Duke Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 I said this in another post but surely america has weapons of mass destruction and they are the ones who use them the most. I've got nothing against america but im sure they could launch something against old blighty within 45 minutes. and who would retaliate for us, the french? I understand sadam is a twat but he isn't stupid, he wasn't gonna wake up one day after a night of mars bar and egg binging and say "Ill launch some of them weapons the americans gave me" That would kick start a bit of a tiff. I think countries have a right to have military power. And its no good saying he was an evil dictator because i think Stalin was aswell and he treated his people like shit. But we all loved him when he pretty much won the second world war for us didn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 16, 2003 Share Posted December 16, 2003 If the US launched at the UK, we'd have plenty of time to turn off all their early warning systems and make sure that the WHOLE WORLD knew about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 funny point, but you know what i mean. Loads of countries could attack us at any point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Yes, we are a major target thanks to the US installations we host. Not to mention our strategic positioning and our recent political allegiances (thanks for that Tony). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 3, 2004 Author Share Posted January 3, 2004 Something was said on Sky News today that clicked, "flight BA flight 324(or wharever number it was) has been canceled yet again due to American fears of a terrorist attack" now on 1`st glance that sentence seems quite ordinary, on closer inspection however, you`ll notice the word "FEARS", that says to me that the terrorist are winning already! ok it`s either just semantics or a poor choice of words on their part, but non the less it was broadcast to over 80 million veiwers, and I`m almost possitive that I wouldn`t have been the only one to pick up on this. Just a Thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheetah Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Yes. The terrorists are winning in a way. Their terror are sperading, and now they don't even need to do anything themselves to sperad it! We are stoping our planes ourself, our governments are increasing surveilance of inocent citisens, and new anti-terror laws take away our privacy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman47 Posted January 4, 2004 Share Posted January 4, 2004 I am in no way feeling safer now than I was prior to the "war on Terrorism" Now that Bushy had created a mess, he only created more terrorists and more hatred towards the United States of America. I am against this "war on terror" especially in Iraq Iraq (particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein) is predominantly Shiite. The sect of Muslims that call themselves Wahhabis, and the sect that call themselves Shiites have been separated and different interpretations since the 7th Century AD, and have grown apart from there. Iraq, one of the only Shiite strongholds in the Middle East and Islamic world, does not produce terrorists at the level of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. It is because of this fact the war in Iraq should be completely separate from the broad tent “War on Terrorism” and should not be waged because of what happened on 9/11. That is why I believe this "war on terror" is :bs: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erador Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 newbie said in post # :I will make this short, all this talk about being illegal is just a conspiracy that you want to hold on too because of reasons you dislike the country. I read some of the thread you posted and stopped when I read faf's post. Iraq did have WMD and the whole point of the resolutions was to prove that they destroyed them. That was one of the reasons Bush gave to go to war and was justified when Iraq did not comply. There have been instances where we have found possible links to Osama, but as of now we are unable to verify the claims. Regarding your thoughts on my last post: One only needs to read the resolution to understand that Iraq did not comply. Also the Security Council was undecided on the issue like I said before. If I do have a "problematic history on this forum" it’s because I must. When you reply to a post you are replying to that person, not the entire thread. My first statement was directed to you; I have no problem admitting that, but you make one to me and I challenge it; then you call out that I am making assumptions, which I have not. Your comment was directed too me, if not why would you type it in your reply if it wasn’t? I am not trying to cause trouble here, just that there is no PROOF of this illegal action. There is no reading behind the lines because everything is out in the open, no secrets, no conspiracies and no illegal actions. didnt osamo bin laden like *slap* saddam in the face when he refused to visit? and as far as i know he has always shown opposition to hussien as for WMD lol do you really think Iraq had them? and if so, why cant we find them wasnt the whole basis of the war made on the fact the iraq WASNT destroying thier WMDs? and now that they *did* we say, " oh they had them for sure, but they destroyed them" think! hey man, im american, but i show my love for my country when i recognize its faults and try to fix them. your just ignoring the wrongs that we have done. which i find VERY irresponsible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 all we need to do now is capture Osama Big Lamer, and I recon the rest will crap themselves! either give up to forces, go into hiding and reform or die trying Im sorry but that is so ridiculous and flat out wrong it would be funny if the guy wasnt a murderous psychopath. Capturing Bin laden will do absolutely NOTHING apart from win bush a second term, or whoever happens to be president at the time. islamic militants dont rally behind the guy because he's a cute face on tv, they rally behind him because he summarises their hatred of Isrealis butchering children in gaza and bulldozing homes. If he dies there will probably be a wave of retaliatory suicide attacks and a huge increase in sympathy for his cause in the middle east. In the west we have this trait of assuming everything has a heirarchy of subordinates and commanders and generals and leaders. Why should these people be anything like that organised? It doesnt take a lot of manpower to build a bomb vest, get on a bus and press a switch, orders dont arrive from Commander Bin Laden every time a bomb goes off and not every islamic militant even regards Bin Laden as the saviour we think they do. this isnt a pitched battle in a set theatre with specific objectives, yet it seems to be being fought as such. And in response to the original post, i feel a lot less safer now than I did before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Greg: "they rally behind him because he summarises their hatred of Isrealis butchering children in gaza and bulldozing homes." The issues are related, but not the same. The Islamist movement is separate from the Palestinian, even if there are points of overlap. The Islamists draw on overall antipathy to Israel, some of the Palestinian groups are Islamist as well, and some would put the rise of the modern Islamist movement to the 67 defeat, but they remain two issues not one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I know theyre separate, but thats a very common argument used by militants and an issue which many sympathise with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hard to tell sometimes when someone is presenting their own argument or someone else's If I don't already know their position or knowledge base, I will assume it is their own unless otherwise stated As not all the Islamists base their support on that reason made it more ambiguous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now