1
   

Bush's Best Pal!

 
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 11:45 am
Tony Blair is to send 1500 more British troops to Iraq as human sacrifices, to enable Bush to reduce the numbers of American casualties in Iraq during the run-up to the Presidential Election.

Surely, greater love or stupidity has no man than the Prime Minister's obvious adoration for the President?
Rolling Eyes
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,881 • Replies: 34
No top replies

 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 01:10 pm
Re: Bush's Best Pal!
John Webb wrote:
Tony Blair is to send 1500 more British troops to Iraq as human sacrifices, to enable Bush to reduce the numbers of American casualties in Iraq during the run-up to the Presidential Election.

Surely, greater love or stupidity has no man than the Prime Minister's obvious adoration for the President?
Rolling Eyes


I am not saying I don't believe this, but when reporting facts I really like seeing the source. So, what source is claiming Blair is sending these troops strictly to reduce American casualties?

Also, I don't see how 1,500 troops will go to far in reducing casualties. Compared to the # of troops already there, a lot more than 1,500 would have to be sent to do the job.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 01:12 pm
Wasn't 1500 aboput the number Spain had in country?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 02:36 pm
Is everyone forgetting that the UK was a partner in this war. Thought they did not supply as many troops as did the US they are just as responsible for it's being waged as is the US. At this point they share the obligation with the US to bring it to a successful conclusion..
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2004 04:22 pm
Wait, that doesn't make any sense. They're sending in their own soldiers to die so that we don't have to have any more casualties near election time?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:51 am
[quote="Individual"]Wait, that doesn't make any sense. They're sending in their own soldiers to die so that we don't have to have any more casualties near election time?[/quote]

It does when the U.K. media are more interested in the sex lives of their celebrities than in the number of British deaths in Iraq - meaning their Prime Minister can get away with mass-murder and frequently does.
Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 10:53 am
Ok, so let me get this straight. The UK are sending 1500 additional troops to Iraq. Since the media in the UK is more interested in the sex lives of their celebrities than the number of British deaths in Iraq, then the only conclusion is that these troops are being sacrificed for the Bush re-election campaign?

And you are serious about this?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 11:10 am
Obviously, the U.K. voters are being given other explanations, such as the forces are being sent to protect Britain against Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Rolling Eyes

After all, it fooled many of them last time. :wink:
0 Replies
 
greenumbrella
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 11:20 am
PM Tony "Poodle" Blair was promised the third biggest slice of Iraq's oil following Israel and the USA.

The U.K.'s involvement in Iraq has no higher purpose than finding a reliable source of petro into the 21st century.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:23 pm
John Webb wrote:
Obviously, the U.K. voters are being given other explanations, such as the forces are being sent to protect Britain against Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Rolling Eyes

After all, it fooled many of them last time. :wink:


But of course you know better. You base this belief on what sources? I try to have an open mind about things, so if you have any source at all, please tell point me in that direction. If this is just your hypothesis, then I will take it for what it is worth.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:28 pm
greenumbrella wrote:
PM Tony "Poodle" Blair was promised the third biggest slice of Iraq's oil following Israel and the USA.

The U.K.'s involvement in Iraq has no higher purpose than finding a reliable source of petro into the 21st century.


Again, that is an interesting claim if there are sources to back it up. There sure are a lot of posters on this board who like to spew out all sorts of statements for which they do not bother backing up with any hard facts. So, what facts back up this claim?
0 Replies
 
Deecups36
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:31 pm
hi Coastal Rat- There have been several articles about the Mosul to Haifa oil pipeline being turned on again after a 30 years absence. There's no question that Israel is benefiting from the Iraq war.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:36 pm
Deecups36 wrote:
hi Coastal Rat- There have been several articles about the Mosul to Haifa oil pipeline being turned on again after a 30 years absence. There's no question that Israel is benefiting from the Iraq war.


Hey there Dee. I agree with you 100% as to your statement. Yes, that will indeed benefit Israel. But they are suggesting that Blair is sending troops to cut back the US death toll, thus making Bush look better and more electable and that Blair has been promised, ostensibly by Bush, that England will get oil benefits. Is this wild conjecture on their part or do they have sources to back up these statements. That is all I am asking for.
0 Replies
 
Deecups36
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:18 pm
hi Coastal Rat- Well, I'm no expert on politics, but from everything I've heard of late, the country with the scheme to make Bush look good before the election is Saudia Arabia. Artifically raising oil prices and then planning on cutting prices in half by September is just damn wrong. I resent being used as a pawn for George Bush and his arab buddies.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:40 pm
Deecups36 wrote:
hi Coastal Rat- Well, I'm no expert on politics, but from everything I've heard of late, the country with the scheme to make Bush look good before the election is Saudia Arabia. Artifically raising oil prices and then planning on cutting prices in half by September is just damn wrong. I resent being used as a pawn for George Bush and his arab buddies.


I agree 100%. I don't like it when any president manipulates things in order to enhance his chances of re-election. And believe me, if Bush did it in this case, he would not be the only president to ever have done it. Even with this Saudi deal on oil prices, it becomes a question of who you believe. This whole Saudi deal thing came from Woodward's book (at least as I understand it). Woodward himself stated he never wrote that there was a deal between Bush and the Saudis to cut oil prices. The Saudis deny a deal and stated that they normally try to cut prices in the fall of a U.S. election year. I don't have the quote handy, but it is in another topic on this forum and I can find it if you want. (See, I don't make a claim for which I have no source)
0 Replies
 
Deecups36
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 03:47 pm
Hi Coastal Rat- Did you see Meet the Press last Sunday? Bush's good pals the Arabs in Saudia Arabia, recently had a telethone that raised $62 million to fund terrorists in Palestine. Saudia school text books teach Saudia youth that Christians are "pigs" and "apes." These are Bush's friends and friends of the entire Bush dynasty going back 50 years. Does this not make Bush a friend of terrorists? It does in my book. Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.
0 Replies
 
MyOwnUsername
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 04:36 pm
Saudi Arabia has one of most repressive systems in world - however, they "behave" in relationship with Bush, so that's not problem. They "share" oil so they are entitled to do whatever they want inside their borders. And opressed Saudi people don't need US help.

As well as there is no necessary to fight terrorism and to save free world in North Korea, that actually has WMD (and there is no doubt about it), but they kinda lack oil.

Of course, righties will choose "not to believe"
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 02:31 am
Of course, there are too many who believe that the mass-murder of civilians by our armed forces in Iraq is somehow protecting America from the evils of terrorism. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 08:32 am
Quote:
It does when the U.K. media are more interested in the sex lives of their celebrities than in the number of British deaths in Iraq - meaning their Prime Minister can get away with mass-murder and frequently does.


Please name one instance of Blair getting away with mass murder. Dont be so patronising.



Quote:
PM Tony "Poodle" Blair was promised the third biggest slice of Iraq's oil following Israel and the USA.


Is this your speculation or do you have something to support this assertion?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2004 09:00 am
Some might describe the large-scale bombing of defenseless civilians in Iraq as mass-murder. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's Best Pal!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:21:03