Reply to: SBS fcuked it up big time

[EternalOptimist]

According to a recent article on the BBC web site, Islamist groups like Hamas put the blame for all the World's troubles, and especially theirs, on Zionists _and_ Freemasons. So you'd better watch out Churchy

I always though Hamas was a bit of a daft name for a bunch of people who cant eat a bacon butty. I reckon they should change their terror-name by deed poll to Lambas, or Assas

or something

[Churchill]

According to a recent article on the BBC web site, Islamist groups like Hamas put the blame for all the World's troubles, and especially theirs, on Zionists _and_ Freemasons. So you'd better watch out Churchy

We're in it for the long term, thanks for the heads-up though.

The Muslims and Catholics generally don't like us because we don't care what religion people are.

You could say that they're intolerant of tolerance. Oh well.

[OwlHoot]

According to a recent article on the BBC web site, Islamist groups like Hamas put the blame for all the World's troubles, and especially theirs, on Zionists _and_ Freemasons. So you'd better watch out Churchy

[Zoiderman]

Why would the US need to get involved. The Israelis could presumably eat them and anyone else in the region who think there are hard enough for breakfast.

I agree. However, I don't think it would go down well with Americans, or should I say the Jewish American lobby which is still incredibly powerful.

I also think with international support, the other Muslim countries in the regions would be less inclined to side with Iran. However, if the 'zionists' attack alone, then ther Arab league would simply have to draw together, which I believe they'd be loath to do; if it become a Zionists versus Islamic attack, then they would have to stick together which renders the situation 100 times worse, imo.

Don't get me wrong, I think the last thing the yanks want is Israel to strike, but I think they are spoiling to (the Israelis) and the Americans will be fighting hard for them not to, but if they do (and I am convinced they will without Iran doing some serious backpeddling), then I truly believe the Americans will back them.

[TimberWolf]

A few of the countries there are working to expand their areas of interest, and income. I also think the current worry with Iran is its ability to destabilise the region. To be honest, if there wasn't oil, we wouldn't be worrying about the region at all. However, there is oil, and there is one very powerful country building up.

The US cannot, and will not let it happen.

Why would the US need to get involved. The Israelis could presumably eat them and anyone else in the region who think there are hard enough for breakfast.

[Zoiderman]

Maybe the terrorists/kidnappers will be more inclined to go for Italians rather than Britishers next time. Would save a lot of hassle.

They get money out of the italians

[Zoiderman]

Some middle eastern counties will presumably be tinderboxes when the oil runs out.

A few of the countries there are working to expand their areas of interest, and income. I also think the current worry with Iran is its ability to destabilise the region. To be honest, if there wasn't oil, we wouldn't be worrying about the region at all. However, there is oil, and there is one very powerful country building up.

The US cannot, and will not let it happen.

[TimberWolf]

Maybe the terrorists/kidnappers will be more inclined to go for Italians rather than Britishers next time. Would save a lot of hassle.

[TimberWolf]

Some middle eastern counties will presumably be tinderboxes when the oil runs out.

[Zoiderman]

One of the things that always makes me giggle is the Saudis purchase of so much weaponry, so much hardware, that they are scared to death of using, it's like their are the clever kid at school who has thing **** off great big thug (US) and his even more stupid sidekick (Britain) at his side protecting him.

All this protection will stop, once the bright kids pocket money (oil) runs out then he's going to get beaten like a ginger step child

[Churchill]

So a piece of paper then? condemning hundreds of thousands of British lives to death? How do you know there was not a similar "signed contract" between Saudi Arabiaand the USA? And I suppose Saddam Hussein was not pursuing an "expansionist policy?" or was he was simply looking for another holiday venue and could'nt be arsed to renew his passport?

ftfy.

Saddam at the time was mightily pissed off with the Kuwaiti's - his open support of certain terrorist groups that the yanks had turned a blind eye to during the Iraq-Iran war didn't help his case either.

He (Saddam) was pretty much backed into a corner, he owed the Saudi's sh!tloads of cash and thought the Kuwaiti's were engineering his downfall by limiting his ability to generate the revenue required to service his countries debts.

But hey, what the **** do I know?

[Zoiderman]

So a piece of paper then? condemning hundreds of thousands of British lives to death? How do you know there was not a similar "signed contract" between Kuwait and the USA? And I suppose Saddam Hussein was not pursuing an "expansionist policy?" or was he was simply looking for another holiday venue and could'nt be arsed to renew his passport?

Nice edit:

Yes, I think it is exactly the same, one country anexing many parts of europe less than 1000 miles away and building up weapons on their borders, and another 5000 miles away anxing a small plot of desert that is dripping in oil.

Yes, have to watch out for these pimps

[Zoiderman]

So a piece of paper then? condemning hundreds of thousands of British lives to death? How do you know there was not a similar "signed contract" between Kuwait and the USA?

You really aren't that bright are you?

I would have thought the US stating they had a binding unilateral agreement to protect Kuwait would have been better than the 'We must oust this criminal (that we are supplying money and arms to) and save the (incredibly oil rich) people of Kuwait from this tyrant" and then let said tyrant stay in power, whence he was given more money and arms to ensure he staved off Iran?

Hmmmm, going to have to pick my pimps carefully in the future, it seems they can't be trusted with the sharp edges of paper on those contracts

[DodgyAgent]

I have already given you the answer to that one, pay attention:




Can I bill for this?

So a piece of paper then? condemning hundreds of thousands of British lives to death? How do you know there was not a similar "signed contract" between Kuwait and the USA? And I suppose Saddam Hussein was not pursuing an "expansionist policy?" or was he was simply looking for another holiday venue and could'nt be arsed to renew his passport?

[Zoiderman]

So why did we declare war on germany in ww2? Invading Poland was nothing to do with us.

I have already given you the answer to that one, pay attention:

Many reasons really, but possibly as we were worried about their expansionist policy in Western, and Eastern Europe. Worried about their expansion of arms. The agreement we had with poland was just the opportunity.

Look at the Munich Agreement.

Can I bill for this?