 |
Warnings, Bombs, and/or Sanctions?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, let them know they aren't helping. |
   |
8 |
28.57% |
| No, for whatever reason, I can't think of a good one. |
   |
20 |
71.43% |
| Total: |
28 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
and have been exactly what others want. Bush's ratings have gone up, he's obviously at least considering the political implications of what he is doing. Food drops are all good, and I can see military tribunals appealing to some of you Americans... |
The tribunals aren't going over well with most democrats in congress ATM.
quote:
Apart from risking looking like an idiot in Syria and elsewhere to drum up support for your president.
If he wanted to not help, he could have done a lot less. |
He wanted to keep himself intact politically, that's all. The meeting in Syria and other countries in the region accomplished little else.
quote:
No. You've overseen a non-combat operation to control in-fighting between a dozen warring factions who are trying to take over the power vacuum that is Afghanistan? Tried to keep more innocent people from being killed by other people simply because they don't agree with how the Taliban should be replaced? Destruction is a lot easier than construction. |
It's not like Britain is putting the country together, IW. They haven't done anything on that front either. Besides, say what you want, the dirty work is being handled by the US.
quote:
NOWHERE have you refuted the claim that Bush declined their support. They're on call. YOU DIDNT WANT THEM, maybe even didnt need them. They were there. |
Bush knew Blair wouldn't want to give the green light. Those troops were never intended for fighting...
quote:
And answer the rest of my post dammit, or admit your points were wrong. |
The rest assumed I was asking for WWIII, which really isn't the case.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
The tribunals aren't going over well with most democrats in congress ATM.
|
So of your four points, one of them isn't for Bush's political gain. This make Allied support worthless how?
quote:
He wanted to keep himself intact politically, that's all. The meeting in Syria and other countries in the region accomplished little else.
|
So we've gone from "no-one wanted to see British bombs" to "Blair keeping himslef intact by aiding the war effort" genius 
quote:
It's not like Britain is putting the country together, IW. They haven't done anything on that front either. Besides, say what you want, the dirty work is being handled by the US.
|
...because they won't let us help.
quote:
Bush knew Blair wouldn't want to give the green light. Those troops were never intended for fighting...
|
In your opinion. Who cares if they were or not? Is that any cause to bomb us? To declare war on us because Bush didn't want to use our troops. Time for a reality check Wiggy.
quote:
The rest assumed I was asking for WWIII, which really isn't the case. |
Silly me, assuming that anyone would mind you declaring war on Canada, UK, Saudi, Germany, France, Japan et al for no good reason.
Last edited by Immortal Wombat on 02-12-2001 at 04:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
dropping all economic ties with england? are you quite mad wiglaf?! the economy is already in bad shape, why do you want to make it worse?
its a good thing bush doesn't think like you, we would have no friends and no economy worthy of the word.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
|
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
*sigh*
right, so Bush is entirely motivated by morals. Good for him.
Blair is obviously pandering to public opinion by making the same decisions as Bush. Where Bush is right, Blair is a sheep.  gotcha
Blair did nothing to help in the Middle East, or in India. Bush could have acted entirely without him, safe in the knowledge he had world support. (International Coalition against terrorism, all by yourself )
Our troops are there for show, we haven't done anything militarily of worth since the Falklands, or perhaps even 1942. You're dead right. Bush was pleading for our support, but Blair wouldn't endanger our troops by putting them in combat situations. Peacekeeping is the woosies job for after the real men have left the country in ruins.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
It warrants a stern warning and a drop of the alliance and all political and economic connections, for sure. |
Of course, I now see entirely your point. We didn't help, we are as bad as the Taliban. Drop the alliance, you dont need anyone else, 1920's isolationism worked miracle for American economy. Unless we support you wholeheartedly in future, then saction us, you dont need our goods, we are far too reliant on you. Lets descent into the Middle Ages again, and live our happy little lives.
And then, when you have severed connections enough, the next time something like this happens, we will forget your arrogance, and spring willingly to your side, donate our entire economy to your frigging war effort, for the sole purpose of licking your president's butt-hole.
USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
I don't want anyone killed, Knight. What I do what, though, is a cancelled alliance, trade restrictions, and other serious economical screwovers. War, in a sense, but not really a declared one. I think we shouldn't exactly treat these lying nations like best buddies anymore. They've shown where their loyalties lie. Terrorism is a terrible thing, but Blair has done nothing politically challanging since September 11th. Nothing at all. He has blown away any and all moral code he once had, but I guess no one's counting over there. Not even the great BBC. 
And Mark, if we had a war, NO WAY would the British, Canadians, or Aussies win. NO WAY IN HELL. What are you smoking, really? I'm not talking about a WWIII type conflict, or a massive and drawn out campaign, but a small scale operation? No contest.
Hey, you brought it up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Emperor Fabulous
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Actor-in-Training
Aug 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
This one
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
RIGHT?! RIGHT?! YOURE RIGHT?!
Costing the lives of countless others because they won't help the United States?
Bringing us to a war that in no way the United States will survive (or, most likely, the world)?
Believing that justice is our allies suffering attacks from terrorists (BTW, they foiled plots over in Europe)?
Please answer me this: Why should we attack those who are causing us no harm in a war the the United States is PERFECTLY CAPABLE of handleing itself?
Oh, FYI, 6,000 British troops are being held out of Afghanistan by GEORGE W. BUSH. Also, there are Canadian, Japanese, British, and Australian ships in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. The Spanish, Italians, and Germans have uncovered numerous plots destined for completion both here and abroad.
Lets speculate, however, for the purposes of argument, that they weren't helping us in any way. Why shouldn't we attack our allies? Because it is POINTLESS! There is no reason to start a second war. There is no reason to have our friends become our enemies. There is no reason to destroy the world economy. There is no reason to attack a third party simply because we were the ones to be hurt by a second party. There is no reason to cost thousands, perhaps millions of lives. There is no reason for this thread to even exist, because it is a pointless troll to get people fired up.
Wiglaf and Bob, I have to congradulate you on both your stubborness and your arrogance. Your mothers should be proud. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
- "Please answer me this: Why should we attack those who are causing us no harm in a war the the United States is PERFECTLY CAPABLE of handleing itself?" -
Blair said 9/11 did cause his country harm. He also pledged support to aid America. As this is a very costly and time consuming operation, I don't think anyone questions help would be nice. Not effective, as european ships and planes are godawful and behind the times, but what can you do.
- "Oh, FYI, 6,000 British troops are being held out of Afghanistan by GEORGE W. BUSH. Also, there are Canadian, Japanese, British, and Australian ships in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. " -
Politically, it'd be devastating for those troops to move in. The brits don't want this conflict. Blair knows as well as Bush that those troops are for show. Not for fighting. They probably couldn't be used if ordered to, anyway.
- "Lets speculate, however, for the purposes of argument, that they weren't helping us in any way. Why shouldn't we attack our allies? Because it is POINTLESS! There is no reason to start a second war. There is no reason to have our friends become our enemies. There is no reason to destroy the world economy. There is no reason to attack a third party simply because we were the ones to be hurt by a second party. There is no reason to cost thousands, perhaps millions of lives." -
It wouldn't be nuclear. It'd be a war like EF is against the Taliban: one on all fronts that minimized civilian casualties to zero and focused on economics, politics, nation building, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2001 02:30
)
But it's getting a bit old why not start something on " abolish education " maybe? If that happened you wouldn't have to go to kindergarden every day!
|
|