Jump to content

British goverment is corrupt

AWACS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cyborg

Cyborg

Posted
Posted

Exactly.

It's also annyoing that not the most competent politicians are voted for, but the worst liers... >:(

Vanguard3000

Vanguard3000

Posted
Posted

Okay, two things:

1) As Nema said, every government is pretty much corrupt to some degree.

2) Maybe you should back up your statement with proof or theoies (e.g. what makes you feel this way?).

AWACS

AWACS

Posted
  • Author
Posted

stuff has happened over the last years. Companies getting rights because of 'donations' into the New labour party funds. Plus Tony Blair is under direcxt influence of George bush. He gave tony a medal for being nice to america. Living in Uk sucks. I only appear in Iraq because i was bored. Our goverment is too curupt to tollerate. And the war is all unjustified. If america have no oil, they are practicaly screwed. They want to 'liberate' iraq so they can get exclusive rights to Iraqs oil. Place a puppet. America is safe. This is no peace war. They just want power. Guess how many weapons of mass destruction they've found? None. Bush sucks, Blair sucks, Saddam sucks. Say when thatcher was around, we hated her. But if america invaded. Would WE be revolting? Would WE be shouting 'GO AMERICA!' We and america have no right. It should be left to the Iraquis

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

Acriku: Maybe the people would be fine, but not the oil companies. They wont refuse a little more money. Controlling the oil prices also has a serious effect on many other countries, namely Europe, China and Japan who have a certain dependance on oil.

Sardauker-Kirov

Sardauker-Kirov

Posted
Posted

Americans doesn't need the oil, "BUT" they can gain economical benefits from it. Huge benefits....

You don't got anything to say in the "cough" Democracy "cough" countries. Even if you vote for something, if the goverment doesn't like it, they will not do it. Even despite the people is demanding it.

Conclusion; Almost every goverment is corrupt and power-hungry.

Gee... sounds a bit like Hitler.

SurlyPIG

SurlyPIG

Posted
Posted

"And the war is all unjustified. If america have no oil, they are practicaly screwed. They want to 'liberate' iraq so they can get exclusive rights to Iraqs oil."

Ah, propogated ignorance at its finest. If the US wanted Iraq's oil they'd BUY it. Ever think of that? They'd drop the sanctions and BUY it. After all it's the richest nation in the world. And Iraq couldn't afford not to sell it. But they're not going to do that because Saddam is a murderous, torturing, opressive dictator that supports terrorism. They're not going to buy oil from Iraq under saddam. Instead, they're going to wage war on his regime, costing them billions and billions of dollars and who knows how many soldiers, rebuild Iraq with a new, elected government, costing them billions and billions of dollars again, and then they'll buy oil FROM the new Iraq, helping both countries get out of the rut they'll be in.

"Guess how many weapons of mass destruction they've found? None."

Doesn't mean they aren't theyre. Let me ask you, lets say you live down the street from me. Every morning I see you leave your house and drive away in a white van. Every evening you come home in the same van. One day that van becomes illegal. I am a policeman. I go to you asking if you've turned in your van for impounding. You say, "What van? I HAVE no van! I NEVER had a van!" Am I supposed to believe you? Fuck no. I go and get a search warrant and find the van. We *KNOW* as a fact that Iraq has had WMDs in the past. They gassed 3000 Kurds to death fifteen years ago. Bet you didn't know that, did you? What happened to those weapons? The UN demanded that Iraq hand them over for destruction or declare them. Iraq said, "Iraq HAS no weapons! You're all lying!" Do you REALLY believe that Iraq destroyed its WMDs on its own in the years since the expulsion of the UN inspectors? You believe Saddam over the UN?

"Bush sucks, Blair sucks, Saddam sucks."

Then pick the side that you find the best. Or don't say anything at all. Is the concept of voting and democracy totally foreign to you?

"Say when thatcher was around, we hated her. But if america invaded. Would WE be revolting? Would WE be shouting 'GO AMERICA!'"

Thatcher is no Saddam. Thatcher is a walk in the park compared to Saddam. Thatcher was elected. Thatcher doesn't kill people. Thatcher doesn't starve people. The US would never invade a democracy without souvere provocation.

"We and america have no right. It should be left to the Iraquis"

You think that the Iraqis can revolt against Saddam by themselves? They've been trying. 180 people in Iraq are killed by Saddams government per day. And that doesn't even include the ones that starve because of him. You can't even SPELL Iraqi! How do you know that they have the strength to revolt against Saddam?

Egeides

Egeides

Posted
Posted

"US just need to buy oil to get oil."

Sure, but what lobbies want is profit so they want to buy the cheapest possible and sell the dearest.

"It will cost US billions to bring democracy."

Do you think the oil is worth only 1 or 2 billions?? And we'll see if democracy is what follows since US proposed a few persons for post-Saddam: one of them was the responsible of the Kurds massacres you've talked of.

"Iraq has WMD."

Possibly. Who gave them? Do you know? Some journalist came against Bush and said "Saddam is using the aid you give him to kill people." and Bush answered that Saddam was (litteral quoting) "our ally and friend" so it was impossible. The worst massacres Saddam did were before 1991. This curiously is when US was saying all was alright and was supporting.

"Then pick the side that you find the best."

The FIRST thing to do is to recognize none of them as good people. The second (in my opinion) is to make so that a war cannot be undertaken against the poulation's will. About Thatcher... she killed by supporting some regimes (Saddam when he was a nice puppet if I ain't wrong).

"Iraqi people are against Saddam."

They sure are! They are also against USA staying after Saddam. They are also remembering that without USA supporting Saddam in the 80s, it'd be better.

ACE: Do you agree USA was supporting Saddam and gave Saddam WMD? Do you agree there is an incredible potential profit and strategic asset with oil?

Acriku

Acriku

Posted
Posted

The U.S. gave materials that, with other materials, could be used to make WMDs, but they had no way of knowing that is what Saddam wanted.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

Once again, you guys prove that this is not a world of black and white, since your views are all oposite yet both wrong. There's some economical benefit in taking Iraq, but not even enough to make the average American get up early from their beds. Futhermore, we know that Iraq has some MD capability, partially because Europe and the US sold "dual use" stuff to Sadam. During Reagan and Bush senior Sadam bought massive amounts of anthrax for "studies".

There is only circumstantial evidence that Sadam supports terrorism against the US, not nearly enough to justify an invasion. He knows his ass is done for if he should be related to groups such as Al Quada, so why would he support them? Ever since 9/11 Bush and his lackeys have been desperately trying to prove a link between Osama and Sadam, and when that didn't work they started looking for other excuses. First it was alleged nuclear capability, but they couldn't prove that either. Then Bush said that UN resolutions about disarming Sadams weapons were to be upheld, and inspectors were sent to do just that, but then Bush got impatient and invaded anyway, and at this time the favourite excuse for the war is human rights. Nevermind the fact that the US supported Sadam during the height of his terror and emplaced more dictatorial regimes in the world then Josef Stalin did, who we loathe so much for it.

Side note, in 1998 there already were weapon inspectors in Iraq preparing to disarm their weapons, but pres Clinton thought it was necessary to bomb Iraq and ruin the whole thing.

Terror

Terror

Posted
Posted

pfah... i don't thrust any politician... i just hate it so much... the good ones never have a chance... and the corrupt ones prevails. World is so had at times :'(

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

Yes, you're right, this is getting offtopic.

Britain is against he Euro, though Blair is often pushing against EU integration. In theory, there'll be an election on it soon, but I doubt that Blair will hold a Euro election until there is some reason (probably a temporary one) for euro-optimism. After which, the Euro will go back to being an unwanted currency.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.