Dealing with Treason and Traitors

Wearing a bullet proof vest from memory.

 

someone who tells it as it is, good on you mate!

 

Howard is coresponsible for the killing of innocent Iraqis, stop lying!
Without this stupid war 100 of thousands would still be alive.

 

Without that war, so would Saddam Hussein. How many of his own people, and others would he have killed in the meantime?

 

They have killed MORE of themselves than the aussie,usa,uk troops have.

 

Yes he did tell us that he would introduce a GST but wouldn't give any details.

BTW what happened to getting rid of certain taxes if the GST was introduced what happened to lowering personal income tax??

Well yes, in a smaller way than Blair or Bush but the answer is yes because he bought into the propaganda.

 

True Saddam was a dictator no denying that, but the amount of people that he killed compared to the Bush-Blair_Howard reign is really small, still just as important though.

At least while he was in charge of oil it was cheaper, ever since the coalition took control petrol prices have never been the same.

And imo the real reason why they invaded Iraq the second time was because Saddam was coverting all his $US to Euros and told his customers that from now on trade will be in Euros.

First thing the yanks did was secure the oil fields and trade went back to $US dollars.

 

Hi efjay

Hey dude its the old "divide and conquer" theory being applied in Iraq.

Bristish commandos dressed as muslims killing people
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCxqLgWuiTA"]‪British Special Forces Caught In IRAQ posing as Arabs‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

There is no doubt that one of the reasons for the war is control of the oilfields, that is a given. Another is that bush jnr wanted to finish what bush snr had started...
There is no "real" solution to the war over there, the people themselves are so divided over their culture and religious issues that they will never fully be at peace.
thanks for the vid Dumb, i hadn't seen that before.

 

Less than with this war.
However, as with most dictators, Saddam was a bastard. That though doesn't legistimate this war. We have blood on our hands...

 

No we dont..

 

Yes we have!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It would be the same as if the Germans would deny their guilt for WW1 and WW2. They have learned to live with it, so should we.
Unfortunately it seems very unaustralian to some people to admit any mistakes...

 

sorry mate but we are never going to agree on this, but i have NO blood on my hands over the war.
And the war was not a mistake!

 

Anyone who believes that the coalition forces are in there (in Iraq) to establish a democracy for the people of Iraq are indeed in fairy land.

It’s more likely that the bankers want to secure the oil fields; they were probably the instigators of these wars because in the end they are the beneficiaries in more ways than one.

Their going to do the same thing with Libya and Gadafi, now again Gadafi is a dictator i'm not sticking up for him, but what gives the UN, US, NATO or any coalition forces the right to invade any country in the world that they may have a vested interest in.

That's what Hitler and his mates were all about, wasn't it??

I mean do you really think Britain France and all the other European nations would have attacked Germany if they had kept to them selves and not try and expand their borders?

Double standards are at work here and bankers through the manipulation of the UN, NATO and the US military and their financial terrorism activities are slowly taking over the whole world.

If this was a fair and just world then George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard would be war criminals responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

.

 

Couldn't agree more, good on you!

 

It doesn't stop a bullet in the head.

 

.....someone would have done something after Sadam gassed the Kurds?

 

ridiculous how some people justify a war, sitting at home without a clue far away from reality...

 

pot, kettle ...black.

 

What do mean Howard didn't give us all the details? Don't you remember all the discussions that took place with the Democrats? I don't know of anybody who was not sufficiently aware of the 'details' to make a rational decision prior to the Federal election. Anyone who didn't have sufficient command of the details, must have been either asleep or living in some far distant planet. The details given to the electorate regarding the GST by the Liberal Government, prior to the Federal election, is light years ahead of the information given to the electorate by the Labor Party regarding the Carbon Tax, because it was zilch! It was very sneaky as it waited until it had been elected and bedded by the Greens to show itsr true light and then told us what they had a new tax in store for us.

Compare that to the flood of information provided to the electorate regarding the GST by the then Liberal Government . And compare that to the disgraceful, sneaky manner in which this Federal Government is trying to ram through a new tax!

 

Please define "the national interest" because i have a quote from a rather famous economist that might make that awkward.

 

Oh come on, they are comparable in terms of info supplied at this point. The carbon tax has only recently been defined, what could they say?

The only thing i can remember from the GST is the chain ads.

 

Who? The US protected Iraq at that point.

It's not about justice, it's about 'national interest', or 'might makes right'.

 

While i agree with the broad sentiment here, it's not always just 'the banking clan' you know. I suggest broadening your tarred feather and include the numerous other corporations with demonstrated links to the US govenment and obvious profiteering from the war: Blackwater, Chevron, Carlisle etc etc..

 

My definition is based only on MY perception, and has no basis in reality.

Nation, being a land of people united by recognition of themselves as a unique State.

National Interest, being the common goal, property or business thereof.

Does you quote still apply? If so, please share.

You quoted me in my attempt to demonstrate that an act of real treason is possible, even when the law of the land is not broken.
My comment was meant to imply that treason against the people of a nation is committed by elected representatives, in a democracy,
and that they do not, therefore, represent you at all, but have other interests at heart, despite their privaledged and trusted positions.

Shortly after that, I made more postings, and requested that the subject be kept on topic, because this thread was getting sabotaged
by digression into the realms of children's fantasy, but it seems that I may have mistaken this forum for some fantastic ideal I had in
my mind, after all.