish everywhere on the streets or at least a very bad country for it. When i go on holiday, poorer countries than the UK are actually cleaner. thats because they hand out corporal punishment for littering.
FrAM wrote on Sat, 26 May 2007 13:29 gamemodding wrote on Thu, 24 May 2007 23:45 Another thing, the UK is the ONLY country that has rubbish everywhere on the streets or at least a very bad country for it. When i go on holiday, poorer countries than the UK are actually cleaner. thats because they hand out corporal punishment for littering. I don't mean litter, i mean bin bags just general rubbish at peoples door step because we have a "2 weekly collection".
one thing about litter in uk is... if i step out of my house i have to walk for about 10 minutes to find an outside bin, but this is down to local council.
gamemodding wrote on Fri, 25 May 2007 09:50 I had to do stuff that weren't particularly good jobs, EG: unpack 100 computer and 100 monitors and store them Then try wiping the puke of the floor or changing someones bed after they have shit themselves. What about giving the "Old Buddy" a bed bath as she makes attempts to maintain her dignity or changing the colostomy bags and collecting urine samples. Then again I suppose for people that have never worked and sat all their lard arses behind a monitor for weeks on end, must think that storing PCs and monitors is hard work. What about coming with me and picking up body parts, rescuing kids from fire, mouth to mouth resuscitation on casualties only to have them die in hospital. Deal with the junkies, drunks, ethnics, down-and-outs......... Where do I stop? You had a piss easy week in a hospital. Get a life from now on and realise that you got it easy.
Lol, what I'm saying is i would prefer any job than school. Even if it is what you said, however, i won't work in the fire dept. I'm too squeamish. Not all jobs like what you described.
gamemodding wrote on Sat, 26 May 2007 22:27 Lol, what I'm saying is i would prefer any job than school. Even if it is what you said, however, i won't work in the fire dept. I'm too squeamish. Not all jobs like what you described. i dropped college, got job worked for year, then went back to college. You try it and see what you think. Unless you got the education you dont make enough money to properly enjoy life.
I'm still in school... and it's not learning i don't like, it all the clowns and teachers. I've been to collage on an induction type of thing, and it was a lot better.
gamemodding wrote on Sun, 27 May 2007 09:52 I'm still in school... and it's not learning i don't like, it all the clowns and teachers. I've been to collage on an induction type of thing, and it was a lot better. I empathize with you a bit, you're in the Scottish equivalent of 4th year at the moment or were? Because near the end I hated getting babied about and told "you're doing P.E" after I held down a summer job working 9/10 hour shifts for £5.50 an hour.
tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. I'm surprised to see so many Americans hate this guy. Whether or not you know, Saddam Hussein fought and killed terrorists during his rule. Many people from groups which include Al Qa'idah were killed in his ruling. He fought fundemantalism within his country and fought Iran, which looks like an enemy in the eyes of the U.S. He actually did you guys a lot of favours. Sure he was a really bad guy, but the war was an unfortunate mistake. No WMD's, thousands of U.S casualties, over 600,000 Iraqi casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars lost. Iraq is now a den for your enemies, America. And now, many in Europe, Asia, and even the states, look down upon the administration for its actions. Funny how you guys go for Saddam and Iran, when the leader of North Korea has nuclear weapons with the ability to reach California. He also idolizes Adolf Hitler and has his own personal Hitler Museum. And yet you guys fear Iran more.
[NE Fobby wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 18:10] tzarmind wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 21:13 FrAM wrote on Thu, 17 May 2007 18:57 dude he went to iraq for oil and to keep bush's dick in his mouth... he isnt a great prime minister eh is just a pussy The Iraq war was necessary even if it was for oil. Saddam was a paranoid and viscious dictator who murdered millions of his own people. I'm surprised to see so many Americans hate this guy. Whether or not you know, Saddam Hussein fought and killed terrorists during his rule. Many people from groups which include Al Qa'idah were killed in his ruling. He fought fundemantalism within his country and fought Iran, which looks like an enemy in the eyes of the U.S. He actually did you guys a lot of favours. Sure he was a really bad guy, but the war was an unfortunate mistake. No WMD's, thousands of U.S casualties, over 600,000 Iraqi casualties, and hundreds of billions of dollars lost. Iraq is now a den for your enemies, America. And now, many in Europe, Asia, and even the states, look down upon the administration for its actions. Funny how you guys go for Saddam and Iran, when the leader of North Korea has nuclear weapons with the ability to reach California. He also idolizes Adolf Hitler and has his own personal Hitler Museum. And yet you guys fear Iran more. I honestly don't believe North Korea has nukes. The evidence to support him having nukes showed that if he did have them, they were so weak they wouldn't have been much use anyway. A lot of theorizing that it might actually have been dynamite. But don't try to justify what Saddam did, he needed taken out. And for someone that tried to stamp out extremism declaring a jihad against the US sure doesn't contradict what you just said. Right? fl00d3d wrote on Fri, 18 May 2007 12:29 Hell, our oil prices in the U.S. are going up real high again, not down. I didn't see that, so I'm only replying now. What the fuck? What does it matter that oil prices are going up? Why would that make the Iraq war any less likely to be for oil? Oil companies think in decades not a quickfix for three years. Jesus it's so retarded when people say that "DUHHHRR OIL PRICES GOING UP SO WAR CANT BE FOR OIL". Assuming the oil was intended for America anyway, the US could have struck a deal with some other country in the background?
Quote: But don't try to justify what Saddam did, he needed taken out. And for someone that tried to stamp out extremism declaring a jihad against the US sure doesn't contradict what you just said. Right? Saddam Hussein's government had a leftist attitude, and most of them considered themselves as atheists, not Muslims. I'm not justifying Saddam's actions: He's a criminal. As for his "jihad", I'll give you a chance to guess what that even means. Let me give you a hint, despite what the media bombards you with, it does not mean "holy war". Quote: I honestly don't believe North Korea has nukes. The evidence to support him having nukes showed that if he did have them, they were so weak they wouldn't have been much use anyway. A lot of theorizing that it might actually have been dynamite. Radiation was detected in the air by the U.S airforce after the explosion. That's enough proof for me. And it doesn't matter whether or not they're weak, they are able to hit California. The North Korean dictator is a Nazi-supporting psychopath and the U.S does nothing about him.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:18] Quote: But don't try to justify what Saddam did, he needed taken out. And for someone that tried to stamp out extremism declaring a jihad against the US sure doesn't contradict what you just said. Right? Saddam Hussein's government had a leftist attitude, and most of them considered themselves as atheists, not Muslims. I'm not justifying Saddam's actions: He's a criminal. As for his "jihad", I'll give you a chance to guess what that even means. Let me give you a hint, despite what the media bombards you with, it does not mean "holy war". So you're saying Saddam didn't want a Holy War, but to live a moral and virtuous life? Uh huh... tell that to those he tortured.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 21:18] Quote: But don't try to justify what Saddam did, he needed taken out. And for someone that tried to stamp out extremism declaring a jihad against the US sure doesn't contradict what you just said. Right? Saddam Hussein's government had a leftist attitude, and most of them considered themselves as atheists, not Muslims. I'm not justifying Saddam's actions: He's a criminal. As for his "jihad", I'll give you a chance to guess what that even means. Let me give you a hint, despite what the media bombards you with, it does not mean "holy war". And hah? Athiests? Where are you getting that from?
I read it in an interview with former Ba'ath government member Izzat Ibrahim. J-Ball... are you even reading my posts? Im saying he IS a criminal, but wasn't worth this useless war.
"[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007"] Radiation was detected in the air by the U.S airforce after the explosion. That's enough proof for me. And it doesn't matter whether or not they're weak, they are able to hit California. The North Korean dictator is a Nazi-supporting psychopath and the U.S does nothing about him. Radiation could have been released into the atmosphere with the intent of fooling probes. I seriously doubt he has nukes.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:24]J-Ball... are you even reading my posts? Im saying he IS a criminal, but wasn't worth this useless war. No, you asked tzarmind if he even knew what jihad was, and I figured you were implying that Saddam's jihad wasn't the holy war everybody believes it to be. I, then, responded with questioning whether you really think that his "jihad" was to live a moral life (and 'defending' Islam). That is pretty much what you were implying jihad means, right?
Suit yourself good sir, but the fact that he is a Nazi loving freak is undeniable. He has a personal museum dedicated to Hitler, what does that tell you? The man doesn't care about the health of his own citizens, instead he spends the country's wealth on improving the army. Isn't he a bigger threat than this stupid Saddam guy?
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:29]Suit yourself good sir, but the fact that he is a Nazi loving freak is undeniable. He has a personal museum dedicated to Hitler, what does that tell you? The man doesn't care about the health of his own citizens, instead he spends the country's wealth on improving the army. Isn't he a bigger threat than this stupid Saddam guy? Not really. China doesn't want a war with the U.S. in defense of North Korea. China's going to do anything in their power to shut up North Korea... as we saw with the whole "nuclear test".
j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:27 [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:24]J-Ball... are you even reading my posts? Im saying he IS a criminal, but wasn't worth this useless war. No, you asked tzarmind if he even knew what jihad was, and I figured you were implying that Saddam's jihad wasn't the holy war everybody believes it to be. I, then, responded with questioning whether you really think that his "jihad" was to live a moral life (and 'defending' Islam). That is pretty much what you were implying jihad means, right? Wrong. The Islamic definition of "Jihad" is the struggle to do the right thing. It's not even an Islamic word - I know an Arab Orthodox guy with the name "Jihad". I'm pretty sure an orthodox wouldn't name his son Holy War, if that's what it really meant.
[NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:31] j_ball430 wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:27 [NE Fobby[GEN] wrote on Tue, 29 May 2007 22:24]J-Ball... are you even reading my posts? Im saying he IS a criminal, but wasn't worth this useless war. No, you asked tzarmind if he even knew what jihad was, and I figured you were implying that Saddam's jihad wasn't the holy war everybody believes it to be. I, then, responded with questioning whether you really think that his "jihad" was to live a moral life (and 'defending' Islam). That is pretty much what you were implying jihad means, right? Wrong. The Islamic definition of "Jihad" is the struggle to do the right thing. It's not even an Islamic word - I know an Arab Orthodox guy with the name "Jihad". I'm pretty sure an orthodox wouldn't name his son Holy War, if that's what it really meant. Didn't I just say that? How is living a moral life different from struggling to do the right thing? Back to my question then, do you really think Saddam planned to have a jihad against the Western World by torturing and killing people? I just don't see torture and moral being related.
I'm just trying to say that he didn't have a jihad against the west. He was killing and torturing his own people, as well as killing terrorists and Iranians. In my eyes, terrorists were a bigger threat to the U.S than Saddam's army. All I'm trying to say is, he killed Al Qa'idah members as well as any other religious uprisers in his country, therefore killed the enemies of the U.S
No doubt Kim Jong Il is a problem-child, but considering the U.S.'s military might, I think we're playing our cards juuuuust right (if you catch my drift. If not, there is a time and place for every action, and its not N.Koreas time yet). Hitler also was an environmentalist, but you don't see many people praising him. Sadaam was a terrible tyrant gone out of control and it was our responsibility to clean up and Iraq up (along with the chemical weapons) because we're the ones who essentially built the middle east. People seem to be pretty ignorant to the fact that many of these issues stem back to the 70's and 80's and that there is so much more to the picture than "omg Bush is evil he just wants oil". It's honestly not an issue that 90% of the general public has any intelligent grounds to speak on. Unfortunately, it affects the world in so many ways and we're left to pick pieces of information out of the media who taints reality. The war was justified. Get over it. As for Blair (on topic), he wasn't a bad guy in regards to his position on the war; domestically I have absolutely no idea.
^finally someone who knows what they are talking about.
I see it has gone back to America, Saddam and a Holy war!! So much for Tony Blair stepping down and the UK. How do you guys manage to spam a topic so much, twist it and then rewrite the topic to make it "The War In Iraq"? Go and open yet another "Iraq" topic and stop hi-jacking.
I'm not going to apologize for defending my country, if that's what you're asking. People bring their comments towards my country, president and "our war" so I felt necessary to defend it. I keep trying to keep it as on topic as possible, though. I just can't escape hearing all the anti-war bullshit that goes around.
Nope Flood, its not against you. This was a topic about the UK not the US. Albeit that the topic was hijacked and ended up about the US and Iraq, as usual.