Iraq and Afghanistan .

M

mike47

Banned
Banned
1 : Britain started an inquiry about the circumstances leading to the war in Iraq .
2 : CNN is reporting that the Noble prize winner Obama is going to announce next Tuesday or Wednesday an increase of around 35 000 troops to Afghanistan .

So far the witnesses are saying that Tony Blair from the beginning of 2001 was following Bush to attack Iraq .
Adding more troops to Afghanistan is another example that the Us attacked and colonised Afghanistan NOT because of Bin Laden but for other reasons .

These two wars are really wrong and go to the heart of human justice whereas we have the strong bully the weak .
 
I do not know how to troll . I am trying to start some debate on the new development in both Iraq and Afghanistan . Anyone can throw his or her hat in the ring.
 
The majority of your posts can be classified as trolling.

What are trying to start a debate about? The British investigation? The troop increase? Or your unsupported claims about justice and bullying?
 
Just a thought about Blair being thought of as Bush's poodle... it's not like he can just sign a decree and send British soldiers to a war, you know. He has to pass through multiple hurdles and get support from his own party, from parliament, from his own coalition, and sometimes even the opposition. Blair, as the head of government in Britain at the time, is seen as the responsible for the British part of the Iraqi and Afghan wars... but that isn't the case at all. Just like Bush shouldn't take all the credit (blame) for getting those 2 wars started. For whatever reason, he was enabled by the congress / senate, and all the big wigs in different levels of government at the time.

It was a common agreement. There were very few dissenting voices, at least in the States. Don't know about Britain.

So all these inquiries are silly and hypocritical. It's just ugly politics. But ok, let it roll and be revealed who said what and when.
 
otheadp said:
It was a common agreement. There were very few dissenting voices, at least in the States.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.

There were many dissenting voices. W&Co had to fire some of the top military brass, rig the intelligence service reports, engineer a full blown media propaganda campaign, and use all the political leverage proper and improper, Congressional and corporate, at their disposal, to launch the Iraq war.

There were marches in the streets, speeches on the floor of the House and Senate, widespread speculation over the motives behind the capitulations of Kerry and Clinton and other politicians with Presidential aspirations, etc etc etc. There was no "common agreement", there was passionate and well-informed and principled opposition.

You guys were told. You were warned. You were provided with accurate information and informed predictions and predicted disaster. You can't weasel out of this one - it's W&Co's baby, all the way.

otheadp said:
Just a thought about Blair being thought of as Bush's poodle... it's not like he can just sign a decree and send British soldiers to a war, you know. He has to pass through multiple hurdles and get support from his own party, from parliament, from his own coalition, and sometimes even the opposition.
Click to expand...
The key factor being W&Co's supply of rigged intelligence indicating a threat from Saddam sufficient to legally permit Blair to send British soldiers to foreign war. That's why the Downing Street memos were such big news in England - they established that Blair sent British soldiers to war on false pretenses, that he knew or should have known were US flim flam.

That the question with Blair, as with that whole scene, is the same old question we've been asking in the US since the Reagan era dawned: was he a conned poodle, or a fellow conspirator? Was he lying, or was he stupid?
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
The key factor being W&Co's supply of rigged intelligence indicating a threat from Saddam sufficient to legally permit Blair to send British soldiers to foreign war.

...
That the question with Blair, as with that whole scene, is the same old question we've been asking in the US since the Reagan era dawned: was he a conned poodle, or a fellow conspirator? Was he lying, or was he stupid?
Click to expand...

So Blair didn't ask his own intelligence advisers for input? MI6 did not provide an opinion? It was all Blair? It was all Bush?

And you go off on those conspiracy theories about rigged intelligence and things like that. Give me a break.
 
otheadp said:
So Blair didn't ask his own intelligence advisers for input? MI6 did not provide an opinion?
Click to expand...
We know that Blair was informed by his intelligence services that the information they had would not legally support Blair's sending British soldiers to war in Iraq,under British law. We also know that in the aftermath of Blair's obtaining the rigged US "intelligence" and launching war, a couple of upper echelon intelligence and policy officials resigned, and at least one committed suicide.
otheadp said:
And you go off on those conspiracy theories about rigged intelligence and things like that. Give me a break.
Click to expand...
You make it sound as if there was no conspiracy to rig the US intelligence reports - did you miss all of that coming out?
 
countezero said:
The majority of your posts can be classified as trolling.

What are trying to start a debate about? The British investigation? The troop increase? Or your unsupported claims about justice and bullying?
Click to expand...
If you do not like my posts just take a hike to hell and keep out of them little shite head .
Go and learn some politics fucking bastard .
 
Last edited:
mike47 said:
Fuck you mother fucker .
Click to expand...

I didn't know we could directly swear at each other in this forum. That's illuminating. Why did nobody tell this before? I feel like a stupid who missed the pudding served after the meal just because I didn't read the menu in the first place...
 
I think it is extremely grave that a member will be following me in my threads and others and lying about me and telling me I am trolling . If he does not like my threads he does not respond to them or follow the ideas .
There are two major developments here . The British inquiry about the war in Iraq and the Obama decision to send about 35 000 troops to Afghanistan . These two major events are neither trolling nor stupid .
Now can we discuss them as civil folks and not as some childish morons ?.
 
Echo3Romeo said:
Click to expand...

Thank you so much!!!!!!!!! i have googled "ice cube with uzis" "ghosts from mars uzis" so many times without success, and its just the most spasticated part of a horrible, stupid movie, as well as a running joke with my friends. doesn't he wake up at the end of the movie with gold plated uzis? or were the chrome machine guns his only precious metal plated weaponry? i haven't seen the movie since a bit after it came out.
 
iceaura said:
We know that Blair was informed by his intelligence services that the information they had would not legally support Blair's sending British soldiers to war in Iraq,under British law. We also know that in the aftermath of Blair's obtaining the rigged US "intelligence" and launching war, a couple of upper echelon intelligence and policy officials resigned, and at least one committed suicide.
Click to expand...

Post something that proves how you know this. And please don't waste our time with your misunderstanding of the Downing Street memo, which you have already misquoted on at least one occasion.

mike47 said:
If you do not like my posts just take a hike to hell and keep out of them little shite head .
Go and learn some politics fucking bastard .
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my argument for me... :)
 
Wow, i just joined this place and this was the first topic i Looked at, amazing the animosity that this topic has, personally i think its a needed discussion as is 911, Which i suspect is somewhere else, as are the events surrounding the guy on the london underground who was shot........in the head 7 times, a little high in the overkill department, but my point is that these topics should be discussed or the govenments win hands down, i also think that for the cause of our new "wonderful, safe from terrorism world" we now live in goes back a lot further than 911, and i think the countries responsible for this state of affairs should pressure their governments to come clean, of course thats never going to happen, but i do think that name calling and aggression are very much un-needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top