Page 4 of 4
Re: How involved is UK with U..S.A
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:20 am
by Dave
here here Bob Al Gore should of been made President not George.W.Bush Jnr in there now sorry but i can't stand the idiot. The name i have for him is George.Wanker.Bush Jnr he doesn't care who he upsets or what he does as long as he stay's in power as the big man. As for the fixing of votes just proves that you get far if you cheat in America and Al Gore was the best man for the job.
Did you know that Bin Laden fight with America goes back over 25 years ago when the US President at the time order his grandfather killed.
Re: yeah but...
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:07 pm
by Bob Singleton
Bimmercat wrote:
[SNIPPED]
>
> Take off the rose colored glasses...Gore was no peach, either!
>
> - Bimmercat
Are you a politician, Bimmercat? You always answer questions that havn't actually been asked in order to put forward your own point of view, don't answer those questions that HAVE been posed, and have a low grasp on reality. Three tell-tale signs of a politician if ever I saw them!
I don't recall saying Gore was a saint... in fact I never actually said much about Gore at all. (You really must learn how to understand the English language before you start replying to posts. You may not end up looking such a fool!)
What I inferred was that Gore was less likely to have been demonized in the same way as Dubbya BECAUSE he wasn't a direct relation of Bush Snr.!!!
While previous US Presidents were hated by Islamist fundamentalists and the US had been refered to as the Great Satan since at least the last days of the Carter Presidency, none was quite so reviled as George Bush Snr. The fact his son was now President made the US an even bigger target (if that were possible).
Re: yeah but...
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:21 am
by alec
Bob Singleton wrote:
> What I inferred was that Gore was less likely to have been
> demonized in the same way as Dubbya BECAUSE he wasn't a direct
> relation of Bush Snr.!!!
>
You didn't infer it. You implied it.
Re: yeah but...
Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2004 12:38 pm
by Holden MacGroyn
So the US helped fund Bin Laden during the 80's Afghanistan/Russia conflict as they could not directly get involved.
Bin Laden gets the money to help fight Russia. Not that he needed money but his family wealth would not be stretched to his war.
When they are done with him, they decide to erase him.
He gets pissed and bites the hand that feeds?
In the same way the US was behind Zia of Pakistan. When he was of no use, they bombed his plane.
Who supplied Saddam with weapons?
Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you...The US and this time, a helping hand from the U of K.
Libya...you see the pattern?