And how would they have done that? He is very well protected. The SAS might be good but not that good. To get close enough would require the invisible man, spiderman, superman and super ted to be members of that assault team. If an SAS team had been sent into Bagdad to "deal with" Saddam they would have all been killed as soon as they made a move. They are not superhuman and getting close enough to kill him would be a lot more difficult than machine gunning an IRA cell in the back in Gibralter or machine gunning a bunch of niave and inept Iranian Embassy terrorists. People have been trying to kill him for decades without success. It unfortunately will take a full invasion to achieve his death.
This aint a Bruce Willis film where one man (or an SAS assault team in this case) can get the bad guy.
And in any case it was in The Wests interests to leave him in power. He does a rather nice line in crude oil I hear and his tyrrany was ignored because he kept things stable by crushing oppossition and therefor our oil supplies stay regular and safe.
I agree with you entirely that this whole sorry affair is the start of decades of horrendous instability, war and terrorism. So we better get ready for a tax rise to pay for the massive defence budget increase which could last longer than the cold war.
COWARDLY MUDERERS
-
jj
Re: COWARDLY MUDERERS
I did mention the considerable practical difficulties of an assassination.
I was thinking more along the lines of an intelligence-led attack on his aircraft/armoured limo/nuclear-powered punt the next time he left the safety of one of his bunkers, which some military brains I have heard consider to be the best and most realistic possibility.
I was thinking more along the lines of an intelligence-led attack on his aircraft/armoured limo/nuclear-powered punt the next time he left the safety of one of his bunkers, which some military brains I have heard consider to be the best and most realistic possibility.
-
Officer Dibble
Re: COWARDLY MUDERERS
Excellent post Jack. You're obviously not as crazy as Stephen King made out.
Yes, there?s loads of bollocks talked about the war with Sadam by all sorts of people from incoherent idiots to anti-American had wringing middleclass lefties. The fact is Sadam is one of the cruellest, most barbarous, murders of his own people that the world has ever seen. This alone is reason enough to invade Iraq and put an end to his barbarity. Fuck the cost. You've got to show these loonies and tyrants that they can't thumb their noses at the world and fuck us about by hiding behind the United Nations and their own civilian populations. I'm amazed how little backbone some people have, aren?t they annoyed that Sadam been laughing up his sleeve at the West for the past 12 years? - Fucking the old weapons inspectors about. I don't know if Sadam has any viable 'Weapons of mass destruction' and frankly (in common with the British and US administrations) I don't care. The man is an evil mass murder and poses a threat to all Iraq's neighbours and has only been held in check for the past twelve years by the US presence in Kuwait. Yes, we could say it's none of our business and walk by on the other side of the road, like we did in the Balkans, as atrocities equal to Sadam's were perpetrated against fellow Europeans on our very own doorstep. We didn't do anything (the shame) as thousands were murdered in the cruellest ways imaginable because the poncy namby-pamby politicians of the time didn't have the backbone to say "Stop this barbarity now or we'll come in a stop it for you!"
Some say that America is just after Iraq's Oil. This is simplistic dogmatic anti-American sloganeering. It?s not the intention of America to steal Iraq?s Oil (if it were then even I would call foul!) The truth is that the whole world economy and yes, America in particular, would benefit from stable oil prices. Oil prices cannot remain stable while irrational loonies run large oil producing nations in The Gulf. I imagine this is one of the unspoken reasons for ousting Sadam and one that I thoroughly approve of. Do those pretentious anti-war knob heads really want to pay ever-increasing prices for their fuel? Do they want their businesses fucked-up by ever-rising costs and uncertainty in the global economy? Or haven?t they thought about that? Of course they haven?t because most of the 'anti' brigade are mollycoddled public sector tossers who don't have to duck 'n' dive make real money - it magically appears in their bank accounts at the end of the month and of course they don't live in areas where if they offend the regime they might be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and fed through industrial paper shredders. Their naivety and bullshit is breath taking. These people need a bit of 'Saddam therapy' to reconnect them with reality. Yes, some folks say America is just after the oil. My short fox-shooting answer to that would be "Hey, so fucking what."
No, the middle classes didn?t march through Hyde Park when Sadam was slaughtering thousands or when a myriad other atrocities were being perpetrated by other tyrants and dictators around the world. They didn't march when the government proposed to curtail certain of our own fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to silence, the right to be judged by our peers and not the state, the right to privacy. They never said a peep about these horrors - because it's not currently FASHIONABLE. And that's what gets up my nose. I could respect them and their views if they arrived at those conclusions independently of their peers and the media. But the majority of them haven?t, they just adopted them to feel trendy, to feel part of the 'college' group. Of course they convince themselves that it's because they are morally superior, but if National Socialism once again became de rigueur they would probably champion that.
And talking about removing evil dictators, once Saddam is history I for one would be turning my attention to Mugabe - an irrational loony who is dragging his nation through the gutter. We should go in, kick Mugabe into touch, laugh at him for being incompetent, revile him for his cruelty and then restore some good old fashioned colonial order - at least while the country can get back on its feet.
Keep the axe sharp Jack - those hand wringing tossers "need to be corrected... and maybe a little more. If I may make so bold Sir?"
Dibble.
Yes, there?s loads of bollocks talked about the war with Sadam by all sorts of people from incoherent idiots to anti-American had wringing middleclass lefties. The fact is Sadam is one of the cruellest, most barbarous, murders of his own people that the world has ever seen. This alone is reason enough to invade Iraq and put an end to his barbarity. Fuck the cost. You've got to show these loonies and tyrants that they can't thumb their noses at the world and fuck us about by hiding behind the United Nations and their own civilian populations. I'm amazed how little backbone some people have, aren?t they annoyed that Sadam been laughing up his sleeve at the West for the past 12 years? - Fucking the old weapons inspectors about. I don't know if Sadam has any viable 'Weapons of mass destruction' and frankly (in common with the British and US administrations) I don't care. The man is an evil mass murder and poses a threat to all Iraq's neighbours and has only been held in check for the past twelve years by the US presence in Kuwait. Yes, we could say it's none of our business and walk by on the other side of the road, like we did in the Balkans, as atrocities equal to Sadam's were perpetrated against fellow Europeans on our very own doorstep. We didn't do anything (the shame) as thousands were murdered in the cruellest ways imaginable because the poncy namby-pamby politicians of the time didn't have the backbone to say "Stop this barbarity now or we'll come in a stop it for you!"
Some say that America is just after Iraq's Oil. This is simplistic dogmatic anti-American sloganeering. It?s not the intention of America to steal Iraq?s Oil (if it were then even I would call foul!) The truth is that the whole world economy and yes, America in particular, would benefit from stable oil prices. Oil prices cannot remain stable while irrational loonies run large oil producing nations in The Gulf. I imagine this is one of the unspoken reasons for ousting Sadam and one that I thoroughly approve of. Do those pretentious anti-war knob heads really want to pay ever-increasing prices for their fuel? Do they want their businesses fucked-up by ever-rising costs and uncertainty in the global economy? Or haven?t they thought about that? Of course they haven?t because most of the 'anti' brigade are mollycoddled public sector tossers who don't have to duck 'n' dive make real money - it magically appears in their bank accounts at the end of the month and of course they don't live in areas where if they offend the regime they might be dragged from their homes in the middle of the night and fed through industrial paper shredders. Their naivety and bullshit is breath taking. These people need a bit of 'Saddam therapy' to reconnect them with reality. Yes, some folks say America is just after the oil. My short fox-shooting answer to that would be "Hey, so fucking what."
No, the middle classes didn?t march through Hyde Park when Sadam was slaughtering thousands or when a myriad other atrocities were being perpetrated by other tyrants and dictators around the world. They didn't march when the government proposed to curtail certain of our own fundamental rights and freedoms like the right to silence, the right to be judged by our peers and not the state, the right to privacy. They never said a peep about these horrors - because it's not currently FASHIONABLE. And that's what gets up my nose. I could respect them and their views if they arrived at those conclusions independently of their peers and the media. But the majority of them haven?t, they just adopted them to feel trendy, to feel part of the 'college' group. Of course they convince themselves that it's because they are morally superior, but if National Socialism once again became de rigueur they would probably champion that.
And talking about removing evil dictators, once Saddam is history I for one would be turning my attention to Mugabe - an irrational loony who is dragging his nation through the gutter. We should go in, kick Mugabe into touch, laugh at him for being incompetent, revile him for his cruelty and then restore some good old fashioned colonial order - at least while the country can get back on its feet.
Keep the axe sharp Jack - those hand wringing tossers "need to be corrected... and maybe a little more. If I may make so bold Sir?"
Dibble.
-
Holden MacGroyn
Total Bollocks
What a load of total bollocks
Little question for you;
Who put him in power in the first place?
Of course the good old US and why? Because they needed a bitch to do their dirty work with Iran.
Who armed them and kept them stocked to keep some kind of regimented rule over that part of the middle east?
I give you, the good old US
Who has been responsible for arming the Ba'ath party?
Once again, would the US please come and accept this award and the UK can take their half as well.
So we hear how evil the Ba'ath are, and indeed my friends, they are, but who gave them autonimous power?
You talk as if it's the west who have to save the day, well guess what, it's the west that fucked it in the first place and now they need a feel good trip?
9/11....So Afghanistan is bombed to fuck? Why? The Taliban? Bin Laden? Kinda like the UK bombing NI for not handing that wanker Gerry Adams over when he was a major pain in the arse. Did you hear the sirens over NI? Didn't think so.
Oh by the way, the US gets the award for arming Bin Laden as well. They needed him as a bitch to do the dirty work on Russia. They couldn't do it directly could they.
The rebuilding of Afghanistan will be a primary focus. Bullshit, Kabul is a shell. Fuck all has been done a year later.
Bleeding heart liberalists? Funny word democracy isn't it.
It's a dirty job but someones gotta do it? Absolute bollocks.
The Iraqis will rally to the west when they start the invasion? Really? Where? Oh you mean the Shi'ites who have a personal issue with the Sooni muslims anyway. Riiiiight.
I don't see any turnabout!
But we are told its cos they are still fucked off because of the last gulf war and how we left them behind. Bullshit. Fucking lame excuse.
Messrs Bush & Blair are simply interested in Oil. They want control. No need to shit pants over price hikes etc.
Same in Afghanistan. What was it about? Well check your books and you will find that there is a huge fuck off amount of oil under Afghanistan. Do you think the russians bankrupted the country because they didn't like the food? They knew there was several hundred years worth of black gold to be raped.
Same issue with Chechnya. Oil reserves that the Russians refuse to give up.
The smiling faces of Bush & Blair disgust me and bring shame to millions around the world.
Why do you think Blair wants the UN involved? To take the heat off of his back. Why do you think Bush doesn't? For the sake of keeping the oil reserves.
The rebuilding of Iraq is already being sorted. Makes sense to give the job to the Iraqies to build a little stable economy right? Oh no, who has it? The good old boys of course. Donald Rumsfelds own company will handle it.
You talk of a land bled dry by it's leader, oh you mean Iraq. Well who put Hussein in that position? Who didn't bother "taking him out" sooner. So now from one megalomaniac dictator, to another. Good old Bush.
And someone please teach those fucking blind Americans how to aim at their real evil enemy and not the UK forces....or could it be they all look the same?
Still.......Holden MacGroyn
Little question for you;
Who put him in power in the first place?
Of course the good old US and why? Because they needed a bitch to do their dirty work with Iran.
Who armed them and kept them stocked to keep some kind of regimented rule over that part of the middle east?
I give you, the good old US
Who has been responsible for arming the Ba'ath party?
Once again, would the US please come and accept this award and the UK can take their half as well.
So we hear how evil the Ba'ath are, and indeed my friends, they are, but who gave them autonimous power?
You talk as if it's the west who have to save the day, well guess what, it's the west that fucked it in the first place and now they need a feel good trip?
9/11....So Afghanistan is bombed to fuck? Why? The Taliban? Bin Laden? Kinda like the UK bombing NI for not handing that wanker Gerry Adams over when he was a major pain in the arse. Did you hear the sirens over NI? Didn't think so.
Oh by the way, the US gets the award for arming Bin Laden as well. They needed him as a bitch to do the dirty work on Russia. They couldn't do it directly could they.
The rebuilding of Afghanistan will be a primary focus. Bullshit, Kabul is a shell. Fuck all has been done a year later.
Bleeding heart liberalists? Funny word democracy isn't it.
It's a dirty job but someones gotta do it? Absolute bollocks.
The Iraqis will rally to the west when they start the invasion? Really? Where? Oh you mean the Shi'ites who have a personal issue with the Sooni muslims anyway. Riiiiight.
I don't see any turnabout!
But we are told its cos they are still fucked off because of the last gulf war and how we left them behind. Bullshit. Fucking lame excuse.
Messrs Bush & Blair are simply interested in Oil. They want control. No need to shit pants over price hikes etc.
Same in Afghanistan. What was it about? Well check your books and you will find that there is a huge fuck off amount of oil under Afghanistan. Do you think the russians bankrupted the country because they didn't like the food? They knew there was several hundred years worth of black gold to be raped.
Same issue with Chechnya. Oil reserves that the Russians refuse to give up.
The smiling faces of Bush & Blair disgust me and bring shame to millions around the world.
Why do you think Blair wants the UN involved? To take the heat off of his back. Why do you think Bush doesn't? For the sake of keeping the oil reserves.
The rebuilding of Iraq is already being sorted. Makes sense to give the job to the Iraqies to build a little stable economy right? Oh no, who has it? The good old boys of course. Donald Rumsfelds own company will handle it.
You talk of a land bled dry by it's leader, oh you mean Iraq. Well who put Hussein in that position? Who didn't bother "taking him out" sooner. So now from one megalomaniac dictator, to another. Good old Bush.
And someone please teach those fucking blind Americans how to aim at their real evil enemy and not the UK forces....or could it be they all look the same?
Still.......Holden MacGroyn
-
jj
Re: Total Bollocks
Thanks for saving me the bother........and I'd add that more of us might be convinced about this effort if Bush had at least had the guts to be honest about this being a geopolitical act of plain self-interest, rather than some nebulous 'crusade for freedom'.
The money wasted on this war would be far better spent on research into alternative fuel technologies (and I mean realistic ones like fusion and solar energy), with the added payoff that it'd render the West self-sufficient in energy terms and hence no longer prone to petro-blackmail: don't forget that at the current rate of consumption (largely driven by the US) global oil reserves will run out in about 50 years.
And if nothing changes before then, we'll be REALLY fucked...........
The money wasted on this war would be far better spent on research into alternative fuel technologies (and I mean realistic ones like fusion and solar energy), with the added payoff that it'd render the West self-sufficient in energy terms and hence no longer prone to petro-blackmail: don't forget that at the current rate of consumption (largely driven by the US) global oil reserves will run out in about 50 years.
And if nothing changes before then, we'll be REALLY fucked...........
-
Judge Lionel Nutmeg
Re: Total Bollocks
Yes. I agree. Thanks to both for saving me the bother also. I suspect that these points may have to be repeated time and time again.
I dont think its dawned on some people that this could be the start of a global war. They think its all going to be hunkydory once Sadie H is gone. Who knows where it will all end especially with Rumsfeld opening his trap every day to accuse yet more nations of being chums of Saddams coupled with growing global tensions and anti-american feelings brewing across the globe as far as Indonesia and China which will become a boiling sense of fury as the civilian casualties mount in Iraq (which they will due to Rumsfeld ignoring the militarys insistence that more troops were needed in the first wave resulting in a delay in moving on Bagdad and dragging out the suffering of the public). If this spills over into a global war and our army (which is a fraction of the size it was 15 years ago) loses too many men to function and conscription is necessary will the likes of Jack Torrance and Dibble be first in line to join up to head off to kick North Koreas arse? I doubt it. Theyre probably too old anyway.
Funny how nobody mentions Ossie B these days. A patrol of US special forces were killed(shot IIRCC) today in Afgahnistan trying to flush out some Al Qaeda types. And yet it never got mentioned on the main news. Too busy getting all excited about the circus in Iraq which incidentally is starting to go rather pear shaped.
I dont think its dawned on some people that this could be the start of a global war. They think its all going to be hunkydory once Sadie H is gone. Who knows where it will all end especially with Rumsfeld opening his trap every day to accuse yet more nations of being chums of Saddams coupled with growing global tensions and anti-american feelings brewing across the globe as far as Indonesia and China which will become a boiling sense of fury as the civilian casualties mount in Iraq (which they will due to Rumsfeld ignoring the militarys insistence that more troops were needed in the first wave resulting in a delay in moving on Bagdad and dragging out the suffering of the public). If this spills over into a global war and our army (which is a fraction of the size it was 15 years ago) loses too many men to function and conscription is necessary will the likes of Jack Torrance and Dibble be first in line to join up to head off to kick North Koreas arse? I doubt it. Theyre probably too old anyway.
Funny how nobody mentions Ossie B these days. A patrol of US special forces were killed(shot IIRCC) today in Afgahnistan trying to flush out some Al Qaeda types. And yet it never got mentioned on the main news. Too busy getting all excited about the circus in Iraq which incidentally is starting to go rather pear shaped.
-
Jack Torrance
Re: Total Bollocks
I'd really like to know what this attitude of yours is meant to achieve, Holden. Each one of your points is retrograde, and wisdom after the event stinks each and every time, doesn't it. Yes, the US armed Hussein, armed Bin Laden, armed the Ba'ath. But that's the arms trade for you. Would you shut it all down for fear of what may happen in the future. No Government has any kind of foresight regarding global conflict, and it's a (genuinely frightening) weapons issue that brought about this situation in the first place.
You worry me in your attitude to the US. I never claimed they were saints, but with you it's as if the faults of the past must never be allowed to be rectified. A nasty, bitter, anti-redemptive, once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal-so- therefore-the-punishment-must-never-stop mentality so beloved of so many these days.
Though I can't claim to be sure, I do think the US are doing the right thing with Iraq. I certainly hope they are, too. As we all should. It's a proposition, one they've actually had the guts to act upon. And it's happening right now, with no amount of bleating, oh-so-superior, comfy armchair rhetoric able to stop it. Is it this that's bothering you?
And, more importantly, what exactly do you 'propose'?
'Life can only be understood backwards. But it must be lived forwards.' - Kierkegaard
You worry me in your attitude to the US. I never claimed they were saints, but with you it's as if the faults of the past must never be allowed to be rectified. A nasty, bitter, anti-redemptive, once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal-so- therefore-the-punishment-must-never-stop mentality so beloved of so many these days.
Though I can't claim to be sure, I do think the US are doing the right thing with Iraq. I certainly hope they are, too. As we all should. It's a proposition, one they've actually had the guts to act upon. And it's happening right now, with no amount of bleating, oh-so-superior, comfy armchair rhetoric able to stop it. Is it this that's bothering you?
And, more importantly, what exactly do you 'propose'?
'Life can only be understood backwards. But it must be lived forwards.' - Kierkegaard
-
jj
Re: Total Bollocks
Calling a look at the history that got us to this point is not necessarily
'retrograde': rather than Kierkegaard you might recall Huxley's dictum about the failure to learn the lessons of history......
In the 20th century the US always achieved its foreign-policy aims by using its economic might: where it resorted to direct military action (at least on its own) it usually failed miserably. US military strength always seems to work better as a 'big stick' rather than when it is actually wielded. And you can be sure that the little nations playing at the feet of such giants are acutely aware of how far they can push their luck: even Saddam's almost suicidal brinkmanship demonstrates how a relatively small state can literally get away with murder, with relative impunity.
'No government has any foresight....': well, that bit's certainly true, although a reasonable man might expect them to be able to exercise some plain old common-sense !! The major trouble in this regard is the curse of short-termism......in a couple of years the US will have another presidential election and the agenda will once more change. It's no wonder that a coherent foreign policy never evolves......and that applies worldwide, of course: I don't mean to single out the US in that regard.
I also disagree with your 'put up and shut up' categorisation of the continuing protests against the current action: if it means that future administrations will think more deeply about the potential consequences of their actions, then I'm all for that.
'retrograde': rather than Kierkegaard you might recall Huxley's dictum about the failure to learn the lessons of history......
In the 20th century the US always achieved its foreign-policy aims by using its economic might: where it resorted to direct military action (at least on its own) it usually failed miserably. US military strength always seems to work better as a 'big stick' rather than when it is actually wielded. And you can be sure that the little nations playing at the feet of such giants are acutely aware of how far they can push their luck: even Saddam's almost suicidal brinkmanship demonstrates how a relatively small state can literally get away with murder, with relative impunity.
'No government has any foresight....': well, that bit's certainly true, although a reasonable man might expect them to be able to exercise some plain old common-sense !! The major trouble in this regard is the curse of short-termism......in a couple of years the US will have another presidential election and the agenda will once more change. It's no wonder that a coherent foreign policy never evolves......and that applies worldwide, of course: I don't mean to single out the US in that regard.
I also disagree with your 'put up and shut up' categorisation of the continuing protests against the current action: if it means that future administrations will think more deeply about the potential consequences of their actions, then I'm all for that.
-
Officer Dibble
Re: Total Bollocks
Ah, ah! Forced you to show your anti-American hand hey? Tell me, are you middleclass? Did you attend uni/or college? Do you work in the pubic sector? Or am I falling into the stereotype trap?
Virtually the whole of your post is an anti-American rant. I'm intrigued as to why you hate them so much - particularly as I'm sure America has done nothing to you personally? So where did you pick this distaste of America up? The usual places would be from middleclass parents and friends or from university. Is this the case? Of course the bottom line is that middleclass hand wringers hate the profit motive - the very thing that America glories in and it?s wealth is founded on. These types of people would like everyone to be dour, earnest, boring bastards who wear sensible shoes and drive sensible cars and attend cultural awareness meetings before nipping round the their favourite eatery for a hearty, nourishing bowl of lentils. Well, each to his own, but personally I aspire having the type of big fun that only untrammelled American type capitalism can bestow - the Italian sports cars, the villas, the yachts, the stunning women, wheyhey! T'fuck with all that lentil eating and dour, miserable, hand wringing. Hey, common Holden dude, is that really your idea of fun? You'll be sorry when you?re dead. You'll be thinking "What a pretentious Wally I was back in the 21st century. I wish I'd have tried this and I wish I'd have done that instead of beating myself up over those Yankee boys."
I also note that in your almost hysterical eagerness to slate America you omitted to address the crimes of Sadam, his barbaric cruelty, and the unashamed slaughter and gassing of thousands of his own countrymen - because you were to eager to point out American crimes of a far greater magnitude - like cronyism and government agencies awarding contracts to their pals. Oh dear, oh dear, how thoroughly appalling hey? I'm so shocked and traumatised at the thought that I may have to go and seek some counselling. The fact that you did not once address Sadam's crimes and instead launched into your Anti-American tirade shows you to be irrational and hysterical. Call me perverse if you will, but in my book making sure a generous pal gets a contract isn?t even in the same criminal universe as cruelly murdering whole villages and feeding dissenters through paper pulping machines.
You go on about it all being America's fault for arming Sadam etc. Well, as I'm a rational objective chap I can say yes, you're probably right. But so what? I'm sure it seemed a good idea at the time and don't we all have twenty twenty vision with the benefit of hindsight? If mistakes were made in the past America is now putting them right. They've already kicked the Taliban into touch and now they?re dealing with Sadam. But as you're an irrational, hysterical, anti-American chap whatever Uncle Sam does will be wrong. They cannot do anything right in your eyes because you have a hatred that has no doubt been festering over the course of many an earnest young socialist/labour activist/student union meeting.
You say America and Britain want control of Oil. Being a rational objective chap I can concede that you are no doubt right. I'm absolutely certain that it's not solely the interests of the Iraqi people that the US administration had in mind when they precipitated this war, a successful outcome will lead to many financial and political benefits. But again, so what? Suits me. It's in the interest of everyone in this nation to have stability in the oil markets. Our standard of living depends on it. Even your (presumably) public sector wages depends on this country being prosperous and if that means kicking a few third world loonies and dictators in the metaphorical bollocks I personally don?t mind in the slightest.
Your lucky you live in the awful oil grabbing capitalist west, if you had launched a similar critical broadside at Sadam or his regime you would have found yourself tied to a post in the market square having your tongue cut out. You obviously have deep-seated problems with your view of America and the world; the vehemence of your hatred has poisoned your mind and closed it to objective examination of facts and ideas. This is one instance when a sceptic like me can concede - you're a dude that really does need 'counselling.'
Dibble
Virtually the whole of your post is an anti-American rant. I'm intrigued as to why you hate them so much - particularly as I'm sure America has done nothing to you personally? So where did you pick this distaste of America up? The usual places would be from middleclass parents and friends or from university. Is this the case? Of course the bottom line is that middleclass hand wringers hate the profit motive - the very thing that America glories in and it?s wealth is founded on. These types of people would like everyone to be dour, earnest, boring bastards who wear sensible shoes and drive sensible cars and attend cultural awareness meetings before nipping round the their favourite eatery for a hearty, nourishing bowl of lentils. Well, each to his own, but personally I aspire having the type of big fun that only untrammelled American type capitalism can bestow - the Italian sports cars, the villas, the yachts, the stunning women, wheyhey! T'fuck with all that lentil eating and dour, miserable, hand wringing. Hey, common Holden dude, is that really your idea of fun? You'll be sorry when you?re dead. You'll be thinking "What a pretentious Wally I was back in the 21st century. I wish I'd have tried this and I wish I'd have done that instead of beating myself up over those Yankee boys."
I also note that in your almost hysterical eagerness to slate America you omitted to address the crimes of Sadam, his barbaric cruelty, and the unashamed slaughter and gassing of thousands of his own countrymen - because you were to eager to point out American crimes of a far greater magnitude - like cronyism and government agencies awarding contracts to their pals. Oh dear, oh dear, how thoroughly appalling hey? I'm so shocked and traumatised at the thought that I may have to go and seek some counselling. The fact that you did not once address Sadam's crimes and instead launched into your Anti-American tirade shows you to be irrational and hysterical. Call me perverse if you will, but in my book making sure a generous pal gets a contract isn?t even in the same criminal universe as cruelly murdering whole villages and feeding dissenters through paper pulping machines.
You go on about it all being America's fault for arming Sadam etc. Well, as I'm a rational objective chap I can say yes, you're probably right. But so what? I'm sure it seemed a good idea at the time and don't we all have twenty twenty vision with the benefit of hindsight? If mistakes were made in the past America is now putting them right. They've already kicked the Taliban into touch and now they?re dealing with Sadam. But as you're an irrational, hysterical, anti-American chap whatever Uncle Sam does will be wrong. They cannot do anything right in your eyes because you have a hatred that has no doubt been festering over the course of many an earnest young socialist/labour activist/student union meeting.
You say America and Britain want control of Oil. Being a rational objective chap I can concede that you are no doubt right. I'm absolutely certain that it's not solely the interests of the Iraqi people that the US administration had in mind when they precipitated this war, a successful outcome will lead to many financial and political benefits. But again, so what? Suits me. It's in the interest of everyone in this nation to have stability in the oil markets. Our standard of living depends on it. Even your (presumably) public sector wages depends on this country being prosperous and if that means kicking a few third world loonies and dictators in the metaphorical bollocks I personally don?t mind in the slightest.
Your lucky you live in the awful oil grabbing capitalist west, if you had launched a similar critical broadside at Sadam or his regime you would have found yourself tied to a post in the market square having your tongue cut out. You obviously have deep-seated problems with your view of America and the world; the vehemence of your hatred has poisoned your mind and closed it to objective examination of facts and ideas. This is one instance when a sceptic like me can concede - you're a dude that really does need 'counselling.'
Dibble