Page 1 of AMERICA is on its own?

Well it looks like the good ol USA will be having to do its own battles soon.

Blair`s back to the wall if he don`t get the 2nd resolution and from polls conducted, the UK populus are just not taken in by this contrived war,

This special relationship we have with the USA can be taken just too far.

Luckly in Mr Wilson`s day he made sure we did not get involved in Vietnam thus saving a lot of our UK lads in the process.

By the looks of it Mr Blair will have to bow to UK public pressure or lose his head and his job. Thus our army lads in the desert can wave `bye bye` to the yanks who are headng to Bagdad.

Today, the UK people and I hope the people of the world are not so gullable as to be lead into wars again, just to satisfy an American global power introducng a new world order regime.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th March 2003, 15:15

Of course, it could go the other way.

The US goes in without the UN Resolution, depose Saddam Hussein with minimal loss of life and set up a viable democracy that eventually stands on its own two feet, causing revelotions in the other Arab states and turning them into Democracies not in the hands of a single person/family.

Won`t we look daft then.

I`m not so sure the US will be alone when the war happens. I am almost certain British troops, tanks and aircraft will be fightint side-by-side with the US.

Spain and Italy do support the US approach but have yet to commit any military. Canada are likely to help if needed. And Australia are very much lookiing to pay someon back for Bali.

Being as most of our troops are already out there, I think it`s a foregone conclusion that we will fighting alongside the US.

"Australia are very much lookiing to pay someon back for Bali."

Just like America need to pay someone back for 11/9? (Many people talk about 9/11, but I don`t remember anything important happening on the 9th of November.)

I think Soprano`s hit the nail on the head by saying that someone, anyone, must be punished, whether they`re guilty or not. It`s that attitude that ensures that many hapless innocents rot in Britain`s prisons because `someone` had to `be seen` to be punished.

This item was edited on Wednesday, 12th March 2003, 16:22

It like a cartoon I saw, with George Bush saying "we have associted these countries with the 11/9 attacks (Saudi, Morocco, Syria) so we will bomb here (Iraq)"

Eh? But its got nothing to do with 9/11. Peace protesters themselves use that argument!! Sh*t cartoon that. He should get his facts straight. We already vapourised Afghanistan for their state sponsorship of that attrocity and have Pakistan in our back pocket for the same.

"Well it looks like the good ol USA will be having to do its own battles soon."

So whats new??

______________
Gruntboy
Absolute B*stard

"Well it looks like the good ol USA will be having to do its own battles soon."

"So whats new??"

Hmm, let me think. when was the last time the US fought alone against another country??




Just for the record, I am not even slightly anti-American. I don`t think Bush is the loon, the media wants him to be, and if it was Clinton, making the same reasons for war, there would not be so much opposition.

People are bias because they just don`t like Bush.

"Well it looks like the good ol USA will be having to do its own battles soon."

If only! At least it would mean that only American troops would lose their lives in those wacky, zany "friendly fire" mishaps.

Try something new for a change, you might like it.

Korea without US troops - lots of dead `cor blimey limeys.
WW2 without US troops - you`d all be little Hermans.
Gulf war 1 without US troops - moustaches all round!

Really, that argument is getting tired. Accidents happen, people die.

______________
Gruntboy
Absolute B*stard