Jump to content

That'll teach them


Rob W
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Well sorry, but that's not normal. Especially since we wittnessed the horror of 9/11 from a 1000 cameras."

 

well thousands of people (idiots maybe) filled up the front of Buck House, Harrods and KEnsington Palace

 

nowt like the same reaction to 9-11

 

AS I said it just didn't have a big impact on me - there is so much death and destruction around you get hardened to it I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Most in the Armed Forces would have joined up before the war in Iraq was even mooted though.

190106[/snapback]

 

well the Army loses around 10-15% of its men & women every year - so the officers and non-coms probably are pre-2001 but a lot of the PBI joined since TBH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me even more about Rob's (frankly ignorant) comments are the amount of people from up here that join up. You non-Geordies wouldn't understand though :rolleyes:

190142[/snapback]

 

shows the attractions of the area TBH

 

Still too many dead end jobs, lack of money, excitement, prospects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most in the Armed Forces would have joined up before the war in Iraq was even mooted though.

190106[/snapback]

 

well the Army loses around 10-15% of its men & women every year - so the officers and non-coms probably are pre-2001 but a lot of the PBI joined since TBH

190285[/snapback]

We didn't invade Iraq until 2003 and it wasn't even suggested that the US (let alone us) would until quite a while after 9/11. And it was apparently plain sailing at first. Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most in the Armed Forces would have joined up before the war in Iraq was even mooted though.

190106[/snapback]

 

well the Army loses around 10-15% of its men & women every year - so the officers and non-coms probably are pre-2001 but a lot of the PBI joined since TBH

190285[/snapback]

We didn't invade Iraq until 2003 and it wasn't even suggested that the US (let alone us) would until quite a while after 9/11. And it was apparently plain sailing at first. Nice try though.

190305[/snapback]

 

 

Ho ho ho

 

You do enjoy a laugh

 

"Published on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle

Record Shows Bush Shifting on Iraq War

 

President's Rationale for the Invasion Continues to Evolve

by Mark Sandalow

 

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

 

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

 

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

 

The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.

 

In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.

 

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.

 

 

also

 

 

anuary 11, 2004

The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11

 

by Neil Mackay

 

GEORGE Bush's former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

 

O'Neill's claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to "regime change" Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.

 

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank - run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Bush's younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney's deputy - wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

 

The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". . . .

 

O'Neill and other White House insiders have given the journalist Ron Suskind documents for a new book, The Price Of Loyalty, revealing that as early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein. "There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post- Saddam Iraq'." Another Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interests in Iraq.

 

FULL TEXT

 

---

Letter: "The Honorable William J. Clinton", Project for the New American Century (PNAC), January 26, 1998

 

Letter: "The Honorable Newt Gingrich and The Honorable Trent Lott", Project for the New American Century (PNAC), May 29, 1998

 

Eric Margolis, "The Lust for Blood and Oil ", Toronto Sun, March 10, 2002

 

Enver Masud, "A Clash Between Justice and Greed Not Islam and the West", The Wisdom Fund, September 2, 2002

 

[CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.--"Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11," CBS News, September 4, 2002]

 

[President Bush announced the attack in a four-minute television speech . . .

 

Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said.--Martin Merzer, Ron Hutcheson and Drew Brown, "War begins in Iraq with strikes aimed at 'leadership targets'", Knight Ridder Newspapers, March 20, 2003]

 

Bernard Weiner, "How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer," Information Clearing House, May 28, 2003

 

Julian Borger, "White House 'Lied About Saddam Threat'", The Guardian (UK), July 10, 2003

 

Julian Borger, "The Spies Who Pushed for War", The Guardian (UK), July 17, 2003

 

Michael Meacher, "'This War on Terrorism is Bogus'", The Guardian (UK), September 6, 2003

 

Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73 ", Washington Post, January 1, 2004

 

[And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

 

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

 

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't heard that before, quality tbh! Has anyone read anything else (other than Catch 22) by him btw?

190152[/snapback]

 

No, I've meant to, but as you've so clearly pointed out on previous occasions, I'm not allowed count that. <_<

 

Reminded me I want to read Pirsig's follow up, can't remember what it's called, must find out and write that down somewhere.

190197[/snapback]

I must read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' at some point. Cheers on the 'Survivor' and Amy Hempel recommendations by the way. I thought the former was class and I read Hempel's 'Reasons to Live' stories too which were excellent.

You've lost me on the bit in bold like.

190230[/snapback]

 

Oh it was about Crime & Punishment, you asked if anyone has read it, I said it was sitting on my bookshelf if that counted, you had the audacity to say it didn't! :nufc:

 

You have to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, man, it's one of the most mind blowing books I've ever read, even though I think Pirsig is an obnoxious twat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well sorry, but that's not normal. Especially since we wittnessed the horror of 9/11 from a 1000 cameras."

 

well thousands of people (idiots maybe) filled up the front of Buck House, Harrods and KEnsington Palace

 

nowt like the same reaction to 9-11

 

AS I said it just didn't have a big impact on me - there is so much death and destruction around you get hardened to it I guess

190278[/snapback]

 

 

What impact did the death of Diana have on you then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most in the Armed Forces would have joined up before the war in Iraq was even mooted though.

190106[/snapback]

 

well the Army loses around 10-15% of its men & women every year - so the officers and non-coms probably are pre-2001 but a lot of the PBI joined since TBH

190285[/snapback]

We didn't invade Iraq until 2003 and it wasn't even suggested that the US (let alone us) would until quite a while after 9/11. And it was apparently plain sailing at first. Nice try though.

190305[/snapback]

 

 

Ho ho ho

 

You do enjoy a laugh

 

"Published on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 by the San Francisco Chronicle

Record Shows Bush Shifting on Iraq War

 

President's Rationale for the Invasion Continues to Evolve

by Mark Sandalow

 

 

WASHINGTON - President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

 

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

 

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

 

The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.

 

In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.

 

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.

 

 

also

 

 

anuary 11, 2004

The Sunday Herald (Scotland)

Former Bush Aide: US Plotted Iraq Invasion Long Before 9/11

 

by Neil Mackay

 

GEORGE Bush's former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has revealed that the President took office in January 2001 fully intending to invade Iraq and desperate to find an excuse for pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein.

 

O'Neill's claims tally with long-running investigations by the Sunday Herald which have shown how the Bush cabinet planned a pre- meditated attack on Iraq in order to "regime change" Saddam long before the neoconservative Republicans took power.

 

The Sunday Herald previously uncovered how a think-tank - run by vice-president Dick Cheney; defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Bush's younger brother Jeb, the governor of Florida; and Lewis Libby, Cheney's deputy - wrote a blueprint for regime change as early as September 2000.

 

The think-tank, the Project for the New American Century, said, in the document Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, that: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein". . . .

 

O'Neill and other White House insiders have given the journalist Ron Suskind documents for a new book, The Price Of Loyalty, revealing that as early as the first three months of 2001 the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein. "There are memos," Suskind told CBS. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post- Saddam Iraq'." Another Pentagon document entitled Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oil Field Contracts talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interests in Iraq.

 

FULL TEXT

 

---

Letter: "The Honorable William J. Clinton", Project for the New American Century (PNAC), January 26, 1998

 

Letter: "The Honorable Newt Gingrich and The Honorable Trent Lott", Project for the New American Century (PNAC), May 29, 1998

 

Eric Margolis, "The Lust for Blood and Oil ", Toronto Sun, March 10, 2002

 

Enver Masud, "A Clash Between Justice and Greed Not Islam and the West", The Wisdom Fund, September 2, 2002

 

[CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq - even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.--"Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11," CBS News, September 4, 2002]

 

[President Bush announced the attack in a four-minute television speech . . .

 

Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said.--Martin Merzer, Ron Hutcheson and Drew Brown, "War begins in Iraq with strikes aimed at 'leadership targets'", Knight Ridder Newspapers, March 20, 2003]

 

Bernard Weiner, "How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer," Information Clearing House, May 28, 2003

 

Julian Borger, "White House 'Lied About Saddam Threat'", The Guardian (UK), July 10, 2003

 

Julian Borger, "The Spies Who Pushed for War", The Guardian (UK), July 17, 2003

 

Michael Meacher, "'This War on Terrorism is Bogus'", The Guardian (UK), September 6, 2003

 

Glenn Frankel, "U.S. Mulled Seizing Oil Fields In '73 ", Washington Post, January 1, 2004

 

[And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

 

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

 

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

190327[/snapback]

 

You expect the average charver cannon fodder should have read and considered that lot before enlisting? :nufc:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see what you're trying to say there Rob but those articles are recent. Perhaps the US had been waiting for a long time for an excuse to get into Iraq. I don't see how that proves those joining the Army knew what they were getting into. The dates on those articles tend to back that up to tbh. Well done on the googling though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't heard that before, quality tbh! Has anyone read anything else (other than Catch 22) by him btw?

190152[/snapback]

 

No, I've meant to, but as you've so clearly pointed out on previous occasions, I'm not allowed count that. <_<

 

Reminded me I want to read Pirsig's follow up, can't remember what it's called, must find out and write that down somewhere.

190197[/snapback]

I must read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' at some point. Cheers on the 'Survivor' and Amy Hempel recommendations by the way. I thought the former was class and I read Hempel's 'Reasons to Live' stories too which were excellent.

You've lost me on the bit in bold like.

190230[/snapback]

 

Oh it was about Crime & Punishment, you asked if anyone has read it, I said it was sitting on my bookshelf if that counted, you had the audacity to say it didn't! :nufc:

 

You have to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, man, it's one of the most mind blowing books I've ever read, even though I think Pirsig is an obnoxious twat.

190331[/snapback]

Ah, reet. Got you now. I promise I'll read 'Zen..' Did you ever read 'The Sirens of Titan' by Vonnegut btw? You should check it out if not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still on my list - will do a play.com order in the next week or so.

190352[/snapback]

Reading 'The Third Policeman' by Flan O'Brien at the minute (one of your lot :nufc: ). Very weird but readable at the same time. Good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Well sorry, but that's not normal. Especially since we wittnessed the horror of 9/11 from a 1000 cameras."

 

well thousands of people (idiots maybe) filled up the front of Buck House, Harrods and KEnsington Palace

 

nowt like the same reaction to 9-11

 

AS I said it just didn't have a big impact on me - there is so much death and destruction around you get hardened to it I guess

190278[/snapback]

 

 

What impact did the death of Diana have on you then?

190337[/snapback]

 

I cried

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading 'The Third Policeman' by Flan O'Brien at the minute (one of your lot :nufc: ). Very weird but readable at the same time. Good stuff.

190354[/snapback]

 

Haven't read anything by him in a long time, guy I used to work with is a fan; interesting site if that's your sort of thing:

 

"Blather.net wouldn't exist if it wasn't for St. Flann!"

http://www.blather.net/shitegeist/2003/11/...n_obrien_co.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading 'The Third Policeman' by Flan O'Brien at the minute (one of your lot :nufc: ). Very weird but readable at the same time. Good stuff.

190354[/snapback]

 

Haven't read anything by him in a long time, guy I used to work with is a fan; interesting site if that's your sort of thing:

 

"Blather.net wouldn't exist if it wasn't for St. Flann!"

http://www.blather.net/shitegeist/2003/11/...n_obrien_co.htm

190540[/snapback]

Well I'm only about 50 pages in so I'll see how it goes. Makes sense that it was written in the 1930's looking at that link (knew it was published in the 60's) as some of the language seems a bit archaic. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.