I'm surprised you can see what your writing from being so far into your backside. How have i stated 'half-truths'? I'm wondering why, Bush and Blair find it alright to act in the name of freedom and democracy in some cases and not in others. Therefore i am fully justified in having an opinion that questions their motives. For you to come on here branding my theory as 'foolish' shows how ignorant, arrogant and condescending you are.
Ignorance is somehow trying to tie pipeline deals in with 9/11 in some massive US / UK conspiracy, that is basically what you are doing. Once again, if China buys Unocal you can put your foolish conspiracy theories to rest. Those theories do nothing postive, they do however make those purveying them look like uneducated dolts.
I'll post it again seeing as you seem to fail to grasp that just because other people have different to opinions to your own, it doesn't give you the right to throw insults around and act all high and mighty when you disagree. I suppose it must give you some smug satisfaction in doing so. Well done.
How is this a War? Terrorism is not war . My heart goes out to the families, lovers, freinds etcetera I cannot express how sick this makes me feel. God bless London.
steve, i am sure there are some americans that do understand that the world is a complex system, one that can not be described as simply as USA vs enemies of the USA, however people like you always seem to drown them out! American companies making money off the outcome of a war is not capitalism you know, its aggressive imperialism. the justification for invading afghanistan was not as water tight as fox news may describe. i don't doubt that the taliban did harbour bin laden, but the only difference in that and the murderers in regimes around the world supported by the USA is that this time it was the US that were the victims. i still don't blame the US for attacking afghanistan - you have the firepower, a justifiable target and a need to act so its understandable. however, the US (with some support) then carried on into iraq. yes it was about securing oil reserves and yes it was about taking revenge against saddam for defying the US for years, but please don't delude yourself it was about doing the right thing regarding WMD, human rights, the war on terror or anything else. you can't actually win a war on terror you know. if you make someone a martyr, others will take his place. the only way to beat the terrorist is to make them irrelevent, not invade their countries and act as their recruiting agents. now i believe bush is an idiot, but there must be some people in his administration that understand this, so you then have to look at their reasons for their actions if they understand this simple fact. there are easier, cheaper ways to make the world a safer place but until someone identifies how the oil companies and arms companies can exploit those opportunities they'll have to wait.
You are not following, the discussion was not about Iraq. I can't and won't defend that. I'm a fervant Democrat for Christ Sakes. The arguement began with the assertion that the US attacked Afghanistan to buid a pipeline. That's stupid, period. So it's bad for American companies to profit of a justified war that is costing taxpayers billions? Also stupid, sorry. Thirdly, if you'd bothered to read the whole thread you'd have realized my first post here was saying the only way you win the war on terror was for the moderate Muslims to stand up for what their religion truly means and put a stop to the extremists. So, other than misinterpreting pretty much everything and generally digressing into tangents not being discussed, you were right on.
it's not bad per se, but if the people who make the decisions about whether to go to war or not are heavily influenced by the people set to make a fortune out of those rebuilding contracts, then at very least that's a severe conflict of interests.
actually i'd argue it is bad per se. its not bad for a nation to justifiably go to war. its not bad for a company to make money. but i cannot see any way to frame the situation whereby a company profits out of war without it leaving a very bad taste in the mouth. i don't care if the companies are building schools and hospitals, unless they are doing it at cost then they are profiting off the suffering of the people that were there when the bombs were falling. its the same argument as making politicians fire the first bullets, lets put the shareholders in there when the fightings going on to see how much real value they find in their next dividend check. steve, you are absolutley right, i didn't follow the whole thread. while i think its simplistic to think moderate muslims are the answer - do you really believe the perverted version of islam the terrorists preach is anything more than a prop in their battle against western interests in the region - i accept you are not about to sign up for sherriff bush's posse!! also, again i apologise for not realising the initial argument was about the invasion being primarily to build an oil pipeline. while i still think you have romantic ideas about US intentions through their foreign policy, even i feel thats going a little too far (though not that much too far!!). however, even after recognising my own mistakes, i still can't get away from the fact that you are fundamentally full of it. you may be a fervent democrat, but anyone that feels you balance multi billion dollar companies making greater profit against people suffering and dying is thinking a long way further to the political right than 'civilised' people really should. in your equation of taxpayers dollars spent Vs profit made, do you have to factor in the amount of people that suffer and die (from US soldiers to iraqi children), or are you like the politicians and you just prefer not to. i fully accept i weakened my argument against you by not reading the full thread, however you still see business opportunity where i see human suffering and that still makes you wrong.
What did you guys think of Scotland Yard's killing of the wrong guy? They followed him and tripped him up and then shot him 5 times. To me I think that they should apologise to the guy's family for killing the wrong guy.
well obviously they should apologise. obviously they should compensate the victims family, and as far as is possible (there remains a terrorist threat we have to fight) measures need to be in place to try to prevent this happening again. but none of that corrects the wrong thats been done or can bring the guy back. in microcosm, thats a pretty good comparison to the general discussion here. how much money is the guys life worth?? on a more general note although i obviously feel sorry for the victim and his family, i do also have some sympathy for the police. we're on a high state of alert. the guy fits the description and comes from the location which is being watched. he heads straight for the tube station and then jumps the barriers and runs when the police tell him to stop. the police had to make a decision and got it wrong, but i think anybody in their situation would have done the same.
Don't know if this has been mentioned but apparently the reason why he did a runner was because his visa had expired.
1% OR 100%...The time has come for muslims living in this country to decide which side they are on! The perpetrators of this horrific assualt on our capital WERE all British. Enoch Powell has been proved correct with his 'rivers of blood' speech. Think back to 'the race riots' of the early eighties. We must all stand together to fight this 'evil within'....QUIS SEPRABIT! (none shall divide us)
did the police get the decision wrong? Seems to me the guy wearing the puffer jacket in the middle of the summer and running of when challenged got his decision tragically wrong! I dont mean to make light of this situation but in my opinion the police were left with little choice.
As much as i feel bad for the guy and his family, i can't really blame the police in this situation. It's not like they thought' well we've got a gun, we might as well use it'.
yes, the police did get the decision wrong. an innocent man was shot and killed so lets not have any confusion on that. were the police justified - based on the available evidence - taking the action they did, well yes i believe they were. but, ultimately the decision they made, as i believe most people would have made, was the wrong one.
The point being the guy running of left the police ,in todays climate of fear,with no choice. They did their jobs!
They arrested 2 guys on a train going from Newcastle to London. They have even managed to get all the way up here The fact that Newcastle is the 2nd biggest underground system in the country makes me a bit worried