America & UK Inc.

[Xarog]

Murdoch has always been known to try and gain editorial control of anything he owns, including The Times which acts as a government mouth-piece.

He's also known as one of the major supporters of the War with Iraq on a personal level.

That is why the owner of the Wall Street Journal - forgot who it is - is trying to resist the buyout by Murdoch's company. Murdoch has always been known to act as a government mouthpiece because of his links.

Considering what you go on to say, this is incredibly rich.

However, as usual kilo39 and his liberal buddy Xarog, they have totally missed the boat. At least in the Western world they have free press (although it is been curtailed slowly by white-guilt government ministers and their Muslim buddies).

Oh, but when the government is in cahoots with select media figures to sell an illegal and unjustified war, then it's all free and above board!??!

I'd like to see a Middle Eastern country (besides Dubai and the UAE) that legitimately have even 1 "free" newspaper that isn't government controlled.

Irrelevant. That's entirely outside the scope of the thread, again. And just because it's crappy somewhere else doesn't make it OK if it's only 'slightly' bad on this side of the fence.

Why even bother? What does any of this have to do with you?

I guess you'd have to have a well-developed sense of empathy to understand.

I assume that as you are posting it on a South African forum, that you are in some way south African, either a citizen or living here.

My profile shows where I'm living.

If you are someone that is directly affected by this - i.e. living in Iraq or UK or USA, then fine.

I'm directly affected as a human being.

If your concern is about the media being a mouth peice and propoganda tool of the government, surely your effets could be better focused with worring about SA's media, and how they may / may not be tools of the government here.

If I was speaking on an ANC forum, or a forum where the majority of the members are ANC supporters who approve of the measures the ANC is taking, I'd agree. On this forum, however, it would simply be a case of preaching to the choir.

Sorry if I went off on a bit of a tangent here, but I am so sick and tired of people expecting thier governments and the western world in general (USA, UK in particular)

People here hold the western governments up as some shining beacon of perfection. That irks me somewhat and I've been vocal in the past about how stupid that is in various issues.

to be there saviours and protect them from the big bad terriorists and criminals and such and get scream and shout and throw their toys out the cot when they do something and heaven forbid get their hands dirty.

I'm not one of those. See, I actually think the terrorists do what they do because of stupid actions of the west, like the invasion of Iraq. Western intereference in the middle east has been ongoing for at least the last 50 years. Instead of blowing the whole place to kingdom come, I say the west shouldn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

 

[Xarog]

Bordering on treason?

So not wanting soldiers to needlessly die invading a country that, outside of the conservatives' fevered imaginations, posed no threat to them, is treason?

(Leaving aside for the moment alanf's tortured definition of liberal extremist.)

Don't forget that half the publications Murdoch owns is actually liberal according to Alan.

 

[chiskop]

No but misinforming and painting misleading stories to undermine their mission and putting their lives at greater risk differently does. Especially when so many "journalists" rely on these soldiers for their own safety while gathering their "stories" that drag the soldiers through the dirt.

Which stories would those be? the breathless ones about WMD, or the excited ones transcribed from the lips of Ahmed Chalabi?

Don't forget that half the publications Murdoch owns is actually liberal according to Alan.

Yeah, but alan's head in so confused when it comes to what's the liberal media that I thought I'd just leave it. CNN, WaPo ROFL.

Yeah so they obviously didn't get what they asked for . Oh wait isn't that strange considering Murdoch is supposedly conservative and in cohorts with Bush and Blair

Hint for alan: just because you think he's liberal, doesn't mean that he is. Nobody here is claiming that Murdoch is anything but conservative.

 

[Xarog]

Yeah so they obviously didn't get what they asked for .

They got exactly what they asked for. CNN et. al. were furiously beating the wardrums.

Oh yes what is Blair Is he a "neo con"?

No, just Bush's poodle.

 

[Xarog]

Bwahahahahaha

It's really no laughing matter. It's quite sad actually.

Perhaps you can elaborate?

Nah, I think I'll give your intelligence the benefit of the doubt this time.

 

[Alan]

It's really no laughing matter. It's quite sad actually.

True I shouldn't laugh at you, sorry.

Nah, I think I'll give your intelligence the benefit of the doubt this time.

C'mon don't cop-out now. Here's your chance to "enlighten" or can't you elaborate?

 

[Xarog]

True I shouldn't laugh at you, sorry.

Apology accepted.

As for why CNN was a pro-war drum beater :

When the CNN discussed the fact that the US was perhaps 'going it alone' without the consent of the UN (or rather while they were discussing it while I was watching), they mentioned the fact that there was some support for and opposition towards America invading Iraq. The commentator never actually mentioned which countries were on either side. Instead there was a nice little graphic display. On the right hand-side were 3 flags : France, Germany, Russia. On the left hand side there was a scrolling display of flags, which started with the US, UK, Israel, and then scrolled down showing *every* country which actually supported the US position, despite the fact that half of them are tiny little island nations who have their foreign policy decided by the US.

Nothing could demonstrate more clearly just how CNN was fudging the facts with a pro-war slant. If they were honestly anti-war they would have scrolled the 100 or so flags on the right side of all the nations that actually opposed the war, so as to avoid giving the impression that the majority of the world's population actually supported the US's actions.

C'mon don't cop-out now. Here's your chance to "enlighten" or can't you elaborate?

Ok, since we aren't giving your intelligence the benefit of the doubt, besides the fact that this is a commonly and widely known little factoid :

Blair made it part of his political career to be a close ally of the United States, and thus supported every political initiative that the white-house came up with. Thus, his own personal political beliefs are rendered irrelevant.

Just go look at all the Zapiro cartoons where Blair is next to Bush, depicted as Mini-me. Or do a google search for "Blair" and "poodle".

 

[Alan]

Apology accepted.

As for why CNN was a pro-war drum beater :

When the CNN discussed the fact that the US was perhaps 'going it alone' without the consent of the UN (or rather while they were discussing it while I was watching), they mentioned the fact that there was some support for and opposition towards America invading Iraq. The commentator never actually mentioned which countries were on either side. Instead there was a nice little graphic display. On the right hand-side were 3 flags : France, Germany, Russia. On the left hand side there was a scrolling display of flags, which started with the US, UK, Israel, and then scrolled down showing *every* country which actually supported the US position, despite the fact that half of them are tiny little island nations who have their foreign policy decided by the US.

Nothing could demonstrate more clearly just how CNN was fudging the facts with a pro-war slant. If they were honestly anti-war they would have scrolled the 100 or so flags on the right side of all the nations that actually opposed the war, so as to avoid giving the impression that the majority of the world's population actually supported the US's actions.

You got anything more "solid" perhaps?

Ok, since we aren't giving your intelligence the benefit of the doubt, besides the fact that this is a commonly and widely known little factoid :

Blair made it part of his political career to be a close ally of the United States, and thus supported every political initiative that the white-house came up with. Thus, his own personal political beliefs are rendered irrelevant.

Just go look at all the Zapiro cartoons where Blair is next to Bush, depicted as Mini-me. Or do a google search for "Blair" and "poodle".

Yeah if you happen to be left of center . So why did Blair decide to become so close an alley? Why would he throw away his personal political beliefs. Was he personally against the Iraq war?

Perhaps he went all puppy eyed lovingly dazing at his "master" the first time he saw Bush. Maybe there is evidence to back up this claim with a pic of him shagging Bush's leg or Bush following him around with a poop scoop

 

[Xarog]

You got anything more "solid" perhaps?

No. Ignore it if you want.

Yeah if you happen to be left of center . So why did Blair decide to become so close an alley? Why would he throw away his personal political beliefs. Was he personally against the Iraq war?

Who knows?

And you seem to think that only rightwingers could have supported this war. There were plenty self-proclaimed liberal Jewish-Americans who were rabid war supporters.

Again this false dichotomy. It really gets tiresome.

Perhaps he went all puppy eyed lovingly dazing at his "master" the first time he saw Bush. Maybe there is evidence to back up this claim with a pic of him shagging Bush's leg or Bush following him around with a poop scoop

Nah, just the fact that he ruined his own political career by supporting Bush's little 'excursion'.

 

[Alan]

Who knows?

And you seem to think that only rightwingers could have supported this war. There were plenty self-proclaimed liberal Jewish-Americans who were rabid war supporters.

Again this false dichotomy. It really gets tiresome.

You don't believe he too was in it for the oil? Perhaps he believed in bringing liberty to Iraq and enforcing U.N resolutions nevermind Saddam taking shoots at U.K aircraft. Or is that an "inconviniant truth"?

Nah, just the fact that he ruined his own political career by supporting Bush's little 'excursion'.

Again why would he sacrifice his political carrer?

One thing he did prove, he isn't a populist.

 

[Xarog]

You don't believe he too was in it for the oil?

I don't see any contracts given out to UK companies whose owners are cronies of Blair, so I doubt it. Anything's possible I suppose.

Perhaps he believed in bringing liberty to Iraq

Nope.

enforcing U.N resolutions

By violating them!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

nevermind Saddam taking shoots at U.K aircraft.

That were enforcing the no-fly zones which the french pulled out of on the grounds that they were 'barberous'? Or are these some other UK aircraft?

Or is that an "inconviniant truth"?

Doesn't look like it.

Again why would he sacrifice his political carrer?

Because he's a [-]toady[/-] poodle?

One thing he did prove, he isn't a populist.

Aye, he'd much rather lie to the public at large trying to sell a war that's only in the interest of a few well-connected well-funded elite.

 

[kilo39]

effing hipp.... no i won't go there.

No lets. You are admitting your bias before you even start. In itself should cause some internal questioning, for instance: what do you have against hippies? Are you equally prejudiced towards other people? Are your views excessively rightwing, for instance: do you believe you are superior to other people, for instance, hippies, muslims; or even (god-forbid) black people??! Is your [-]natural[/-] bias influencing other areas of your life, for instance: your political view (or your views on an illegal war?!) Is your [-]natural[/-] bias such that you cannot form a objective opinion because your subjective reality is so influenced by your fundamental prejudice? For instance against hippies (or perhaps against any opinion that differs from yours?) I advise that you look into those dark corners of your morality and opinion and not curtail yourself when your natural prejudice comes to life, ie, your curtailed comment on hippies!

I cannot believe the utter stupidity of this post. So Mr Bliar and Mr Murdoch had a few converstations before the start of the war. So what?

What were they discussing that is so secret? If it was/is such a minor thing why did it take numerous requests under the freedom of information act to ascertain the calls had even taken place? No, in a western nation that proscribes western ideals it is unacceptable that a certain part of the media gets briefings, plans or any other detail that is not freely available to all elements of the media (at least) nevermind the right to know of the general public when their sons and daughters are dying in an illegal war! Not to forget this caused "the very questionable suicide of a british scientist who balked at these reports of wmd." [source] These phone calls make a blasphemy of the free press and the supposed 'free society.'

Do you know what they spoke of? Where you listening? Maybe it was simple conversations between to mates. Ok probably not, but we will never know.

Why will you never know? Yes phone calls on the state of the golf course preceding a major illegal invasion on falsely created evidence presented to the united nations (this in itself is leaning towards fascism.)

Nice sources.. decidely biased against the government, but I guess you have to start somewhere right? I am sorry but sites like that don't count much as reliable witnesses, imo.

Apologies for the sources (though in terms of the greater internet Rawstory qualifies as a legitimate source.) Here are the two stories again presented by what would be considered legitimate sources:

My quote:
"The unit would monitor U.S. and foreign press reports and highlight stories that were 'missing key elements,'" he writes. "It then would quickly send information to congressional and press contacts 'so people could see the rest of the story.'"
[source]
Headline: Pentagon kills Rumsfeld 'propaganda' unit Michael Roston
Published: Friday July 13, 2007 (rawstory)

Here is the unit from a 'legitimate' source:

Pentagon unit defied CIA advice to justify Iraq war
. 'Alternative' agency set up to link Saddam to al-Qaida
· Mainstream intelligence was cast aside, Senate told
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian

An "alternative intelligence" unit operating at the Pentagon in the run-up to the war on Iraq was dedicated to establishing a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, even though the CIA was unconvinced of such a connection, the US Senate was told yesterday.
A report presented to the armed services committee by the Pentagon's inspector general, Thomas Gimble, exposes the Bush administration to new charges of manipulating intelligence to make its case for going to war against Saddam nearly four years ago.

As is the rawstory is quite clear:

Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates has scrapped an institution established by his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld to rapidly counter messages in the press that the Pentagon considered negative, according to a report in Friday's Washington Times.

The other:

My quote:
and sponsoring terrorism:

"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.
[source]

Same story from the direct source (ie, legitimate mainstream media)

ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran

SO in reference to your claim my sources are not legitimate; the guardian and abc news certainly count as legit! (and notably not part of the murdoch group!)

Oh no you didn't not the f word. Maybe you should explain that. Seems not everyone agrees on what it means. Most of the definitions I have seen (wiki) certainly don't look anything like what Bush has done... in fact in many cases the total opposite. Or maybe you mean it has George Owell refers to it here....

...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

Aah quoting George Orwell. Joke not. Notes article was written in 1944, ie, if there was clear evidence of fascism it certainly existed then and no it didn't include (your list) so yes Orwell was right however he would not be wrong on George Bush.

Why do I apply the label?

Invading countries 'on a whim' certainly counts as fascist.
Curtailing freedom of speech and right to innocence is certainly fascist [source]
Kidnapping people off the street (in foreign countries!) and holding them without trial is certainly fascist. (Links if you wish!)
The institution of torture is certainly fascist
Spying on americans and the world at large is certainly fascist (and more so when concordant law is there to justify their kidnapping and torture!)
Printing propaganda and lies is certainly fascist!
I'm sure I could find more on my list!!

Not to forget fueling a global war against "terrorists," the Islamofascists and any other invented labels (is certainly fascist and newspeak, doublethink!)

So yes the government of George Bush and its influence on other governments in the world (not least ours) is fascist and not something we want in the world today!

Says who? What proof of this? The Santa Clause is not real is a lie.

I will concede that the way this whole situation has been handled is wrong, but then again Saddam, showed that he is willing to invade other countries and oppress people. The only reason this happened now and not back in 90/91 was because the leaders back then either did not have the balls or where wise enough to know that Saddam was what was holding stablity in Iraq, and they knew removing him whould have been messy.

A naive viewpoint to say the least.

Why even bother? What does any of this have to do with you? I assume that as you are posting it on a South African forum, that you are in some way south African, either a citizen or living here. If you are someone that is directly affected by this - i.e. living in Iraq or UK or USA, then fine. If your concern is about the media being a mouth peice and propoganda tool of the government, surely your effets could be better focused with worring about SA's media, and how they may / may not be tools of the government here.

Yes it directly relates to the SA government and everybody's freedom in general. I point you at one case, ie, 'kidnapped and deported illegally on SA soil only to be released months later found innocent and no charge!!

Has Rashid disappeared again?
July 08 2007 at 12:22PM
By Juggie Naran

A veil of secrecy again surrounds the whereabouts of Khalid Mehmood Rashid, released this week after being abducted two years ago from his Estcourt home and then secretly sent to Pakistan.

What followed was months of court action by his family and denials from the South African government, which later admitted involvement in his "rendition".

And many similar cases. So yes it affects you and everybody concerned with personal freedom!

Sorry if I went off on a bit of a tangent here, but I am so sick and tired of people expecting thier governments and the western world in general (USA, UK in particular) to be there saviours and protect them from the big bad terriorists and criminals and such and get scream and shout and throw their toys out the cot when they do something and heaven forbid get their hands dirty.

The big bad terriorists and criminals? Pray tell: how do you arrive at this view?

(more and any posts to follow)

 

[kilo39]

Big surprise there

Murdoch has always been known to try and gain editorial control of anything he owns, including The Times which acts as a government mouth-piece. That is why the owner of the Wall Street Journal - forgot who it is - is trying to resist the buyout by Murdoch's company. Murdoch has always been known to act as a government mouthpiece because of his links.

However, as usual kilo39 and his liberal buddy Xarog, they have totally missed the boat. At least in the Western world they have free press (although it is been curtailed slowly by white-guilt government ministers and their Muslim buddies). I'd like to see a Middle Eastern country (besides Dubai and the UAE) that legitimately have even 1 "free" newspaper that isn't government controlled.

This is completely beside the point. So what are you saying, that we should subscribe to 'middle-eastern press ideals?'

Point of opening post was/is: no contrary to opinion we do not have a free-press (or rather a very small one.) Primarily because the largest media group in the world is Murdoch Inc.!! This same murdoch inc which is discussing policy and moves with Blair government to the exclusion of all other media! (If that isn't 'middle eastern' tell me what is?)

I have to agree, wasn't the western media that brought up no weapons of mass destruction and much more?

Similarly it was western media (primarily Fox News and the Murdoch Group) that crushed the opinions of Scott Ritter and the consensus on WMD (before the war!) It was Fox News etal that promoted the war and WMD in the first place! Any other opinion was crushed as left-wing liberalism; exactly as here!

 

[Alan]

I don't see any contracts given out to UK companies whose owners are cronies of Blair, so I doubt it. Anything's possible I suppose.

So probably not oil

Nope.

Why not?

By violating them!? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah your comment is as joke .

That were enforcing the no-fly zones which the french pulled out of on the grounds that they were 'barberous'? Or are these some other UK aircraft?

Nope those are the ones. Then again you probably thought poor Saddam was having his "sovereignty" encroached on

Because he's a [-]toady[/-] poodle?

Still can't dredge up anything better. Was Howard and the leaders of those other countries "poodles" as well.

Aye, he'd much rather lie to the public at large trying to sell a war that's only in the interest of a few well-connected well-funded elite.

Oh is that why he did it. So he was in with the elite was he. You didn't 'see" him give U.K companies conctracts though

 

[Xarog]

Why not?

Because any idiot could see it was going to end up the way it has now. You don't invade nations and 'make' them free.

Yeah your comment is as joke .

Well, since you're refusing to debate the issue on it's merits and instead resorting to snide remarks, I'll respond in kind :

Nice engrish.

Nope those are the ones. Then again you probably thought poor Saddam was having his "sovereignty" encroached on

Well, seeing as they were routinely bombing water treatment plants and so forth, I'd have to say shooting at them was entirely justified.

Still can't dredge up anything better. Was Howard and the leaders of those other countries "poodles" as well.

Howard looks more like an Islamophobe.

Oh is that why he did it.

Nope. Got a comprehension problem?

So he was in with the elite was he.

Not what I said.

You didn't 'see" him give U.K companies conctracts though

Yup.

 

[kilo39]

Maybe they asked for balanced coverage as opposed to the liberal extremist propaganda spewed by other news agencies. So biased towards undermining the war that it is bordering on treason frankly.

Bordering on treason? Wow. So now having an opinion backed by legitimate news sources is bordering on treason? Listen to yourself FFS!

Again. For the umpteenth time: The war is a lie! Colin Powell LIED to the UN on falsely created evidence. This LIE has caused the death of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of civilians. What don't you understand? Hitler was a saint by comparison! And here you are accusing people of treason!

No but misinforming and painting misleading stories to undermine their mission and putting their lives at greater risk differently does. Especially when so many "journalists" rely on these soldiers for their own safety while gathering their "stories" that drag the soldiers through the dirt.

It makes no sense to claim "not wanting soldiers to needlessly die" then go out of your way to make their chance of surviving a small as possible.

Misinforming? If the media (or anybody else) is misinforming what would you classify LIES to the UN?

Putting soldiers lives at risk? Look to yourself for placing them there on the basis of lies then do something about it instead of decrying the truth (and supporting the regime of GB.)

Yeah so they obviously didn't get what they asked for . Oh wait isn't that strange considering Murdoch is supposedly conservative and in cohorts with Bush and Blair

Oh yes what is Blair Is he a "neo con"?

I never said Murdoch is liberal. Just because you think CNN (whatever you think they are) doesn't mean they are. As I asked earlier what is Blair?

Perhaps you can elaborate?

You got anything more "solid" perhaps?

Yeah if you happen to be left of center. So why did Blair decide to become so close an alley? Why would he throw away his personal political beliefs. Was he personally against the Iraq war?

Perhaps he went all puppy eyed lovingly dazing at his "master" the first time he saw Bush. Maybe there is evidence to back up this claim with a pic of him shagging Bush's leg or Bush following him around with a poop scoop

You don't believe he too was in it for the oil? Perhaps he believed in bringing liberty to Iraq and enforcing U.N resolutions nevermind Saddam taking shoots at U.K aircraft. Or is that an "inconviniant truth"?

Again why would he sacrifice his political carrer?

One thing he did prove, he isn't a populist.

Blair came to power on a populist vote. Blair was sustained in power by that same populist vote. That the british public is misinformed is laid directly at the feet of Murdoch Inc (ie, the purpose of this thread) and the lying, false intelligence reports created by the Blair government. I point you to this post for >proof< of the lies.

U.N resolutions? There are no UN resolutions when those resolutions are formed on the basis of lies and inflamed public opinion (thanks to the like of Murdoch Inc. and the warmongering of the bush and blair governments.)

No-fly zones? Were never sanctioned by the UN and were illegal in terms of any law except those made up by the bush/blair administration.

As to the question, is Blair a neocon? As my posts suggest neocon is too kind a term (fascist would be more like it.) Why? To impose that same Orwellian state concurrent with America through sanctioned speech, false media, illegal arrest and imprisonment including torture. Why? To impose their Orwellian world of "war is peace, and continuous war is conducive to the bottom line of media giants like Murdoch and the industrial military regime epitomised by Dick Cheney." When all dissent is crushed and the news is "created and manipulated" then illegal invasion of countries becomes possible and any atrocity is shrugged off! Exactly as here. So look to yourselves while people suffer torture at this moment!

Who is the beast?

 

[Alan]

Because any idiot could see it was going to end up the way it has now. You don't invade nations and 'make' them free.

It's still a long way from the end hence it is to early to judge.


Germany and Japan apart obviously

Well, since you're refusing to debate the issue on it's merits and instead resorting to snide remarks, I'll respond in kind :

Nice engrish.

It was perfectly clear they never violated any U.N resolution so you must have been joking

Well, seeing as they were routinely bombing water treatment plants and so forth, I'd have to say shooting at them was entirely justified.

Really?

Howard looks more like an Islamophobe.

Oh okay so Bush is in it for oil, Blair is in it because he is a "poodle" but you are not sure why he is one and Howard is an Islamophope. Any other leaders in it for either of those reasons or perhaps a completely different one?

Nope. Got a comprehension problem?


Not what I said.

So why would he sell "lies" to the public for a war that only benifits the elite?

 

[Xarog]

It's still a long way from the end hence it is to early to judge.

That's what they said in Vietnam.

It was perfectly clear they never violated any U.N resolution so you must have been joking.

Sorry. Quite correct you are. They didn't violate any U.N resolutions, just the goddamned UN CHARTER. In case you didn't notice, it's illegal for UN members to declare war on and invade other member nations without the consent of the UN as a whole.

Really?

I tell you what, if you really want to know for sure one way or the other, go look it up for yourself. Go find out why the french withdrew.

Oh okay so Bush is in it for oil, Blair is in it because he is a "poodle" but you are not sure why he is one and Howard is an Islamophope. Any other leaders in it for either of those reasons or perhaps a completely different one?

Oh, I'm sure you're just simply jumping up and down to tell the version you like, so why don't you stop beating around the bush?

So why would he sell "lies" to the public for a war that only benifits the elite?[/QUOTE]
Because he'd aligned himself politically with Bush.

 

[Alan]

That's what they said in Vietnam.

And WW2, Korea.....

Sorry. Quite correct you are. They didn't violate any U.N resolutions, just the goddamned UN CHARTER. In case you didn't notice, it's illegal for UN members to declare war on and invade other member nations without the consent of the UN as a whole.

It was legal under international law like it or not

I tell you what, if you really want to know for sure one way or the other, go look it up for yourself. Go find out why the french withdrew.

I want to hear your version.

Oh, I'm sure you're just simply jumping up and down to tell the version you like, so why don't you stop beating around the bush?

Did you not say that?

Because he'd aligned himself politically with Bush.

You still can't explain why he did that

 

[Xarog]

It was legal under international law like it or not

Bullsh!t.

I want to hear your version.

It's the one you'll find after some dilligent research.

You still can't explain why he did that

Yeah, my crystal ball broke last week, sorry.