I believe the official pretext for invasion was "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" - of which, Saddam Hussein clearly had none, just like he was saying.mech wrote:If you're alluding to the theory that the US invaded Iraq simply for oil, how do you explain Afghanistan and Kosovo to name two countries the US has invaded recently?
Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust
- unfnknblvbl
- googlebomber
- Posts: 9795
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
- XBL ID: unfunk
- Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
- Location: Just behind GameHED
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars
Yep, because faulty intelligence has never happened before. How was it "clear" he had none btw?
And, um, how is that evil anyway? The guy was a nutter - two failed wars against his neighbouring states, disrupting and trying to conquer the region that supplies us with a huge proportion of our energy requirements. Is that not a good reason to stop him?
And, um, how is that evil anyway? The guy was a nutter - two failed wars against his neighbouring states, disrupting and trying to conquer the region that supplies us with a huge proportion of our energy requirements. Is that not a good reason to stop him?
-
- Bob Brown’s Rainbow Cumrag
- Posts: 5484
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 06:38 pm
- XBL ID: Fairlie Arrow
- PSN ID: vzbxvzbx
- Steam ID: vzbxvzbx
Hans Blix preferred alternatives to a full-scale invasion.
Kosovo: not bush
Afghanistan: oilmech wrote:If you're alluding to the theory that the US invaded Iraq simply for oil, how do you explain Afghanistan and Kosovo to name two countries the US has invaded recently? Or Panama to go back further?
Kosovo: not bush
-
- Placenta of Attention
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008 02:23 pm
I reckon the solution to these international relations problems(by that I mean Western and Muslim countries) is to leave people the fuck alone unless they ask for help. Difficult I know with the amont of business done in the region but the people in that region have seen off that many invading/occupying forces over the centuries and they are not about lose now and readily embrace democracy when they are a theocracy. Separation of chrch and state isn;t part of their culture so lest try to stop forcing it on them.
Re: Saddam, he was a murdering cunt who broke UN regulations so no probs smashing him IMO.
Re: Saddam, he was a murdering cunt who broke UN regulations so no probs smashing him IMO.
-
- Forum Faggot
- Posts: 19134
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 01:51 am
- XBL ID: Madmya
- Steam ID: Madmya
- Location: Brisbane
So you're pretty much assuming that Howard's interest in nuclear energy was purely because he was scratching his mate's back?Peppermint Lounge wrote:My reference to policy applies generally however I mentioned it after reading a suggestion that Howard was pro-nuclear. Howard's sudden public open-mindedness regarding nuclear energy coincides with Ron Walker, powerful business man and once honorary treasurer of the Liberal Party, registering a company called Australian Nuclear Energy Pty Ltd. Ron Walker discussed with Howard his intention to start the company.Madmya wrote:Yep, we should punish successful people by taxing them ridiculous amounts. Evil cunts they are.Peppermint Lounge wrote:When it comes to policy Howard wasn’t for anything unless it represented opportunity for him or his mates.
Hmm, but while we're at it we can punish low-income earners and students by putting on an alcopop tax that'll be disguised as fighting young binge drinkers. Awesome plan.
Fuck Howard was an evil cunt. He had so many of those cunt moments I can't even remember one of them.
Alcopops hahaha - current affairs according to Madmya. The Howard government created a loophole by amending the tax system for pre-mixed alcoholic drinks so they were taxed less than more potent standard spirit drinks. The industry were quick to exploit it and the market was flooded with 7 and 8% strength pre-mixed drinks. The lower rate of tax meant they were cheaper and so became the choice of young people and/or low income earners. These products are designed, packaged and marketed to people who want to get smashed asap. Given the level of alcohol abuse and associated problems in Australia I don't see anything bad about these products copping a tax slug.
The thing about alcopops is that it won't do anything to stop binge drinking. Case in point: my housemates younger sister (18) went with her friends to buy some drinks only to find that whatever they were getting cost $80/carton. 'Fuck that' they said and bought a bottle of vodka, bag of goon and lemonade and made jungle juice. +1 for stopping binge drinking!
-
- Placenta of Attention
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008 02:23 pm
- westical
- Lockyer's Lovechild
- Posts: 8118
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 11:30 pm
- XBL ID: westical
- Location: Brisbane
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 76406.html
"I think that two things have begun to implant themselves in the minds of the Australian people. The first is the absolutely dishonest and pathetic attempt by (Labor) that somehow they (inherited) an economic mess. They have no shame," Mr Howard said.
"How members of a political party that left us with the enormous problems we inherited should dare to do that ...
"(The second is) the new Prime Minister doesn't seem to have a theme. Politics is about conviction. Politics is not just about the joy of being in government.
"But you seem to get the impression that my successor is more interested in the process of government than the opportunity of leadership that government provides."
- Peppermint Lounge
- The End
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:23 am
- XBL ID: peppermintl2k5
- Steam ID: peppermintl2k5
- EpicGS ID: peppermintl2k5
- Battle.net ID: Punchanella#11145
- Location: Melbourne
No I'm not. My post states explicitly Howard made it a public adgenda item when Ron Walker started Australian Nuclear Energy P/L. Simple as that. Whether it is in fact policy Howard is personally/morally attached to it's not something he raised in his decades of public office prior to that.Madmya wrote:So you're pretty much assuming that Howard's interest in nuclear energy was purely because he was scratching his mate's back?
So what? That's after the fact. The fact being there was a tax loophole blatantly exploited by the alcohol industry and that loophole is now plugged. Of course binge drinking will continue as it always has but alcopops which as mentioned are deliberately targetted at young people and low income earners deserve all they get.The thing about alcopops is that it won't do anything to stop binge drinking. Case in point: my housemates younger sister (18) went with her friends to buy some drinks only to find that whatever they were getting cost $80/carton. 'Fuck that' they said and bought a bottle of vodka, bag of goon and lemonade and made jungle juice. +1 for stopping binge drinking!
- unfnknblvbl
- googlebomber
- Posts: 9795
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
- XBL ID: unfunk
- Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
- Location: Just behind GameHED
As opposed to Bush, who did not have UN backing to invade Iraq and kill however many people?BruceCamblzChin wrote:Re: Saddam, he was a murdering cunt who broke UN regulations so no probs smashing him IMO.
How clear? I'd say very clear, as none have yet been found. Hell, there's not even any evidence that he ever had any "weapons of mass destruction"mech wrote:Yep, because faulty intelligence has never happened before. How was it "clear" he had none btw?
And, um, how is that evil anyway? The guy was a nutter - two failed wars against his neighbouring states, disrupting and trying to conquer the region that supplies us with a huge proportion of our energy requirements. Is that not a good reason to stop him?
...and how is it evil? How about using it as a false pretext for the war? How would you like it if Bush decided to invade Australia because Rudd was hiding WMDs, but then later turn around anc dlaim that "Oh, it's all good now - it turns out we saved them all from taxes on alcohol and high fuel prices" - fair enough, it's a different thing entirely, but it's still a false pretext for the war in the first place, yeah?
Faulty intelligence may have happened before, but in this case, there were people all along saying "hey, this isn't right; check these details here" and the like, but nope, there's WMDs in them thar hills! Blind arrogance was the rule of the day, and Howard just went along with it without doing any of his own checking.
Do you really think people would have kicked up as much of a fuss if the reason for the war was really promoted (before the fact) as being "to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyrrany"? (probably yes, actually; pacificts are a fickle bunch...)
...but then, if it was all about deposing Saddam Hussein, why didn't they just send in a Black Ops mission to get the guy, and members of his cabinet? Easier, cheaper, quieter, less collateral damage.
...and I'm still waiting for the armed mission to Zimbabwe...
The sky calls to us; if we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars
-
- Bob Brown’s Rainbow Cumrag
- Posts: 5484
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 06:38 pm
- XBL ID: Fairlie Arrow
- PSN ID: vzbxvzbx
- Steam ID: vzbxvzbx
Funny how we knew this before the invasion started.unfnknblvbl wrote:How clear? I'd say very clear, as none have yet been found. Hell, there's not even any evidence that he ever had any "weapons of mass destruction"mech wrote:Yep, because faulty intelligence has never happened before. How was it "clear" he had none btw?
Here's one of many articles from the 70s that shows how flawed and unreliable our ability to interpret and predict the weather from scientific data is.Hercy wrote:I really don't have the patience for an internet link war, suffice to say that my overall impression is that the more credible sources suggest that there is no reason why elevated carbon dioxide levels won't cause adverse climate change for most countries. The fact that you've had to reluctantly refer to Andrew Bolt is case in point.
I think that the insurance and re-insurance industry would disgree with you that the incidence of severe weather events isn't on the increase.
A lot of the doomsday predictions get coverage because fear mongering is the bread and butter of news services. The more reasonable predictions are around 3 to 4 degrees of warming by 2100 which would still be disasterous for biodiversity.
Also I find the attitude by people like Andrew Bolt that Australia shouldn't do anything about CO2 emissions because we're dwarfed by India/China to be so despicable. A country with as many wealthy citizens as Australia (no matter how many people want to whinge about food and petrol prices) really needs to take leadership to demonstrate the technologies and reduce the cost through economies of scale, so that India/China no longer see coal as the cheap solution.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 14,00.html
Backing yourself up with nothing but a swipe against Andrew Bolt is pretty lame. Why would a warmer climate be disastrous for biodiversity? Do you really think the climate of the world never changes?
- Ambrose Burnside
- All accusations are unsubstantiated
- Posts: 8701
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:15 pm
- XBL ID: AmbroseBurnside
- Steam ID: Ambrose Burnside
- Location: Perth, WA
UN backing has to be the most retarded justification for doing anything, ever.unfnknblvbl wrote:As opposed to Bush, who did not have UN backing to invade Iraq and kill however many people?BruceCamblzChin wrote:Re: Saddam, he was a murdering cunt who broke UN regulations so no probs smashing him IMO.
How clear? I'd say very clear, as none have yet been found. Hell, there's not even any evidence that he ever had any "weapons of mass destruction"mech wrote:Yep, because faulty intelligence has never happened before. How was it "clear" he had none btw?
And, um, how is that evil anyway? The guy was a nutter - two failed wars against his neighbouring states, disrupting and trying to conquer the region that supplies us with a huge proportion of our energy requirements. Is that not a good reason to stop him?
...and how is it evil? How about using it as a false pretext for the war? How would you like it if Bush decided to invade Australia because Rudd was hiding WMDs, but then later turn around anc dlaim that "Oh, it's all good now - it turns out we saved them all from taxes on alcohol and high fuel prices" - fair enough, it's a different thing entirely, but it's still a false pretext for the war in the first place, yeah?
Faulty intelligence may have happened before, but in this case, there were people all along saying "hey, this isn't right; check these details here" and the like, but nope, there's WMDs in them thar hills! Blind arrogance was the rule of the day, and Howard just went along with it without doing any of his own checking.
Do you really think people would have kicked up as much of a fuss if the reason for the war was really promoted (before the fact) as being "to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's tyrrany"? (probably yes, actually; pacificts are a fickle bunch...)
...but then, if it was all about deposing Saddam Hussein, why didn't they just send in a Black Ops mission to get the guy, and members of his cabinet? Easier, cheaper, quieter, less collateral damage.
...and I'm still waiting for the armed mission to Zimbabwe...
In fact, I'd go so far as to only do something when the UN disagrees. Because when a body dominated by tinpot African, Asian, Middle Eastern and South American shitholes disagree with you, you must be doing something right
EDIT: Wait, are you saying there's no evidence Saddam ever had WMDs?
I think the Kurds would have something to say about that. At least the ones that survived.unfnknblvbl wrote:Hell, there's not even any evidence that he ever had any "weapons of mass destruction"
Currently playing: Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition (PC), Far Cry 4 (PC), FIFA 23 (Series X)
- unfnknblvbl
- googlebomber
- Posts: 9795
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
- XBL ID: unfunk
- Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
- Location: Just behind GameHED
- Ambrose Burnside
- All accusations are unsubstantiated
- Posts: 8701
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 09:15 pm
- XBL ID: AmbroseBurnside
- Steam ID: Ambrose Burnside
- Location: Perth, WA
-
- Placenta of Attention
- Posts: 9049
- Joined: 25 Feb 2008 02:23 pm
Word on this post. Meteorologist can only give you a best guess for weather TOMORROW and still get it wrong. Predicting weather patterns for 50 years in the future? = fucking pointless.mech wrote:Here's one of many articles from the 70s that shows how flawed and unreliable our ability to interpret and predict the weather from scientific data is.Hercy wrote:I really don't have the patience for an internet link war, suffice to say that my overall impression is that the more credible sources suggest that there is no reason why elevated carbon dioxide levels won't cause adverse climate change for most countries. The fact that you've had to reluctantly refer to Andrew Bolt is case in point.
I think that the insurance and re-insurance industry would disgree with you that the incidence of severe weather events isn't on the increase.
A lot of the doomsday predictions get coverage because fear mongering is the bread and butter of news services. The more reasonable predictions are around 3 to 4 degrees of warming by 2100 which would still be disasterous for biodiversity.
Also I find the attitude by people like Andrew Bolt that Australia shouldn't do anything about CO2 emissions because we're dwarfed by India/China to be so despicable. A country with as many wealthy citizens as Australia (no matter how many people want to whinge about food and petrol prices) really needs to take leadership to demonstrate the technologies and reduce the cost through economies of scale, so that India/China no longer see coal as the cheap solution.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 14,00.html
Backing yourself up with nothing but a swipe against Andrew Bolt is pretty lame. Why would a warmer climate be disastrous for biodiversity? Do you really think the climate of the world never changes?
- unfnknblvbl
- googlebomber
- Posts: 9795
- Joined: 04 Jul 2006 10:17 pm
- XBL ID: unfunk
- Steam ID: unfnknblvbl
- Location: Just behind GameHED