emprworm Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 In case you were interested, 121 Labour MPs rebelled against Blair today in the Chris Smith 'Rebel' Amendment. There would be more, but there was a three-line whip on it (ie you lose as many priveledges as the party can afford if you vote against).This made it the biggest rebellion under Blair, and probably the biggest since the last war.199 MPs backed it, 393 voted against.i thought overall that Blair got majority support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 Free Iraq is Mideast modelBush envisions Palestinian state free of terror, but not ArafatYou Can't 'Contain' SaddamFearing for UN inspectorsHudson Hawk takes on the dovesSADDAM AND FRIENDS'Drumbeat' on Iraq? A Response to ReadersChirac's TemptationBlix damns Iraq: too little, too late, interim report to criticise Saddam's delays in disarmingRepublican guard digs in around cities Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Arab vandals now destroying Jewish historical archaeological sites.this is very unfortunatehttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Arab vandals now destroying Jewish historical archaeological sites.this is very unfortunatehttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203Didn't some jewish destroyed "mesquitas", I mean arab temples ?It's a two way thing..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Arab vandals now destroying Jewish historical archaeological sites.this is very unfortunatehttp://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203Didn't some jewish destroyed "mesquitas", I mean arab temples ?It's a two way thing.....never heard of it. any references? And it should not be a 2 way thing. archeological sites benefit all humanity. just because one group does it makes no justification for another group to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Don't know, Zamboe, I do know that Israelian soldiers commited vandalism in Palestinian mosques one time when they invaded Palestinian territory. I don't have an online source, it was in the newspaper and on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted February 28, 2003 Author Share Posted February 28, 2003 Public Support for Invasion of Iraq Holds Steady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 JOSE RAMOS-HORTA: Counting the cost of warEyes wide shut as US, France go to war over IraqIraqi units pull back to defend key citiesIraq Agrees 'in Principle' to Destroy MissilesIn Kuwait, Baptism Before the GunfireThe Plan for a Postwar IraqSlander! Antiwar arguments are unfair to the president Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 1, 2003 Author Share Posted March 1, 2003 Arab Summit Shows Sharp Divisions on IraqU.S. Is Striking Iraqi Missiles Near KuwaitTurkey Rejects U.S. Troop Deployment Plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted March 1, 2003 Share Posted March 1, 2003 Your country of the Netherlands isn't even 1% as diverse as the US. Err... lol I may not know much about the netherlands, but I do know that the country has always been extremely dirverse. Many people of all religions and races came there in order to attain more freedom than other countries like france, england, italy, germany and many other western nations. Many middle eastern and eastern peoples as well.Also, Israeli troops that vandilized religious structures and people are arrested for it. I know that for a fact since I tried to become an israeli citizen to join the Israeli army. They patterned their structure of laws in the military after many western nations, america especially.America as well has destroyed muslim centers of belief. Of course it is done by "accident". When the israelis accidentally bombed a mosque though, they were reprimanded by other nations. silly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 if the israelies wanted to hurt Islamic architecture, they could destroy the second holiest Muslim place on earth: the Dome of the Rock. this is the very first mosque ever built, and second to the Ka'aba in Mecca, there is no holier more sacred place to a Muslim on this planet. It wouldn't be hard to lay waste that mosque into a pile of rubble. but they do not because they are not deliberatley engaging in that sort of terroristic warfare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 2, 2003 Author Share Posted March 2, 2003 Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq warUS plan to bug Security Council: the textNow the weird part (from Drudge):ALLEGED 'TOP SECRET' TEXT OF NSA EMAIL...BUT WAIT: WOULD AMERICAN NSA EMPLOYEE SPELL FAVORABLE 'FAVOURABLE', RECOGNIZE 'RECOGNISE' AND EMPHASIZE 'EMPHASISE' IN BRITISH TONGUE?...WOULD NSA REALLY TIME STAMP EMAILS '31/01/2003 0:16' IN EUROPEAN FORMAT?...NAME IN ALLEGED EMAIL IS 'KOZU' AND OBSERVER STORY CLAIMS TO HAVE CONTACTED A 'KOZA'?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 lol, obviously the stupid concoction of a british hoaxter. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Er... Would you like to share with us why you think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 With reference to the 'obviously' part, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Guerrilla Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Several nations, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, want to press Iraq to comply with U.N. disarmament demands; another bloc, led by Syria, wants to express staunch support for Iraq and reject any war. Syria, Lebanon and Yemen proposed that a delegation head only to Washington with a firm anti-war message. But other Arab League members wanted a delegation to go to Baghdad to urge Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors or advise him to step down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 3, 2003 Author Share Posted March 3, 2003 We will gas you when US bombs fall, Kurds toldSaddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN teamRush's Stack of Saddam Stuff (lots of links) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 You know, the whole attitude of that friggin Bush administration is just a huge joke. How do they get countries to support the war ? By telling them "Either support us, or we'll stop fundings, we'll not allow businesses to invest in your country" and more blabla. If they are so sure about their case, why the heck can't they just show what they have and tell the real reason why they are so eager to push a war towards Iraq. They are just bribing votes. Way to go Bush administration, real democratical ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 75% of Britons back warUN leaders draw up secret blueprint for postwar IraqPutin still hedging on whether to use Russia's veto in U.N. vote on war with Iraq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zamboe Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Gob, I'll copy your posting style ;). I find it simple as I like.USA : Students pencil in Iraq protest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 Hehe thats fine zamboe, just keep it related to Iraq.Top General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into SurrenderingBefore Summit, Iran Urges U.N.-Run Elections for IraqU.N. Split on Iraq, Annan Wants CompromiseU.S., Britain Set Timetable at U.N. (Debate Unlikely to Go Beyond Next Week)Plan B: Stuff TurkeyBaghdad vows to tell truth about germ, nerve weaponsTurkey risks losing $6 billionQ&A: Is the U.S. at Risk of Violating International Law?U.S. plans to make short work of IraqTime: Iraq After Saddam:Iraq Up CloseLooking Beyond SaddamInside Saddam Inc.Ready, Set ... GoneOne for Duke LetoHillary backs Bush on Iraqand another for zamboe ;)Thousands of Aussie students to march against warlastly off-topic about Iran:The Iranian-Election RevoltOnce again, there is big news out of Iran, and once again the Western media refuse to see what is in front of their noses. Iran held municipal elections over the weekend. All the regime's big guns had implored the people to turn out in record numbers, to demonstrate that the people were committed to participation in the Islamic Republic. Supreme Leader Khamenei, Eminence Grise Rafsanjani, and President Khatami — the vapid matinee idol of the New York and Los Angeles Times apologists — made clear their desperate desire for a record turnout.Be careful what you ask for. There was a record turnout, but it was a negative record. The official reports speak of a ten-percent turnout in Tehran and other major cities, with higher participation elsewhere. If those numbers were accurate, it would represent a massive abstention, and hence an enormous vote of no confidence in the system. But the real numbers are worse still: Of the roughly seven million people entitled to vote in Tehran, less than 70,000 actually voted. I make that about one percent. These data come directly from a high-ranking official involved in the elections office, who was shocked by the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurlyPIG Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Now I knew Hussein was bad news but some of the stuff in those links even surprised me, Gob.Zamboe, that was weak...You know, the whole attitude of that friggin Bush administration is just a huge joke. How do they get countries to support the war ? By telling them "Either support us, or we'll stop fundings, we'll not allow businesses to invest in your country" and more blabla. If they are so sure about their case, why the heck can't they just show what they have and tell the real reason why they are so eager to push a war towards Iraq. They are just bribing votes. Way to go Bush administration, real democratical ::)You know, I thought the same thing for quite a while. But I realized that, in a way, they're being very...how can I put this...un-hpyocritical?Imagine it like this; the US is the police, Iraq is a criminal, and the anti-war countries are hiding him and protecting him. The police would arrest the ones harbouring the fugitives immediately, but that's not the point...Ok, bad example. The US is trying to fix something morally wrong by removing Saddam from his dictatorship. The anti-war countries like France and Germany are in the way of that. They're against it. Think of it as a buycot.Remember the thread emprworm had a long time ago where he called on people to buycot www.amazon.com for selling the pedophelic book Boys and Boylovers? Well, it's like that. There are thousands of books that Emprworm could have enjoyed from www.amazon.com, but he chooses to waive that resource because they do things that go against his beliefs. How can he continue to shop there if they are indirectly supporting and promoting pedophiles, something he is vehemonently against. It's a moral stand. And it was his right. He absolutely chooses where his money goes.Same with the United States. It can do what it likes to with it's resources, businesses, economic power, etc. Granted, it would have been nicer if it didn't have to come to this, but countries like France don't seem to want to think in terms of human rights violations and support of terrorism, so the US decides to make them think in terms of Francs and Dollars, something they WILL understand. It's protecting its interests, essentially.How do they know, when they establish businesses overseas, that the government of the applicable nation will not use the money earned to organize anti-war protests? They very well might. So establishing those businesses would be like knifing themselves in the back. Worse still, how do they know that if they buy a million bottles of French wine, the money the government of France earns from taxing it won't be used to, say, buy oil from Saddam?It's like my example about emprworm's buycot, he could spend $5.00 on an unrelated book and not be directly supporting pedophiles, but what if the $0.01 of that book went towards stocking the shelves of an Amazon.com warehouse with Boys and Boylovers, and somebody buys the book from Amazon and is "inspired" by what he reads. Did he not just support the pedophile and provide him with new material?I hope I explained that well enough, it's not the best of examples but you're a smart guy so I think you'll get the just of my point...It's not the nicest method of foreign policy, but I would very much desire it to things like propaganda... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobalopper Posted March 5, 2003 Author Share Posted March 5, 2003 A lot of that money was meant for the compensation for using Turkey's land. If Turkey isn't going to allow them access there isn't much point in still giving them the money. And I believe the US is still going to give them something to help with the economic problems the war will cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyarlathotep Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 Gob, I know about the Turkey situation. I believe Turkey even asked for money in order to allow US forces on their ground. I also condem that action. Either you support what the US government wishes, or you don't. Asking money for ally forces being stationed on your ground is just plain and simpel stupid. Support it or don't.ACE, no matter what their reason is. They aren't being very democratical about the whole issue now. Better yet, in my eyes they are making things far more worse as far as my opinion towards the US government goes. And by the way, the US government isn't taking those actions against the Russia or France as far as I know. They are taking these actions towards non permanent UN members.If they have a good reason and proof, they don't have to take these actions. How lame is it to tell a poor country that you'll stop their funds if they don't support you ? If this thing with Iraq wouldn't be at hand, they wouldn't have stopped funding those poor countries now would they ? Look at Mexico. US government stance has always been harsh towards Mexican people coming to the US. Now they say "well, we'll make things more easy for your people to come here and treat them with more respect". This just to make Mexico support the US government in their war rush. Again, if the Iraq issue wouldn't be at hand, they wouldn't have changed their stance.It's freaking lame what they are doing and the US government has lost any of my respect that I had left for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted March 5, 2003 Share Posted March 5, 2003 "A lot of that money was meant for the compensation for using Turkey's land"Hmm. I never knew land rent costs were much of a problem in Turkey... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.