iamcal.com Since May 2000

• Happy new year!
• Newbie topic - May 2016
• Newbie topic - April 2016
• Newbie topic - March 2016
• Newbie topic - February 2016
• Newbie topic - January 2016
• Newbie topic - November 2015
• Newbie topic - August 2015
• Newbie topic - July 2015
• Newbie topic - May 2015
• Newbie topic - April 2015
• Newbie topic - March 2015
• Newbie topic - September 2014
• Newbie topic - December 2014
• Newbie topic - October 2014
• Newbie topic - August 2014
• Newbie topic - July 2014
• Newbie topic - June 2014
• Newbie topic - May 2014
• Hello!

I know it's the guardian but they also lead with a poll showing that most of the UK welcomes the monkey man;

www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,108...

I hope a palace worker pisses in his soup.

how is he a war criminal?

he toppled a lunatic dictator.

I think it was the way he went about doing it. If you just stomp around toppling whoever you think is wrong then that unfortunately makes you the lunatic dictator. He/we had the moral high ground and then threw it away. He, well Rummy and co, are also the reason that that lunatic dictator was there in the first place. It's about business and money. If it was about lunatic dictators I can give him a list of about 10 or 15 that are far far worse than Saddam and still doing fine and dandy. We even play cricket with one of them. How nice.

Name me 15.

well i said 10 -15 so anywhere between is acceptable?

1. Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
2. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
3. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
4. Charles Taylor (Liberia)
5. Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
7. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
8. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
9. Fidel Castro (Cuba)
10. Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)

That was just with a quick google search. I admit it would be hard to prove all are far far worse than Saddam but it is clear that he is not the worst on the list by a long shot. Mugabe is starving 7 million people on purpose and we don't even blink. We also had/have people like Idi Amin and Pinochet in a comfortable house arrest for decades.

While not dictators, total fuckers like Henry Kissenger should also be on the list.

And yes Charles Taylor is gone but it didn't exactly solve many issues did it? And I wouldn't bet against him returning.

It also doesn't include the long long list of brutal central american dictators that were in turn installed, funded and ignored by the US throughout the 20th century. That list of murdered and disappeared is rather extensive. Just ask anybody who was around on the original September the 11th.

i agree, i can see no reason why they dont go in and kick the shit out mugabe and his mob

No oil or strategic value?

What, September 11th 0000?

i dont think they done it for oil

:-D

I was actually refering to Sept 11th 1973;

www.la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/81355....

Again thats just the first google result. Loads of info out there.

i like the first link on that page! leads you straight to lunnyville, o sorry i mean the guardian

"i dont think they done it for oil"

Not exclusively no but you can be sure it played a massive part in the decision. Anybody who mounted a trillion dollar invasion and didn't consider the oil would have to be a complete moron.....wait a moment..you could be on to something.

There was a report the other day on how much 'reconstruction money' the US has taken directly from oil revenue since may. You know the reconstruction that went to US contractors despite independant experts saying that the US tenders were far fromt he best. Hmmmmmmmm.

"i like the first link on that page! leads you straight to lunnyville, o sorry i been the guardian"

The only paper leading with how Bush is welcomed by most of the Uk you mean?

have you seen page 4 of the sun? what the feck is ken livingstone on?

Not seen it, whats going on?

RED KEN-- George Bush is the biggest threat to life on earth.


wtf??

I agree. I can't think of any greater threat to peace and life than the US.

Less than 5% of the population and nearly 30% of pollution emissions is a fairly big threat.

Massive funding to Israel so they can continue their illegal opression of palestinians is also a big threat.

Starting a war on terror, which will breed many many more terrorists tahn existed in the first place is kinda risky.

Setting a precident by holding prisoners of war with no official status and without charge. Means we can't complain when it happens to our troops.

Ignoring international law and the UN. Also pretty dangerous.

Who did you have in mind that was more dangerous?

ILBM: You missed out being in charge of 40% of the worlds nuclear arsenal.

Oops. Thats a pretty big one.

starting a war on terror?

o fuck it we'll just sit back and watch whilst our own families and relations get blown into a million pieces by some islamic extremist.

if you was george bush what would you ahve done after seeing 3000 inocent civilians blown up? the only thing they were guilty of was being american or working there.

60 opinions on Bush...

1. Moron.
2. Moron.
3. Moron.
4. Moron.
5. Moron.
6. Moron.
7. Moron.
8. Moron.
9. Moron.
10. Moron.
11. Moron.
12. Moron.
13. Moron.
14. Moron.
15. Moron.
16. Moron.
17. Moron.
18. Moron.
19. Moron.
20. Moron.
21. Moron.
22. Moron.
23. Moron.
24. Moron.
25. Moron.
26. Moron.
27. Moron.
28. Moron.
29. Moron.
30. Moron.
31. Moron.
32. Moron.
33. Moron.
34. Moron.
35. Moron.
36. Moron.
37. Moron.
38. Moron.
39. Moron.
40. Moron.
41. Moron.
42. Moron.
43. Moron.
44. Moron.
45. Moron.
46. Moron.
47. Moron.
48. Moron.
49. Moron.
50. Moron.
51. Moron.
52. Moron.
53. Moron.
54. Moron.
55. Moron.
56. Moron.
57. Moron.
58. Moron.
59. Moron.
60. Moron.

That just about sums it up.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. I don't give a fuck, i just want the oil.

Firstly I would have asked 'Why did this happen?' . IS it the result of random evil islamic fundamentalists or is it in response to something we have done and have been doing for a long time?

Then I would have appreciated the irony of it occuring on the same date that the country I lead facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands in Chile.

After that I would have gone to the UN and tried to come up with a solution that didn't involve unilateral invasion of Afghanistan and...oh what the hell....Iraq too. Anything but ignoring most of the world and stomping into an unwinable war.

How many Iraqi's were on the planes that hit the WTC? I think it may have been exactly zero. Don't forget we invaded Iraq not to depose Saddam but to rid the world of his weapons of mass destruction, which don't actually exist. The US also proposed using small tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq. Using nukes to help eradicate the threat of a madman using his non-existent supply of nukes! That is a special kind of stupid.

WTC was a tragedy but it's nothing like as tragic as the deaths caused by US policy in the last 60 years or so.

"I've said it before and i'll say it again. I don't give a fuck, i just want the oil."

Thats heartless but fair enough. If they had said that I would have thought they were wrong but at least you can respect it. We got where we are by being evil shit heads to everybody else and if we hadn't we wouldn't enjoy the lifestyle we do. Can we just stop calling it Operation Cruasading Jesus Peace or whatever sickening name it had.

We don't need enemies as a country, we do a good enough job tearing ourselves to bits.

What the fuck is the difference between using a jumbo jet and using $150,000 Tomahawk missiles?
I fail to understand how when a small group of people kill others they are called terrorists, but when an army does it it is called a war.
It's bullshit. Bush is a danger and should be removed.

Don't you just love war discussions on IAmCal?

yeah, i love the public's reaction to the WTC incident...

"kill osama bin laden! kill osama bin laden!"
"uh, we can't find him, what about this guy?"
"okay, kill saddam! kill saddam! we don't care who gets punished as long as speak a funny languaue"

Nice one, Mick =]

woo! Mick for Prime Minister!

The presidency is up for grabs again soon.. vote for Al Gore, the guy you elected last time!

I read this topic as "60 Onions on Bush"

This seems odd coming from a Sun reader.

Since when have the Sun been interested in consistent policies?

Yeah but they've been sucking Bush's cock for the last two days, innit. (One of my housemates gets it)

It's funny how when every time a war argument arises, the arguments always come across as if they were copied word for word from elsewhere??

I mean, I have my opinions on the matter, but still I have to consider the fact that as members of the public, we know FUCK ALL. A lot of it is idle speculation from the paranoid Stalinist fruitcakes at Urban75 et al on one side, and the hateful right wing tabloid cunts on the other. Is it too hard to contribute something which isn't lifted verbatim from another source??

I'm probably talking shit here, but every time I see the subject discussed, the arguments seem identical. Word for word.

I agree, thats why i trot out the 'I want the oil' argument every time.

Help us track George W. Bush across London!

Well as long as he stays north of the river I reckon I'll be safe from any mental bombers or angry mobs.

London has bush.

couldn't resist that one.. haha

And angry tramps. Don't forget angry tramps.

With lightsabers

on the news last night they kept saying that a new poll says most Brits are in favour of the moron's visit. Does anyone else think this is the most ridiculously fabricated poll ever released? I random poll of about 20 people last night at my juggling club revealed that Tunbridge Wells is unanimously against Bush's visit

a juggling club?

are you a clown?

"It's funny how when every time a war argument arises, the arguments always come across as if they were copied word for word from elsewhere??

I mean, I have my opinions on the matter, but still I have to consider the fact that as members of the public, we know FUCK ALL. A lot of it is idle speculation from the paranoid Stalinist fruitcakes at Urban75 et al on one side, and the hateful right wing tabloid cunts on the other. Is it too hard to contribute something which isn't lifted verbatim from another source??

I'm probably talking shit here, but every time I see the subject discussed, the arguments seem identical. Word for word."

It's kind of difficult for them not to be. I get all my information on the subject form newspapers, tv news and the occasional book. With this source material the ideas I put forward are obviously going to be a re-hash of other peoples. The only way to avoid this is to do the research myself which would require access to people and sources I don't have access to, or to come up with some whacky theory that has no backing.

The extreme right or left opinions put forward by certain publications or groups just have to be filtered. As long as you agree with what you are repeating and not just parrotting it then what does it matter?

Anything you argue from scratch is invariably something you know a bit about (unless it's scottish bank notes ;) ) and therefore you feel confidant and justified in including your own opinion. However, not many people have an informed opinion (aside from what they read/see etc) on the political reasons, ramifications or solutions of the war in Iraq.

sigh

from you're earlier posts I suspect that you are using that jibe as a way of invalidating my opinion because 'I am a clown' but if not....

juggler != clown, juggling is a tool that some clowns occasionally use as part of their act. You're assumption has long been a bane of those of us who train several hours a day to perfect their skills & have never worn any oversized boots or a water pistol flower.

BTW here's a helpful hint along a similar vain - if you see a unicyclist, shouting out "you've lost a wheel" or similar, it may have been said once or twice before.

so what you are saying is, you know fuck all. cause it is only what you have read and how do you know what you read to be correct?

"so what you are saying is, you know fuck all. cause it is only what you have read and how do you know what you read to be correct?"

Not quite. Yes I know very little about any of the subject matter at hand aside from what is reported to me by others. To understand the matter fully you would have to be a political science genius with phd's in economics, geography, anthropology etc. However, we have to assume that certain aspects of what we read are true otherwise we would be paranoid messes. i.e read the Torygraph and the guardian, filter out the shit and make up your own mind. That will still be based on others opinions though.

i was joking, orinoco, lighten up old son

or read the sun after about page 8 when they stop talking about news and have a laugh.

sorry Russ, my mistake

I must not be so serious
I must not be so serious
I must not be so serious
I must not be so serious
I must not be so serious
I must not be so serious
...

:-)

This is the problem. So many people are guilty of this, as if they feel they have to satisfy some criteria to achieve political trendiness in an attempt to appear sophisticated, intelligent and on the mark. It's messed up. (I'm not on about you ILBM, don't worry :) )

"This is the problem. So many people are guilty of this, as if they feel they have to satisfy some criteria to achieve political trendiness in an attempt to appear sophisticated, intelligent and on the mark. It's messed up. (I'm not on about you ILBM, don't worry :) )"

I didn't think you were! I do now though.... ;)

I agree but then those people are arseholes. Maybe we could mince them?

I think we should ;)

minced arseholes? eeeuch

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103514,00.h...



Dr Shipman?????

O_o

That's pretty worrying.

George Bush met The Queen, and he turns round and says: "As I'm the
President, I'm thinking of changing how the country is referred to, and I'm
thinking that it should be a Kingdom"
The Queen replies "I'm sorry Mr Bush, but to be a Kingdom, you have to
have a King in charge - and you're not a King."

George Bush thought a while and then said: "How about a Principality then?",
To which the Queen replied "Again, to be a Principality you have to be a
Prince - and you're not a Prince, Mr Bush".

Bush thought long and hard and came up with "How about an Empire then?"
The Queen, getting a little annoyed by now, replies "Sorry again, Mr
Bush, but to be an Empire you must have an Emperor in charge - and you are not
an Emperor."

Before George Bush could utter another word, The Queen said:
"I think you're doing quite nicely as a Country".

ILBM - great!

Did you hear about the fire at the White House?

It gutted the library and George Bush was most unhappy that he lost 2 of his prized books.

The biggest shame of it all, was that he hadn't finished colouring the second one in

boom boom!

*snigger*

Bush's Buck House Welcome
"A rather desolate air hung over The Mall yesterday morning," says The Scotsman, "where only a handful of supporters had turned out to greet the world's most powerful man for his official welcome to Britain."
Or did they? According to The Sun this morning, "thousands of cheering supporters turned out to welcome George W Bush" as he arrived at Buckingham Palace. According to The Scotsman, the only group of people numbering in their thousands, "blocking traffic and generally making a nuisance of themselves," were the police.
"The dramatic silence following the 41-gun salute that marked the President's arrival at the Royal Pavilion was broken by a lone heckler addressing himself to the crowd on a loudspeaker," says The Independent.
"If you think that Blair's a poodle, shout 'woof, woof'," chanted the protestor before being dragged away by security. "If you think Bush is a moron shout 'retard'."
"The military top brass were in full dress uniform, complete with sashes and gold brocade," says The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland, "they looked like extras from Oh! What a Lovely War."
Later, at Banqueting House in Whitehall, the President made a surprise speech to the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) conference on Ballistic Missile Defence and opened his speech with a note of self-deprecating levity.
"It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames," he quipped. "A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me."