Guardian: Bush planned for war all along. & knew it was unlikely there were WMDs.

[Spiffor]

Re: Guardian: Bush planned for war all along & knew it was unlikely there were WMDs.

Well, duh.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Two things, having not bothered to read the thread:

1) Duh.
2) It's the friggin' Guardian.

-Arrian

It's taking references from a new book

here is the snippet about it

Explosive analysis of how Britain and America have broken the legal global order by promoting America's economic interests at the expense of human rights and environment.

A coruscating account of how the Bush and Blair administrations are breaking the law and trying to rewrite the rules …

After the Second World War America and Britain led the creation of a new law-based international order, outlawing war and its excesses, protecting human rights and promoting free trade. Why is the US now undermining so many of those very laws?

Leading international lawyer Philippe Sands has been involved in high-profile cases including Guantanamo and Pinochet. In Lawless World he draws on disturbing material to show how America has reneged on agreements governing war, torture and the environment – with Britain often turning a blind eye or colluding in some of the worst violations. In recent years America has abandoned the Kyoto Protocol and the Statute of the International Criminal Court, ignored human rights standards at Abu Ghraib and disregarded the UN’s prohibition of pre-emptive force. Are we on the verge of a new world order where the most powerful nations can put aside the rules that no longer suit them?

Lawless World explains why we need global rules, examines why recent American and British actions endanger international justice, and asks, what does the future hold?

[Arrian]

Hey, I don't need convincing. It was blatantly obvious AT THE TIME.

Still, the Guardian sucks ass. I hate that paper. Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course, but I still hate 'em.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Well the issue here should be.

Finally there is more and more public evidence that the people who still hold the office - lied - to start the war, and well if our democracies are worth a damn, than we will hold them accountable for their actions.

*wandering what will happen* :nothing:

If El Bush went in with the democratization idea, he would have been blown off, as the real problems that he is facing now, would have been clearly pointed out to him, and the idea wouldn't fly.

Or he he was honest and said: Well we are losing our close allies Saudis, Iran hates us, and so does Saddam, we might face real problems in the politically unstable ME, Kuwait is too small an ally and we cannot guarantee its security after removing forces from Saudi Arabia. Turkey is not so cooperative eiter as it was in the past, so we have a problematic security situation in near future with ME which provides us with x% of our energy and we need to do something to secure the region. The easiest path is through setting up a different regime in Iraq (and well give democracy a go, as it's best for us all if it works)

We'd see what would the Congress or most other people say about that.

That it's illegal.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Hey, I don't need convincing. It was blatantly obvious AT THE TIME.

Still, the Guardian sucks ass. I hate that paper. Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course, but I still hate 'em.

-Arrian

hey fair enough .. if you hate it, it's a free country

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian

Still, the Guardian sucks ass. I hate that paper. Doesn't mean they're wrong, of course, but I still hate 'em.

-Arrian

I guess you don't have real newspapers in your country.

Freedom of the Press is a wonderful thing. You Yanks should try it sometime.

[PLATO]

Blair supported Bush?!?

No way!!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Agathon


I guess you don't have real newspapers in your country.

Freedom of the Press is a wonderful thing. You Yanks should try it sometime.

Typical Agathon. Baseless smug superiority without substance.

My issue with the Guardian is their particular ideological bent and tone - it irritates me. I can get the same information elsewhere and not find myself wanting to punch my screen. That said, I still read it sometimes.

Come to think of it, the tone matches yours. Ah-hah! That explains a lot.

-Arrian

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian




Typical Agathon. Baseless smug superiority without substance.

My issue with the Guardian is their particular ideological bent and tone - it irritates me. I can get the same information elsewhere and not find myself wanting to punch my screen. That said, I still read it sometimes.

Come to think of it, the tone matches yours. Ah-hah! That explains a lot.

-Arrian

It's a moderately left wing paper. Such things do not exist in the US. Anyway, your papers seem to have this problem with people like Judy Miller.

[Arrian]

It's a moderately left wing paper.

Leaving aside left/right and moderate/extreme... that's not what really irritates me. The paper's editorial slant is *blantantly* anti-American. I do NOT use that term lightly. But the Guardian really qualifies. Any chance - any chance at all - that they can take a shot at the US, they do. Often for no reason at all... just for kicks. That's how they've earned my... dislike, and scorn. They treat me and mine with... dislike... and scorn, so I shall return it. All's fair.

-Arrian

[Harry Tuttle]

This thread brought to you by "Doofy".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian




Leaving aside left/right and moderate/extreme... that's not what really irritates me. The paper's editorial slant is *blantantly* anti-American. I do NOT use that term lightly. But the Guardian really qualifies. Any chance - any chance at all - that they can take a shot at the US, they do. Often for no reason at all... just for kicks. That's how they've earned my... dislike, and scorn. They treat me and mine with... dislike... and scorn, so I shall return it. All's fair.

-Arrian

In other words: it comes close to telling the truth about your warmongering anti-democratic country.

[Arrian]

Are you trying to get a rise out of me, Agent Kujan?

-Arrian

[PLATO]

@ Agathon



....as usual

[StarLightDeath]

Considering hispanics will soon be a majority in many US states, and then nationally, I wonder what life will become like for traditional conservative ****s like StarBright?

Actually they aren't even close to being the majority yet and it's not going to happen because there is a big backlash in the US right now on both sides of the aisle. Eventually the border is going to get locked down and those here will assimilate. Also, I'm not worried because hispanics aren't even really a race, they were only made so by special interest groups. They're either indian, or caucasian, or a combination of both and they have very similiar values to the US so they aren't really a bad immigrant group. My main problem with hispanics is that they actually buy into being some minority that needs special rights and they refuse to learn English. Not to mention that they run into our country illegally and the Mexican government thinks it's a human rights issue we if we decide to enforce our own god damn immigration laws. We should just build a ****ing wall. In the end though they are die hard catholics that at the moment are becoming more and more conservative so I don't see the conservative world dying I see it getting bigger.

Oerdin you are a reactionary on here...and look who surrounds you. In the US you are a moderate that leans left and far left on some issues.