attention 'tree huggers'
19 February 2003, 10:04 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
question
what gives all the tree huggers the right to assume they speek for the whole population
tony Blair is taking flak because polls say people are tree huggers, well tony no ******* asked my opiniun and for what is worth I think you are doing a good job
I voted lib last time but next time will be labour and all down to how Blair is handing things
soo as I am sick of hearing him run down by wet codfish
well done tony blair
what gives all the tree huggers the right to assume they speek for the whole population
tony Blair is taking flak because polls say people are tree huggers, well tony no ******* asked my opiniun and for what is worth I think you are doing a good job
I voted lib last time but next time will be labour and all down to how Blair is handing things
soo as I am sick of hearing him run down by wet codfish
well done tony blair
19 February 2003, 10:17 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is saying they have 
There were literally millions of people marching at the weekend, and agree with it or not, they were certainly not "tree huggers"
Did you actually listen to Blair's speach at the weekend in Glasgow?
During that speach he was trying to justify direct action against Iraq based on the numbers Hussain's dictatorship has killed over the years. Fair point, its an outrage, no doubt - but then its also an outrage how many have been murdered by dictatorships in many other contries across the planet over recent years. Have we threatened war against them?
No. Sounds very hypocritical to me.
Whether you agree with it or not, will killing potentially hundereds of thousands of innocents on all sides make it any better?
The man would get more respect (well, some, cos he aint got none just now) if he would just stop trying to justify it by hypocritical means and simply come clean with what they know about the weapons of mass destruction.
And as for the terrorist links, don't even go there. Did we declare war on the US when it was, as a nation, turning a blind eye to the funding of the IRA direct from America??
No.
Would any of this even be an issue if Bin Laden hadn't orchestrated the flying of two planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon?
Doubt it.
Its time to come clean, Mr Blair, and tell us what you know. Time to stop trying to justify something based on humanitarian issues which whilst abhorrent have not resulted in a war against those other parties concerned.
D
[Edited by Diablo - 2/19/2003 10:18:48 AM]
There were literally millions of people marching at the weekend, and agree with it or not, they were certainly not "tree huggers"
Did you actually listen to Blair's speach at the weekend in Glasgow?
During that speach he was trying to justify direct action against Iraq based on the numbers Hussain's dictatorship has killed over the years. Fair point, its an outrage, no doubt - but then its also an outrage how many have been murdered by dictatorships in many other contries across the planet over recent years. Have we threatened war against them?
No. Sounds very hypocritical to me.
Whether you agree with it or not, will killing potentially hundereds of thousands of innocents on all sides make it any better?
The man would get more respect (well, some, cos he aint got none just now) if he would just stop trying to justify it by hypocritical means and simply come clean with what they know about the weapons of mass destruction.
And as for the terrorist links, don't even go there. Did we declare war on the US when it was, as a nation, turning a blind eye to the funding of the IRA direct from America??
No.
Would any of this even be an issue if Bin Laden hadn't orchestrated the flying of two planes into the WTC and one into the Pentagon?
Doubt it.
Its time to come clean, Mr Blair, and tell us what you know. Time to stop trying to justify something based on humanitarian issues which whilst abhorrent have not resulted in a war against those other parties concerned.
D
[Edited by Diablo - 2/19/2003 10:18:48 AM]
19 February 2003, 10:21 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
basically the way some people are intervied they make out they are speaking for the British peopel....they are speaking for some but not all
I agrree with some of what you are saying but the country need to show unity at this time
I didnt even vote him in but I do think we all need to stand behind him and trust him
I agrree with some of what you are saying but the country need to show unity at this time
I didnt even vote him in but I do think we all need to stand behind him and trust him
19 February 2003, 10:31 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a land full of corsets
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Mr Blair,
Why aren't we going to war with China? They are guilty or similar "crimes" as Iraq. Or are they to big and nasty for us?
Oh well, how about Zimbabwe then? Come on Tony, they're gagging for a kicking!
Thanks in advance for your reply,
TaviaRS
Age 3 3/4
Why aren't we going to war with China? They are guilty or similar "crimes" as Iraq. Or are they to big and nasty for us?
Oh well, how about Zimbabwe then? Come on Tony, they're gagging for a kicking!
Thanks in advance for your reply,
TaviaRS
Age 3 3/4
19 February 2003, 10:49 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a land full of corsets
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tibet? Weren't they an independent / sovereign nation (rather like Kuwait), now a province of China. As for oppression of natives, they are right up there with the "best" of them.
Trending Topics
19 February 2003, 10:54 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a land full of corsets
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shouldn't that be "for the benefit of THE US"?
Now, I like a good war as much as the next man, but in this case I think they have got it wrong. They are being asked to prove that they haven't got something, how on earth do you do that? Katana, I reckon you have got a Ferrari, prove to me that you haven't.
Innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be.
[Edited by TaviaRS - 2/19/2003 10:55:12 AM]
Now, I like a good war as much as the next man, but in this case I think they have got it wrong. They are being asked to prove that they haven't got something, how on earth do you do that? Katana, I reckon you have got a Ferrari, prove to me that you haven't.
Innocent until proven guilty is the way it should be.
[Edited by TaviaRS - 2/19/2003 10:55:12 AM]
19 February 2003, 10:57 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to be honest the reason I started this thread was not to argue against people who dont believe in a war but to say that I am getting fecked off with media coverage which implies most of the peopel are against the war
everyone has the right to their own view (not in iraq by the way)
i am simply saying anti war people do not speak for everyone but the tv news especially bbc make out they do, this is winding me up
who are the pollsters polling maybe they look to see whos reading the fecking guadain or the mirror and ask them
everyone has the right to their own view (not in iraq by the way)
i am simply saying anti war people do not speak for everyone but the tv news especially bbc make out they do, this is winding me up
who are the pollsters polling maybe they look to see whos reading the fecking guadain or the mirror and ask them
19 February 2003, 11:06 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a land full of corsets
Posts: 9,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said,
Also I wouldn't be seen dead reading some commie pinko subversive rag like the Grauniad or the Mirror, more of a Times man myself. I suppose you are more inclined to believe a government sponsored poll that would say that 80% are pro war with Iraq. Personally, I distrust all polls, they are only samples after all (read the small print. It makes me laugh when they show the sample size, usually about 1,000 from a population of what, 55 million 
)
I like a good war as much as the next man, but in this case I think they have got it wrong
)
19 February 2003, 11:10 AM
#15
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the sooner it starts the better
and the same people protesting may feel differenly when they see Iraqis being liberated and free
all right for the wingers in their cushy semis reading their fecking guardians sipping chardoney all self righteus
the working people like me no whats wot
and the same people protesting may feel differenly when they see Iraqis being liberated and free
all right for the wingers in their cushy semis reading their fecking guardians sipping chardoney all self righteus
the working people like me no whats wot
19 February 2003, 11:13 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
All the anti war lot go on a about is how innocent Iraq is and how there are other bad nations in the World. Yes there is but so does that mean we shouldn't front anyone because we haven't YET fronted anyone else???
What about the terrorist training camp in the North of Iraq? Its been said its nothing to do with Saddam but he hasn't closed it down has he! He lets them get on with it, he rules that country with an iron fist and if he wanted it stopped then just a click of his fingers and it would be stopped.
The fact is he has huge stocks of chemical and biological weapons that he can quite easily supply to terrorists to use against the West. A lot of these stocks are unaccounted for. Where are they???
He is not going to attack the West conventionally and I doubt he will attack Israel because of their Nuclear capabilities but he certainly won't have any qualms about the West being subjected to attrocities.
This arguement about oil is such a bloody sidetrack! If Iraq was the only supply of oil then yes it makes perfect sense. Yes they are the Worlds 2nd biggest producer of oil 2nd only to Saudi but there are many other countries with vast quantities of oil such as Venezuela. The World doesn't yet need control of Saddams oil, the rest of the World has enough to supply for many decades yet! Its just something for the anti war lot to latch onto and its quite honestly a load of cr@p.
Yes China and god knows how many other countries commit attrocities against there own people BUT they do not pose a substantial threat to the UK or US in supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
The other main contender to Iraq is North Korea. Before Christmas a container ship in the Gulf was stopped and searched, it was a North Korean ship containing nuclear waste material. Whether or not is was weapons grade I can't remember, it was certainly prominent enough to make the news though. North Korea also have a large stock of chemical and biological weapons and a high profile nuclear development programme. They detest the US and the West as much as Iraq and again are a huge threat to sponsoring/supplying terrorism.
The anti war lot are blind to the reasons hard line action has to be taken and why the UK and the US are at risk from these nations as opposed to places such as China and Russia. Incidently China is becoming more and more Westernised by the month and links to China are vastly improved, they are prepared to do business with the West and listen. Places like Iraq aren't.
What about the terrorist training camp in the North of Iraq? Its been said its nothing to do with Saddam but he hasn't closed it down has he! He lets them get on with it, he rules that country with an iron fist and if he wanted it stopped then just a click of his fingers and it would be stopped.
The fact is he has huge stocks of chemical and biological weapons that he can quite easily supply to terrorists to use against the West. A lot of these stocks are unaccounted for. Where are they???
He is not going to attack the West conventionally and I doubt he will attack Israel because of their Nuclear capabilities but he certainly won't have any qualms about the West being subjected to attrocities.
This arguement about oil is such a bloody sidetrack! If Iraq was the only supply of oil then yes it makes perfect sense. Yes they are the Worlds 2nd biggest producer of oil 2nd only to Saudi but there are many other countries with vast quantities of oil such as Venezuela. The World doesn't yet need control of Saddams oil, the rest of the World has enough to supply for many decades yet! Its just something for the anti war lot to latch onto and its quite honestly a load of cr@p.
Yes China and god knows how many other countries commit attrocities against there own people BUT they do not pose a substantial threat to the UK or US in supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
The other main contender to Iraq is North Korea. Before Christmas a container ship in the Gulf was stopped and searched, it was a North Korean ship containing nuclear waste material. Whether or not is was weapons grade I can't remember, it was certainly prominent enough to make the news though. North Korea also have a large stock of chemical and biological weapons and a high profile nuclear development programme. They detest the US and the West as much as Iraq and again are a huge threat to sponsoring/supplying terrorism.
The anti war lot are blind to the reasons hard line action has to be taken and why the UK and the US are at risk from these nations as opposed to places such as China and Russia. Incidently China is becoming more and more Westernised by the month and links to China are vastly improved, they are prepared to do business with the West and listen. Places like Iraq aren't.
19 February 2003, 11:13 AM
#17
Isn't it strange that the reason for war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then it was that they harboured terrorists, now it's that they have an absolutely awful record on human rights?
Strange how it changes everytime they can't prove the last one, isn't it?
Strange how they've forgotten all about Bin Laden, when catching him was number one priority a year ago?
Does it remind anyone else of teenage logic: "I'm going to do it no matter what anyone says, and I've got an answer for everything, however stupid the answers are, and if I haven't, I'll just move the goalposts!":
And these guys are in charge of world powers????
Stranger still how ANYONE can still trust either Blair OR Bush [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Alcazar
Strange how it changes everytime they can't prove the last one, isn't it?
Strange how they've forgotten all about Bin Laden, when catching him was number one priority a year ago?
Does it remind anyone else of teenage logic: "I'm going to do it no matter what anyone says, and I've got an answer for everything, however stupid the answers are, and if I haven't, I'll just move the goalposts!"
:And these guys are in charge of world powers????
Stranger still how ANYONE can still trust either Blair OR Bush [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Alcazar
19 February 2003, 11:27 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im just a normal person doing a regular job that pays enoughh so I can have a nice car like my Corrado not need to rely on the state for anyting and try and pay my way as best I can who worries about the state of the world especially my country
I dont have much money and maybe not educated like sum but this dont mean im stupid, to keep my world togeether means I ave no spare cash, this is why it ***** me off all this asylum lot suing us, i ad to work boxing day to make enouggh cahs tpo pay my bills and i see the tax that I paid that day paying for these ******* who ave the cheek to sue us when theyz are in our ****ry
its allright for rich people to preach about this sh*t im not well off enough to not worry where my taxes go. im fecked of with it and peeople should aske the normal working man wot he thinks instead of peopel in privelde postions who no **** all about the reel world
I dont have much money and maybe not educated like sum but this dont mean im stupid, to keep my world togeether means I ave no spare cash, this is why it ***** me off all this asylum lot suing us, i ad to work boxing day to make enouggh cahs tpo pay my bills and i see the tax that I paid that day paying for these ******* who ave the cheek to sue us when theyz are in our ****ry
its allright for rich people to preach about this sh*t im not well off enough to not worry where my taxes go. im fecked of with it and peeople should aske the normal working man wot he thinks instead of peopel in privelde postions who no **** all about the reel world
19 February 2003, 11:30 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 9,368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heh, you'll like my mate Paul then. Last saturday i was driving through Belverdere and paul was in the passenger seat. He spotted a random bloke at a bus stop with a NO WAR sign. In less than a second he'd wound down the window, levered himself out of it up to the waist (whilst I was doing 40) and screamed:
"OI! ******!!!! IF YOU DONT LIKE IT **** OFF BACK TO IRAQ!!!!"
astraboy.
"OI! ******!!!! IF YOU DONT LIKE IT **** OFF BACK TO IRAQ!!!!"
astraboy.
19 February 2003, 12:38 PM
#26
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,910
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Mr Gardemeister, shouldn't you be concentrating on other things than Scoobynet? 
Australia are now getting involved.....and I went there to get away from all of this crap.
The majority of people over here don't want Australia to get involved and I certainly don't wish the UK to get involved, let alone Aus.
Two wrongs don't make a right and at the end of the day, innocent people will die and suffer on both sides.
Australia are now getting involved.....and I went there to get away from all of this crap.
The majority of people over here don't want Australia to get involved and I certainly don't wish the UK to get involved, let alone Aus.
Two wrongs don't make a right and at the end of the day, innocent people will die and suffer on both sides.
19 February 2003, 01:31 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who has the most weapons of mass distruction... hmm Why should we the UK and other "civilised" nations allowed to have Nukes etc ? I think the moment we completly dissarm then we can be allowed to stand on the moral high ground. I think you'll find a couple of attrocities in our past too you know.
Why on EARTH do we give a flying f**k about a missile being able to fly 15km further than is "allowed" in some text book. ffs[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Isn't North Korea a bit more of a threat? except the US wont be able to push their weight around so much as China may get involved.
Why on EARTH do we give a flying f**k about a missile being able to fly 15km further than is "allowed" in some text book. ffs[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Isn't North Korea a bit more of a threat? except the US wont be able to push their weight around so much as China may get involved.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
33
29 August 2017 07:18 PM