Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Interesting Observation By A US Citizen In UK  
User currently offlineSilverfox From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1568 times:

One of our customers from the US came in today and they asked me to name a country that


1) is being run by one party from top to bottom

2) Has a head of state who is not in the top ten of well liked leaders

3) the population has elected them in a 'fair' vote

4) Has weapons of mass destruction

5) Is willing to use them




I thought this was a loaded question so i answered very carefully 'You want me to say Iraq'



'No' was the reply. 'Its the US'. with that he turned and walked out of the store.

Is this man disillusioned with the latest election results?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16367 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

Obviously an angry, bitter, lonely, sad, broken man. Hope he has a nice trip to the UK!

 Big thumbs up




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineBlink182 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 5483 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1518 times:

Hey, I agree with the guy who said that. Smart man.

blink



Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
User currently offlineBmi330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1450 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Hes talking about the UK is he not?

User currently offlineSK A340 From Sweden, joined Mar 2000, 845 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1512 times:


First I want to say that I'm totally behind the US in the Iraq question. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who needs to be disarmed.

But:

The US man in the UK is right.

The US has weapons of mass destruction. What do you think Bush would say if Hussein demanded UN inspectors in the US?

And:
US is the only land that has used nuclear weapons against an enemy.

Again, I'm not supporting terrorists or terrorist states. This is just something I've been thinking about.



User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

4) Has weapons of mass destruction

5) Is willing to use them


Oh come on, this is such bullshit.

Under the right circumstances, every country with WMDs is "willing to use them".


TNNH


User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

I hate how countries are judged solely based on their governments. You know us Americans, we're out to get the world with our nukes. As a matter of fact, I have one in the back of my truck  Yeah sure. Do people hear what they're saying sometimes? However, I do agree with #1, 'tis not a good thing when there is one set of ideas dominating the gov't. I like the days when we had one party controlling the executive branch and the other major controlling congress. Perhaps a reincarnation of the Whig party to keep the GOPs in check, seeing that somehow the Dems have died?  Laugh out loud

Cheers
Mike


User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

1) is being run by one party from top to bottom

your little friend forgot about his third grade lesson on a concept called "checks & balances" and in particular these guys who sit in a building in washington called a "supreme court"





User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Yeah but atleast we don't have a Queen and Royal family, this butler is making them look bad.




Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yeah but atleast we don't have a Queen and Royal family, this butler is making them look bad.

But it's the queen and the royal family that bring in millions of american and japanese tourists here.  Big grin



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 1437 times:

Oh yes Arsenal, we all come to England to see the Queens excellent fashion sense.

User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks ago) and read 1433 times:

Well, these fools better watch what they say in front of us, they might not get a pleasant reaction.

http://www.pagesix.com/pagesix/pagesix.htm

MAVERICK director Larry Clark beat up the distributor for his movie "Ken Park" after the jerk declared that America deserved to get attacked on 9/11.



User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1425 times:

Well....I'm sure Bush would go to war the minute the UN lets him  Big grin


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineAdvancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1396 times:

Actually, if Saddam really has weapons of
mass destruction, it would be very unwise to
try and target Iraq.
Imagine what would happen if Bush bombs
a nucliar facility or a chemical/biological
weapns plant.
The interesting part is that at this time none
of Iraqs neighbors actually think Iraq or Saddam
is posing them a danger anymore.
Why is it just Bush pushing for this war?
Whatever that is I won't subscribe to anything.

Advanced


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8195 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1389 times:

TWANeedsHelp, the (Republican) Supreme Court you think is so great is the instrument that put Bush in the White House, despite losing the popular vote by 1,000,000 and possibly losing Florida as well. So much for "checks and balances".

Anyway Iraq is not perceived as a threat by any of it's neighbours, the Kuwaiti foreign minister and the Iraqi foreign minister hugged at the most recent Arab League conference in Beirut and Iraq's old enemy Iran is coming aboard the Good Ship Saddam as well. Not to say Saddam is a nice guy or whatever but he's hardly the world's no 1 threat. Not even in the Top 10, I mean North Korea has the BOMB for god's sake and all we know about Saddam is he MIGHT have a few of the chemicals Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney sold him in the 80s under Reagan / George I.

Meanwhile an assortment of Bin Laden's lot killed 3,000 Americans (and others) and have since caused some more destruction and nothing much is being done about that, but George II (with help from The Poodle) is hell-bent on making yet more enemies for America, which isn't a bad place at all, and is packed with kind, hard-working people who don't deserve a foreign policy that makes the rest of the world hate them.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKAUSpilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1963 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

How did the freaking supreme court put Bush in the white house? He won Florida, and thus won the majority of votes in the electoral college!!!!!

The supreme court told Florida that they'd have to recount all the votes in the state, not just those in the dem leaning counties if they wanted to have a recount at all, and the state elected not to. You LOST!!!!!!!!! Give it up already. The fact that there was no recount doesn't change the fact that Bush won.

And how can you say nothing is being done on the war on terror? The terrorists have effectively been kicked out of Afghanistan, but they've dispersed. The world is a big place, and one person is impossible to find when it mingles among 6 billion and may even be obliterated beyond anything that even resembles a human corpse for all we know. The way to measure our success in the war on terror is by looking at how many attacks terrorists have successfully carried out on US soil, not biting nails over weather or not Mr. X or Mr y is still alive or not. Guess what? There haven't been any more al Qaida attacks on US soil since the war on terror began. So we're winning, and winning decisively I might add.

PS: Bush's goal is a regime change in Iraq. What is wrong with this? I think almost everyone in the world would like to see Saddam out of power, it benefits trade, politics, and human rights among other things. If bush can figure out a way to do this with minimal loss of life and in a minimum amount of time, he should go for it. I trust him enough to hope he won't do something stupid; he won't make his move until he knows he can get it done quickly, decisively, and precisely.


User currently offlineSilverfox From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1365 times:

I might add that he did say it with a smile on his face.
Personally i dont give a monkeys what Saddam has or hasnt got. I dont believe for one minute, that most states don't have chemical weapons somewhere. Its the propoesed use of them. Besdies a few thoughts.
If there is a war.
The purpose would be to destroy the sites... Yes?

how can anybody catergorically say that by doing so IT WILL NOT RELEASE INTO THE AIR the very same viruses that they are trying to destroy, thus killing millions of people?


Another point. and this for the UK section readers
If, as Blair has said, along with mr 94IQ, if the UN stop short of war, he will go in anyway, do they realise that, as he has signed up the UK to the ICC, that all of our armed forces could be tried in the ICC court?
Of course, the US are smart. they didnt sign.......

Makes you think though.... and some good points raised


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29836 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

You know, reading that topic.

I can't help but wonder if those where the rabbleings of a distraught Scotsman named Neil.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

LOL! Yes, that is the reason we got to the UK...to see the Royal Family! Hil-arious!

The man in the shop is right. But, as far as having WMD and "willing to use them." Why else would you have them if you were not willing to use them? And I don't think the US would be too worried about UN weapons inspectors inspecting us. It's pretty obvious we have what we have and where it is.

IMHO, our real problem is our war mongering President. He is all too ready to send troops off to war without having ever served in one himself.

Jeremy



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineTwaneedsnohelp From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

The interesting part is that at this time none
of Iraqs neighbors actually think Iraq or Saddam
is posing them a danger anymore.


WTF? Are you out of your mind? The Arab world is very concerned about Iraq - they know hes a terrible danger, they just continue to dither and preoccupy themselves with uncertainty on how to remove this catastrophic danger.

the Kuwaiti foreign minister and the Iraqi foreign minister hugged at the most recent Arab League conference

Your really an idiot if you think that means anything in middle east politics.

TNNH


User currently offlineDelta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1298 times:

I wil just address this statement.... is being run by one party from top to bottom

The fact that the Republicans received a huge victory at the polls does not negate the fact that almost half the country is opposed to them -- the balance of power is quite thin, indeed. But the winner always gets to "run" the country.

How is this different from Europe? The parliamentary system gives the head of state function to the leader of the majority party -- thus, they run the government from "top to bottom" in that respect. If anything, the parliamentary system blurs the distinction between the legislative and executive branches, as the cabinet is composed of people chosen by the majority party leader. At least in the US, the people vote for these two branches separately.

Pete


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1285 times:

1) is being run by one party from top to bottom
Wrong. GOP only has a slim majority. In fact, I believe its tighter than ever.

2) Has a head of state who is not in the top ten of well liked leaders
Is this just an opinion? Where's the data?

3) the population has elected them in a 'fair' vote
It was fair. If you don't like that, ask your Congressman to lobby to change the Constitution.

4) Has weapons of mass destruction
No doubt about that. Go ahead and let the UN inspectors in. What treaty did we sign that mandated we don't have them?

5) Is willing to use them
As mentioned, what country with them isn't willing under certain circumstances?



"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineAPP From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1242 times:

Could Bush be going after Saddam to divert attention from the fact that he hasn't been able to get Bin Laden.
He should stick to one at a time!
APP.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Global Banking Question For US Student In UK posted Thu May 11 2006 12:31:40 by SmithAir747
Mexican: Let Me In-my Fetus Is US Citizen posted Wed Jul 28 2004 03:43:20 by EA CO AS
"Big Progress" In UK Honours Enquiry posted Thu Nov 16 2006 20:33:36 by Banco
Finger-printing Of US Citizens In Brazil posted Sat Nov 11 2006 15:30:51 by BOAC911
Boeing Disadvantaged By US Foreign Policy? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 09:05:11 by SSTsomeday
British Reporter Killed By US Marines posted Fri Oct 13 2006 21:32:50 by Cosec59
Numbers Of NCOs In US Army In Iraq posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:17:17 by Baroque
University Internet Charges In UK posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:55:44 by 9V
Blasts Heard At US Embassy In Damascus posted Tue Sep 12 2006 09:42:20 by Braybuddy
Appeasement: Why The US Is In Deep Trouble posted Wed Aug 23 2006 20:15:12 by Matt D