Dubbya in London
 

Little George will be in London next week......I'm sure we'll be giving him a warm welcome.....anyone know where I get some rotten eggs from?....;)

Dubbya in London

tomatoes will do the trick also

Nice soft, squishy ones?

more the rotten ones that almost are turning black:D

Nice! I'm sure Dubbya will love them, I hope he does because I get the feeling there's going to be plenty going round!

There is a march planned for London next week, may go and have some of that.

UJ

i heard they were going to tear down a statue of george bush in trafalgar square (to be reminiscent of the saddam ones in iraq). that would be hilarious.

Make sure you all give good old Dubya the finger for me while he's there! Tell him Woman-the-heartless sent you!

I don't why you want to do that, anway, I don't think I'll be able to get close enough...but I'll pack some KY jelly just in case;)

Frozen oranges, lots of frozen oranges.

...because everyone knows how much George Bush and Sadaam have in common.

forgive me for being retarded, but i allways wondered where that nickname came from.... anyone care to enlighten me?

"Dubya" = the letter W. It's making fun of how he'd pronounce it since he's from Texas.
I hope to hell that's what you meant...

Well, lets have look see shall we?

Elections

Saddam was elected with a near 100% majority & Bush was elected by a judge from dodgy votes in the state run by his brother.

Saddam has/had no WMD, Bush has lots.

Saddam has, allegidly, sold weapons to shady countries. The Bush has also, allegidly, done this.

Saddam is not a religious fanatic, Bush is.

Saddam is corrupt and lined his own pockets, Bush is also corrupt, but he lines the pockets of his friends.

Saddam crushes all those who oppose his leadership, Bush has The Patriot Act I & II.

Besides all that, its symbolic, not wildly accurate, but symbolic.

It was, but i don't understand the joke.... damn my crappy english skills....

i guess i'll just continue using 'mr monkey' it's a lot more saying; Same IQ, same articulation, he even looks like a monkey dressed up in a suit....

Don't feel bad. Bush's english skills aren't the greatest, either. He's supposedly college educated, but he still sounds like a moron.

Saddam rigged the elections. On the ballot it said no Saddam or yes Saddam and they went into any shanty box they could find.
Bush won through the electoral system, which my opinion is now obsolete with computers. I believe it should just be a majority system.
There is a difference.

Bush can not use the WMDs without the senate and judicial go ahead, nor declare war. Only the senate can do that. (I bet that most people here did not even know that.) Saddam on the other hand could have launched a nuke if he felt hungry. There were no checks and balances.

What weapons has Bush sold? Saddam gave 50 million to arafat to build bombs for the PLO.

I agree with you on this one. Yet why does this matter?

I agree with you on this somewhat. Bush is no where near as corrupt as Saddam but the Haliburton thing was ridiculous.

I do not agree with the patriot act at all but have you actually read it? Go and read the actual thing, not some editorial about it on BBC.co.uk. It is so overblown it is not even funny. Unlike the witty nickname "dubbya", that is just hilarious :rolleyes:.

I haven't read it, but I know the general ideas behind it. The scary thing is that only a few congressmen read the revised bill (the bill was distributed to congress to read, then Ashcroft changed it a lot, and only a few bothered to re-read it). Only one congressman (or senator, I forget which), voted against it: Russ Feingold, who, I am proud to say, is from my state.

When Wubya came to Gulfport, one of my line cooks took his kids to go see the bitch.
They wouldn't let him in cause he didn't have a pass.
So he snuck around the back way and got to within a few hundred feet.
I wish he would have took a camera.

Some people really do not get symbolism or humour, ah well.

actually, when he was originally elected (which wasn't really democratic, he inherited power from bakr, i believe) he had a very high approval rating - most of the people were behind him. and he was good for the people of iraq, at least at first - he was just quite oppressive at the same time. as time went on, though, he did become more and more oppressive, and less and less beneficial to his people. he was encouraged into this by western governments on many occasions, also, though.
i seem to remember being more shocked about it when i read it than when i read editorials about it. i never really believed the editorials... whereas the actual document is a chilling read.

Got anything to back up that statement?

Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers.

Thats not really proof, mate. Citizens of the US gave money to the IRA, does that make them terrorists?

You might also like to remember that it was the CIA who had a large hand in originally setting up and arming terrorist groups in the Middle East. In fact for a long time the US was the largest supporter of terrorism throughout the whole world. Of course, such groups were known as 'freedom fighters', and only became 'terrorists' when they no longer supported US interests.
Boy did that one backfire.

UJ

Hahahahahahaha. Hah. Heh. *ahem*.

In the financial year 2002, the US Government sold arms to the following countries:

Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Benin, Botswana, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Organization of African Unity, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Bolivia (International Narcotics Control), Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Colombia (International Narcotics Control), Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ecuador (International Narcotics Control), El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Peru (International Narcotics Control), St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Organization of American States HQ.

In total, the tune of $10,697,068,000 worth of military hardware was exported by the US government during 2002. Note that that's just the government, not including weapons bought off US companies. And it doesn't include donations, and anything that the US sends out with its troops (see Israel).

(source)

Hey Russ, go list there. I don't see that many democracies there, plenty of dictatorships though.

For example : Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Russ
 

Stone the crows! THAT'S a post:up:

Don't forget it was Mr Rumsfeld himself that met Saddam in the early 1980's to sell him biological weapons. The kind of weapons that don't last more than 10 years and that we were supposed to be oh so affraid of before the war this year.


OOOOh I was quaking in my boots! I don't know about you, but the devastation the lies of the powerful can create scares me.

Also, Rumsfeld sold Saddam those weapons after the world learned he had used similar weapons on his own people.

Since when did Isreal become a dictatorship? Opressing the Palestinians is one thing, but atleast it's elected representatives that does it :rolleyes:

So, as long as the oppressor is democratically elected, then its okay?
Hitler was democratically elected.

I find it fascinating that while protestors are blaming Bush for the hardhsips in Iraq, Iraqis are blaming terrorists for the attacks. Now who's more directly responsible?
America cannot be absolved of their 'lies' (I would call it misinformation, the entire US government from the republicans to the democrats sincerely believed they had WMDs, and seeing what terrorists could do with 2 planes, imagine what they could do with a fucking warhead), but just what exactly do the protestors want? A full military pull-out? Are they fucking nuts? Can they even fathom the power vacuum that would result. The group with the most guns would most certainly take power.

Think before you protest. Criticism is hollow without good/better suggestions.

:up:

the protestors wanted the war not to start. the sensible ones now seek to point out the flaws of this one in the hope that it'll avoid more bloodshed.

i've lost a lot of hope in that cause. warmongers are going to make war no matter what i do.

Did i say it was ok?

No, you didn't state that, but your post was at best ambiguous on the matter. It seemed, to me, that you felt oppression by a democracy was better than oppression by a dictator. Personaly I can't see the difference.

I think people should have the right to elect oppressive hate centric governments if they want, otherwise you're no better than the oppressive hate party themselves.

That's true. A democratic country in which you can't elect an oppressive regime is an oxymoron.

So, if it's an oppressive government which has been elected by purely democratic means, and isn't obstructing democracy, well that's just tough shit.

Of course the palestinians are hardly electing the Israeli government, so that's where it all breaks down. Depends on who's opressing who.

democracy is like freedom of speech. if you can't abuse it, you don't really have it.

'In Nasiriyah last week, hundreds of students took to the streets to protest the terrorist bombing of Italian soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They carried signs saying "No to terrorism. Yes to freedom and peace," and "This cowardly act will unify us."'

Source.
Margaret Wente is a reporter living in Iraq for the Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail. It is one of our biggest national newspapers, possibly second to the National Post, I am not entirely sure.