Merrick
|
Re: Loser pays the bill, double or quits
Jan 15, 2003, 18:28
|
They *are* being really open about it. I saw Bush on TV doing a speech to a bunch of US soldiers just off to the Gulf (not that the war is definite, oh no).
He didn't talk of 'threats to the American people' or 'threats to bomb American cities', but 'threats to the American way of life'; ie cheap oil.
I'm slightly paraphrasing, but he said, 'there are threats to the American way of life, and we will not flinch from defeating them. And we will prevail, because America has the finest military in the world'.
Translated: we want loads of oil, and now it turns out nowhere's got much left except the middle east. So we're gonna go and take their oil. Whether it's fair or not isn't the issue; we've got the most guns so we'll just do what we want and fuck the rest of the world.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: Loser pays the bill, double or quits
Jan 16, 2003, 09:49
|
This morning Iwas listening to 'Today' in my very half awake state, and was I right in thinking that there's to be some sort of change in the way the proof has to be come up with about the alleged weapons in Iraq?
Is it now that they want Saddam to prove he got rid of them?
Shouldn't it be to prove they are / aren't there now?
I know he's a dictator and all, but don't standard rules about 'innocent until proven guilty' apply? How can he prove a negative, haven't we got to prove the positive?
I suppose this is all part of the plan to justify blowing the country apart.
|
