crozby

You'd like to think so, wouldn't you. But I don't recall anyone begging the US to get involved in much at all lately. Do you?

I just find it amazing that people continue to lap up his cheesy bullshit. "Victory is America's"?? "Freedom is secure"?? What a crock.

Hypothetically maybe, but the reality is that Bush had a whole lot more to do with 9/11 occuring than SH ever did.

No lets go off topic for a moment if we may, Tonto: why does Africa support Mugabe in his reckless farm 're-distribution' programme and ignore the blatant bullying behaviour of his Zanu-PF thugs? From the (probably biased) news we get in the UK the man has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

ok fair comment. hypothetically, if it turned out that SH was involved in 9/11 then he should be charged and sentenced appropriately. but do you honestly believe that with all the resources available to them, the Bush administration wouldn't have already come up with the evidence if it existed. I believe that, just like the wmd, a real link between SH and 9/11 doesn't exist.

Oh! Oh! So Iraq was invaded because of its involvement in 9/11 afterall. So why has the Bush administration changed its story from 9/11 involvement to WMD ownership and then to because SH is a really nasty man? Why didn't they stick to the 9/11 involvement if that was the real reason? Why did they flip flop between a whole bunch of bullshit reasons? Sounds like a big sack of shit to me.

I can't believe you are attempting to use Americas involvement in the second world war to justify invading Iraq. How long are people like you going to use yesteryears noble acheivements to excuse todays attrocities?

I know you are, and I'm suggesting that it would be better if the US sat idly by a whole lot more often.

Don't see how this disproves my statement one bit. Intervention in regional disputes by outside agencies for their own political benefit has a proven track record of making bad situations worse.

The criticism is that the USA inflicts its 'help' on other nations, prelongs and/or worstens whatever strife exists there, and then sods off leaving a mess. This has happened on enough occasions that you'd think the US foreign policy makers would have spotted a pattern by now.

Anyone know if this is bollocks or not?

Storm mate, you are wrong. Newbie is absolutely correct that Londoners were just waiting for an attack after Bliar involved us in Georgies war on Terrrrrrr. Plenty of us could smell the bullshit when Bliar was trying to prepare us for the invasion 4 years ago, we didn't believe the WMD claims, or the importing of uranium from Niger, or the idea that the British Isles were in danger from SH. It was blatantly obvious that Bush had an invasion plan and Bliar was aware of the schedule. And we've been proven right. Bliar was a liar then. He is a liar now. London would not have been targeted but for his twattish policies. He knows that, which is why not he plays this stupid lawyer game of saying he did not say Iraq played no part in the bombing of London - he knows full well it did, and a denial may come back to haunt him just like with his other lies. What is so sad is that so many Brits at all levels are so dim and/or so uninterested and/or so self-serving that they keep letting him get away with this shit.

It wasn't the SOLE reason, amongst others were finding a new Middle East base post Saudi.

We are It's kind of ironic considering that one of the post-invasion reasons for regime changing Saddam given by Bush & Bliar was his torture of people he considered enemies of the state.

Classic Bliar comment. The man is a genius.

Damn. I scanned this thread and thought PhillyKev had returned to DZ.com. Then i noticed the dates on the posts...

I don't understand your point. Richard Reid was a British guy who claimed allegance to Osama Bin Laden and was caught trying to blow up an American airplane. What's that got to do with this discussion?

What does UK law say about the defence "I shot him because i thought he was a terrorist running away from me"?

Can't agree with you there. The UK along with many European nations has been subsidising Palastine the way the USA subsidises the Israelis for donkeys years. There has not been the same long running hatred for the UK as there is for the USA. The only British deaths in that great long list of terrorist attrocities Steel produced are in the 9/11 attack, and whilst some may claim 9/11 was an attack on the west because some Europeans worked there, it was far more clearly an attack on the USA. Do you think Spain was attacked because of some ancient historical reasons or because of her involvement in Iraq?

I can't speak for the others, or Cozby for that matter, but I am certainly not trying to spin or confuse. I simply don't believe that the UK would be being bombed now had we not sent troops to Iraq. What facts disprove 'our' statements anyway?

You're going to have to enlighten me. No matter how many times I look, I can't see how that list contradicts my statement.

I guess you and I will just have to agree to differ on what we consider to be the 'right thing', because as far as I inderstand it there were no terrorists in Iraq before the 'coalition of the wrong-about-WMD' turned the place into a terrorist version of disneyland.

I'm curious to know why you think we were already on the list in bold.

Fascinating list, but not really relevant to my point which was that British people are dying because Blair chose to involve us in the invasion of Iraq.

The UK was not a terrorist target before British troops took part in the invasion of Iraq. Since then, and particularly after the events in Spain, many Londoners, me included, though it was just a matter of time before we were targeted. And now we are.