GUEST, of, 10 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM

"War on terror, my arse. Slag you are in more trouble now than you ever have been. Your war for oil has cost you dearly. I wonder whether Bin Ladin was smart enought to realise how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with."

And:

Paul from Hull - 10 Dec 06 - 04:41 PM

"....how Bush would abuse the oppertunity 9/11 presented him with."

Well put, Guest!"

Sorry chaps!! But when are either of you going to get a grip on reality. Now, by the language both of you are using and by the fact that at least one of you has got the guts to identify themselves - you are Brits.

OK specific question for anonimous Guest - And by Christ am I getting tired of knocking this old left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair chesnut down - "Your war for oil has cost you dearly" - OK, anonimous Guest, according to your terms of reference Iraq has been completely in American hands for the best part of four years. How much oil has bad, evil, wicked America grabbed - your statement, presented as fact. If you really believe it to be true quantify it, tell us how much oil the US has "grabbed" compared to it's monthly imports. Rather than just spout your left-wing defeatist rhetorical crap, which is certainly not based on fact. Just damn well think for a change - take a look at America's foreign oil import figures - you will (assuming that you are a rational human being with a modicum of common sense) see immediately that the US does not rely on oil or gas from the Middle East, and certainly not from Iraq. Now tell me again in some manner that may convince me " What fuckin' war for oil - facts show that they haven't taken any, or at least the merest amount that might be construed as a charity buy!! - Approximately 400,000 barrels out of a monthly total of over 12 million"

I've got some news for both you - Slag is perfectly correct - you mightn't like it but what he says is perfectly true.

ACT OF WAR - response - would have been pretty much the same irrespective of whoever was in the White House in 2000, Gore or Bush - We actually had a thread on this forum on this very subject - general concensus of opinion was that the response would have been very much the same.

OK, GUEST, of, 10 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM and Paul from Hull, consider the following, these are conditions that prevailed in the immediate wake of the attack on the 11th September 2001.

- The incumbent President and his Administration have been in power just over 9 months.
- The personnel who man the country's intelligence services (internal and external) are exactly the same people who served the previous President and his administration.
- They're advice and recommendations are the same irrespective of incumbent to the White House.
- When asked to evaluate potential threats against the United States of America. They're advice, plus that of the House of Representatives and Senate would have been the same - greatest external threat to the United States of America is an a-symetric attack by an international terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction (Nuclear, Chemical or Biological), such weapons being supplied by either Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Iraq was placed top of the list because Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who actually came out and applauded the efforts of the 911 hijackers - fact

OK pals, what do you think the person responsible for protecting and ensuring the safety of the United States of America, it's interests and it's allies, is going to do. THIS WAS NOT, AND NEVER WAS, A PERSONAL DECISION. What actually went down was a decision made on best available advice at the time, and that advice was taken and courses of action taken for the best of possible motives.