--- cornel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vis a vis the post below, I believe your attitude > towards Blair's unjustified attack on Iraq is > entirely realistic and reflects the majority > position in the UK. > Mario replies: If that were the majority position in the UK, then how come Blair was re-elected? > Cornel writes: > That the terrorist attack on London, yesterday, was > most likely was known to all. It merely confirms > that Blair has even more blood on his hands > now than before. That man has, virtually > singlehandedly, put all of us, including visitors, > at risk in London. > Mario replies: Wow! Now Blair has blood on his hands! This response will truly warm the hearts of the folks in Edgeware and Finsbury Park, Fallujah and Tikrit. After all, they can do the killing and a Brit says the blood is on Tony Blair's hands! Even Ken "The Red" Livingstone, erstwhile appeaser of radical Islamo-fascists, does not believe that any more. He said that they will fail. You and Gabe are cowering under your beds and railing at Tony Blair for disrupting your lives. The Islamo-fascists must be duly impressed at such resolve. > Cornel continues: > The backlash from the resilient people of London/UK > against Blair is inevitable and he should go now > and even be treated as a war criminal as a > significant number believe. > Mario replies: This is like blaming the British government prior to WW-II for the Battle of Britain, and the US government for Pearl Harbor. With Brits like you guys Blair does not need enemies. > Cornel continues his rant: > Put simply, Iraq did not threaten the UK, the > replacement of a leader of a nation was illegal as > there was no UN sanction for this or for a war. > Mario reminds Cornel: Cornel, where have you been, man? 17 UN resolutions ring a bell? UN Resolution 1441 ring a bell? Why don't you go back and read what it said. There was nothing illegal about the regime change in Iraq, and, what's more, you know it, or you should. > Cornel writes: > Consequently, there is likely to be, unnecessarily, > lasting resentment against Britain for a long time > to come. If anything, the war against Iraq is the > reason for so much jihadist insurgency and Blair > had been warned about this. Instead, he believed > that he would be seen as a great liberator of Iraq > and has sought all kinds of bogus justifications > for the war. > Mario replies: Again, where have you been, man? Don't you have any idea what was going on in Iraq from 1991 through 2003? Besides, you can't debate with yourself, and make straw men to debate with as you go along. > Cornel alleges: > I am no pacificist and believe that some wars are > justified e.g WW2 against Hitler, the need to > resolve the situation in Bosnia etc but not the > last one against Iraq. Sadam Hussein should have > been finished off, justifiably, by Bush senior in > the Kuwait war. Further, the USA would have been > justified to attack Saudi Arabia, buddies or no > buddies, because it was the Saudis who were > principally responsible for 9/11. > Mario replies: Cornel, have you ever thought of running for office and testing these theories on the electorate? So, according to you, Saddam should have been "finished off" in 1991, when the UN resolution prohibited it, but not in 2003, when the UN resolution allowed it? What kind of convoluted logic is that?
Where did you get the idea that it was "the Saudis" who were principally responsible for 9/11? Oh, now I know. It was the fact that most of the perps on 9/11 were Saudi citizens. I guess this means that we can hold "the Brits" responsible for anything that you and Gabe are up to, or for the Shoe Bomber. Oh, right! You are holding "the Brits" responsible for yesterday's cowardly attack on innocent civilians. I agree that the US should have been more aggressive with the Saudi government for several years now, but your Brit papers seem to have not informed you that they now are, and change is beginning, slowly but surely. The problem, you see, is that they are an ally in the war against terrorism, and pump all this oil that keeps the world economy rolling along. So, just like we did with Russia and China, you try and make changes amicably. This is called geopolitics, Cornel, not Bulls in China Shops. The idea is to affect positive change, not just "finish off" people who you think are useful to the greater good, while NOT finishing off people, as and when you and Gabe find it convenient, and may mess up this weekend's party. > Cornel continues: > I can also understand, to a limited point, their > attack against Afghanistan for not delivering Bin > Laden, a known criminal, for trial, but not their > hypocracy at the point of attack on Iraq and > killing huge numbers of innocent people, > notwithstanding that Sadam Hussein was indeed a > monster. > Mario replies bemused: You can understand "to a limited point"? What does that mean? Can you understand why the Taliban were removed or don't you? What is this "Iraq" you are so concerned with being "hypocritically" attacked? The less than 20% plus Saddam, or the more than 80% who were brutally oppressed? Where was the "hypocrisy"? Was Saddam "a monster" or wasn't he? You must think Saddam was a duly elected "monster" which is why you have so much compassion for him, that he was "illegally" removed, with apparently NO compassion for the mayhem he wreaked on over 80% of his people. Who exactly do you reserve your compassion for, other than yourselves? Are you for freedom and democracy, or aren't you? If you believe in freedom and democracy, which you apparently enjoy for yourself, what was YOUR plan for providing it to the 80% of Iraqis. Or, was your attitude, "To hell with them! What do I care? I'd rather be safe and sound and hope thay don't attack me." Ha, ha, ha! You think Bin Laden is a "criminal" and should be "on trial"? In what fearless court? By which fearless judge? For what propaganda purposes? Have you heard of Moussawi? Do you even know the difference between a suicidal Islamo-fascist and a "criminal"? You have a lot of catching up to do, Cornel, my friend.
