If they all think like this!!!

[Gumbo]

You missed a [

Blame weeks of debugging a programming project for spotting it.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by furofknight


frenchy - So. why do the British care, you have 'your' North Sea oil. Its just your country constantly defying the EU and running to the aide of your freinds the Americans.

This comment is also quite interesting, the bit about "defying the EU".

I actually quite like the idea of the EU, and see these kind of things as a way of getting a united world government, the type you see in sci-fi movies, although i dont think this will happen for a LONG LONG time).

The problem I have with the EU is the amount of influence the French have. The French see the EU as a way of increasing Their power and influence and getting one over on the US. It was Chirac, I beleive, who was quoted as saying "The European Union is a great thing, it will allow the great voice of France to be heard around the world" . That sends chills down my spine. The French are pissed at us because in order for the EU to really stand they need our economy in it, but they still want a more defining voice than us in the overall picture. They see our "defiance" over full integration as a threat to their future "superpower" status and as a sign of things to come, it worries them that we prefer to support the US over them, especially as France intends the EU to conflict and compete directly with the US.

In all honesty id like see an EU that can compete with the US, but not out of a desire to beat the US, as the French *seem* to have, but just so that there is a better balance of power in the world. I think the real thing that scares most of Britain away from integration, is the thought of being integrated with France, id bet money that if France dropped out, never to return, wed be far more likely to join. And I, an ardent patriot, would actually be happy for it to happen.

 

[Wij]

Personally I find the national attitudes of most of Europe very annoying. I'd like to ally with all the scandanavian countries and the dutch Oh, Portugese are quite cool too.

The rest can be broken off and moved to the arctic

 

[Sir Frizz]

Originally posted by Wij
Damn - I change my vote to prime1

Oh, and lojik is correct. The French were in vietnam before the yanks. At least that's what I gathered from Apocalypse Now Redux

Also in We Were Soldiers with good 'ole Mel. Two films can't be wrong, can they?

 

[Trem]

Yes I agree with you about the Scandinavians Wij, but the Portugese........I dont think so, I cant stand their footballers, Figo is a fairy.

 

[prime1]

Well two films can be wrong, but as someone corrected me in another forum, vietnam was a French problem that the US got invovled with for a number of reasons (noticeabley after the French had bottled it . again. )

 

[Shocko]

Yes, French Indo China was a french collony... America stepped in when the people rebelled against the French colonial rule, and the communists looked like winning. A great example of the US invading a country because it doesn't like their government.

It's exactly the same in Iraq. The US doesn't like there being regimes in the world that don't like the US, so when it sees Iraq, the history of the place, and the potential to lie that Iraq was connected to al'Qaida, it can't resist it


Prime1, you point out why it's in the interests of France for there to be no war, you claim that the US doesn't need Iraqi oil(Allthough we all know that they wouldn't mind having it, to say the least ), yet you still can't say why we should attack Iraq. As previously stated by someone else, the US has no interest in the moral reasons for an attack. There are plenty of countrys around the world that have done things, and do things, as evil as Iraq's actions(IE gassing kurds or whatever), and the US either ignores them, or supports them(Isreal).

The simple fact is, the US wants to have full control of the world - They don't want people saying what they can and can't do, they don't want people capable of threatening them. Now the obvious powers such as China, Russia and Europe are out of reach - None of these powers could fight with each other due to their capabilities to destroy each and the rest of the world with them.

As for the trade war, well the EU was given the right to impose over a billion quids worth of sanctions nearly a month ago, but to my knowledge, is holding them back in the hope that America will see sense. Fat chance

 

[stu]

Incidentally, the chances of Iraq ever directly supporting or funding Al Qaeda or any Islamic Fundamentalist group are somewhere below zero. Saddam hates the fundamentalists, as do most of the Iraqi people - they engaged in a long and bitter war against Iran over that very issue. Saddam is a Sunni - fundamentalists are Shi-ite (waiting for the first idiot to make a joke there). The chances of him getting into bed (metaphorically) with Osama is about as likely as the Protestants and the Catholics in Ireland teaming up.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by stu
Incidentally, the chances of Iraq ever directly supporting or funding Al Qaeda or any Islamic Fundamentalist group are somewhere below zero ...

I seem to remember Saddam offfering "blood money" to the families of those involved in suicide bombings, also whilst many fundies are Shi'ite, like Hezbolla for example, Osama is Sunni.

As for "most of the Iraqi" people, well 2/3 are actually Shi'ite, the government is basically of a minority religion.

The Sunni-Shi'ite divide within Islam is largely misleading, different islamic countries have different "brands" of Islam, varied in their approach to Shiara law. Iraq is more a "nationalistic islam", whereas Saudi Arabia is a very strict form of Islam called "wahhabism", countries like Turkey and Indonesia treat Islam in a religious way rather than a means of law.

 

[Mavoric]

Originally posted by Shocko
Yes, French Indo China was a french collony... America stepped in when the people rebelled against the French colonial rule, and the communists looked like winning. A great example of the US invading a country because it doesn't like their government.

And it was so good after the Americans pulled out and the communists took over that over 1 million Vietnamese risked their lives to escape mainly in small over crowded boats on the stormy South China Sea.
Guess which country they wanted to go to?

 

[James-]

Originally posted by Shocko
Yes, French Indo China was a french collony... America stepped in when the people rebelled against the French colonial rule, and the communists looked like winning. A great example of the US invading a country because it doesn't like their government.

Also due to some fucked up theory called the Domino Theory, in which some US Politician decided that if Vietnam fell to Communism, so would the surrounding countries. Burma, Surinam, Indonesia et al (if my geography serves me correctly). It was to stop the spread of Communism, as opposed to invading a country simply because the US took a disliking to the government.

Apocalypse Now rules as well.

[edit: My history might be a bit wrong, the holocaust is the only thing I really paid attention to, and I got an E in World History at GCSE, ho hum.]

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by Mavoric


And it was so good after the Americans pulled out and the communists took over that over 1 million Vietnamese risked their lives to escape mainly in small over crowded boats on the stormy South China Sea.
Guess which country they wanted to go to?

Right you fucktard, i allready know you're full of bs from the recent 11sept thread, however i'll make one point:
The reason why the conflict, commonly known as the Vietnam war, broke out, was because the Americans made promises that they didn't keep. I believe there were actually 2 previous conflicts/rebellions before the proper war, however after the 2nd one, which was solved by diplomacy, the Americans agreed to let the Vietnamese people decide what they wanted. The North was left in control of the people's party, and a puppet leader was installed in the South.

There was to be a refferendum, as to what the Vietnamese wanted, at which point the whole country would move under the control of which government the people wanted. Except it never happened. After the Americans were sure the heat from the rebellion had cooled down, they just ignored the place, happy to leave their puppet leader in control of the South. After it dawned on the communists that the US were lying and there was to be no free election, they invaded the South, which was still under the control of the American puppet.

Vietnam is the perfect example of what's wrong with American foreign policy:
They got involved with the place initially, during the revolt against the colonial french rule, for no reason other than the fact that they didn't want to let the people have the government that they wanted.
They blatantly lied, in order to stop the rebellion, making promises that they broke without evening caring.
They put a puppet leader in control.
They then started a full scale war against the Vietnamese.
When they lost this war, they pulled out and shut up. Has vietnam spread communism throughout Asia? Bollocks has it, and so what if it did.
Americans to this day don't understand what the war was about, and think that it was just.
Americans to this day claim that they never lost the war.

The British PM refused to send British troops to be killed in Vietnam - Proof that going against the US standpoint can be very effective(ie not look stupid losing a war to a load of peasants).

 

[doh_boy]

scarily I'm in the same boat as james(weren't you called manc? must be something to do with the history syllibus in manchester!)
I was told quite a lot about the situation but couldn't be arsed... E for me too

I thought it was quite funny, Bush says we want war and to excuse us for doing so we gonna demand the inspectors go in(something you very recently claimed you would never do). So just to piss the world off some, saddam says "yes sure bring them in!" Then america, in all their wisdom, instead of waiting until it all goes pair-shaped they say nonononono(like that car insurance ad) we actually meant dis-armament. (Que the americans putting on an "innocent" face)

It's funny how childish the situation looks, until you realise it could lead to a hell of a lot of people loosing their lives

ps eep depressed again, and not mellows fault this time!

 

[doh_boy]

Originally posted by Shocko

Americans to this day claim that they never lost the war.

Really??



me-> <- Americans(at least the ones who think the above, since I've met a rather enchanting one from new orleans )

 

[Mavoric]

Originally posted by Shocko
(ie not look stupid losing a war to a load of peasants).

How many Vietnamese have you actually met?
Have you met any of the Vietnamese who fled Viet Nam during that time?
Have you ever gone to any of the peoples houses who fled Viet Nam and ended up living in the UK during that time sat down for a meal with them stayed over night as their guest and been introduced to their friends?
Have you ever heard how things were in Viet Nam first hand during and after the Viet Nam war and when the communists took over?
Do you know what actually happened to people when the communists took over?
Well I can answer yes to all those what about you?

 

[Nos-]

Didn't tell you how to spell Vietnam though did they!

 

[Furr]

ohhhhhhh lots of stimulating debate, i feel proud to have started it.

 

[Shocko]

So, you've met a couple of Vietnamese chaps, and they told you the communist government is evil, and Ho Chi Min is the great satan?

I could find people who've fled from Britain, who would damn our government to hell. They'd proberbly be criminals on the run, or millionaires dodging tax, however they'd be there. You think that hearing the oppinions of a small number of Vietnamese, clues you up on Vietnam? Bollocks does it.

Now, go sit in a corner, and chant "I am a dickless cunt, and i shall never again attempt to get involved with a serious debate" over and over

 

[Mavoric]

The thing was they all went about visiting their friends all over the UK and i went with them so 20 + families = a couple of chaps?

What do you know at your age you balls probably have not dropped yet.

 

[Wij]

Shocko - sometimes you take your self-righteousness to a previously unthought of level

Oh and cama is right about the Sunni / Shi'ite thing. It's very much a side issue. I know Sunnis and Shi'ites and they get on fine and always tell me that the difference is not important to them.

Terrorists come form all faiths, Sunni, Shi'ite, Catholic, Protestant, whatever...

As far as I remember most Shi'ites are located in Iran and surrounding areas. Most of the rest of the middle-east is Sunni.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by Mavoric
The thing was they all went about visiting their friends all over the UK and i went with them so 20 + families = a couple of chaps?

Ok, let's assume that there were 25 families. Now, lets assume this meant there were about 200 of them in total.

Now tell me, is 200 a big number? No, it's a pitifully small number, and in terms of populations(of Vietnam), it is indeed a equivlant to a couple

Yes, i know i do Wij, but i can't help it... When people say stuff that's a lie, or deliberately deceiving, i can't help but rant Allthough there's nothing wrong with self-righteousness... If i wasn't sure enough that my oppinions are correct, they wouldn't be my oppinions - No body is going to believe something that they know isn't right(except religous types - they lie to themselves), and the likes of Mavoric, who can be so blatantly narrow minded... I can't help but argue passionately! Or at least i can't when i have nothing else to do

 

[Mavoric]

Over 1 million left that a couple also?

Words from some of those who did leave

http://www.boatpeople.com/

http://boatpeople.org/

 

[Lester]

Eating dogs is bang wrong

 

[prime1]

Uve got to remember in any of these posts that Shocko hates the US, and has gone out of his way to find as many viewpoints as possible to support his own theory. Whilst totally ignoring any other viewpoints. His compelte dismissal of fisrt hand evidence provided by those who were there shows that he is not willing to actualy get invovled ina debate. His abusive retorts are also the sign of someone who cannot debate a point properly.

He is not willing to accept that America has ever done anything good for the world, im sure hed argue till blue in the face that America had some evil intention when fighting the Nazis in WW2. Apprently everything they do is for some evil reason, and that the majority of Americans are evil personified.

Most people will accept that the US has made mistakes, and that nothing is perfect, but most people also realise that the US's heart is in teh right place, and that it is doing what it beleives is best for the world. I will pit this point again. No-one knows what the situation would be now if America had not gotten involved in these hot spots. Noone knows what the world would be like if the threat of american intervention over such hotspots wasnt there. My belief is that the situation would be far worse than it is now. America has made mistakes, handled situations poorly, but i do beleive that its intentions were in the right place.

Russia propped up that rebellion, and it is not the US's responsiblity to put on elections in another country. The norths reaction to their being no election was to invade the democratic southern state. To me that says that the North would only have accepted the election result if it had gone in their favour, they were hardly likely to turn over control of the North state that they had just won based on a vote. There are reasons why the US would not have put on the vote, its usually a delaying tactic in the hope of avoiding full scale war and defusing the situation.

A similar situation developed in Korea, and if it wasnt for the intervention of the US led colaition there, the democratic south would have fallen to the comunist North, against their will. I think Shocko beleives that the US should not have gotten invovled there either, and that the south should have been forced in to communism as well.

With regards to comparing Iraq to Isreal, that is plain crap. Israel has not used chemical weapons against innocent civillians. The kurds have not instigated a terror campaign against Iraqi civillians. The Israel actions are arguably wrong, but they are not without reason (pre emptive defense of their civilians and revenge). I beleive that in Israel, both sides are equally responsible, wheras in Iraq the responsibility for what happened lies squarely on the shoulders of Saddam.

As for these "far worse" regimes that Saddams, please name one that can be intervened in? - In fact name any that are worse now. The US would get far worse flak for getting involved somewhere new, just because there was a nasty regime there, than for the large number of reasons that validate intervention in Iraq. Iraq is a regime that something CAN be done about.

The fact that before Saddam decided to let in the inspectors the international community was coming round the US arguments shows that there was something there - even hardline anti war states like Saudi Arabia changed their position. Despite what was claimed the weapons inspections have not actually been offered without restrictions, apprently Saddam wants "hospitols" to be exempt from any inspections etc.

As brought to light recently in Black Hawk Down, the US tried to get involved in Somalia for the RIGHT reasons and they got their fingers severely burned because the region was simply not quellable. Its all very well removing a regime but there HAS to a better regime to put in power, in some countries there simply isnt an obvious alternative, to go in would be interpreted for the wrong reasons (invasion, or simply to make it a new US state).

I beleive Shocko said in a previous post that he wished another september 11th type event on America, this for me sums up and totally nullifies his arguments as he is clearly driven by his blind hatred/jealousy (?) or juvenile desire for rebellion (he seems to avidly beleive and search out for conspiracy theories). Plus its cool not to conform with the "normal" view that the US is really OK, its just not as good as it thinks.

 

[Will]

I can't be bothered to get involved, but...how can the southern state be democratic if they aren't holding elections?

 

[throdgrain]

I think its all quite simple really. The Americans are the biggest most powerful nation, so they get to boss people around. We did it for a long time, but now its the Yanks turn. Sad but true.
The French havent really had much influence since 1815, and personally I think thats a good thing.
Whoever said by the way that they use the EU for thier own benefit/self advancement is quite right imo, they appear to have the idea that you can have as many rules as you like , and everyone should adhere to them, but that they can just ignore whatever dont suit.

 

[FatBusinessman]

Originally posted by prime1 With regards to comparing Iraq to Isreal, that is plain crap. Israel has not used chemical weapons against innocent civillians.[/B]

However, they have used these little beauties against Palestinian civilians...

Apologies for Embattle-style BBC link postage...

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by prime1
Russia propped up that rebellion, and it is not the US's responsiblity to put on elections in another country. The norths reaction to their being no election was to invade the democratic southern state. To me that says that the North would only have accepted the election result if it had gone in their favour, they were hardly likely to turn over control of the North state that they had just won based on a vote. There are reasons why the US would not have put on the vote, its usually a delaying tactic in the hope of avoiding full scale war and defusing the situation.

The southern state wasn't a democracy - Noone voted for the bloke in power, he was appointed by the US(to act as a puppet). The reason why the US was responcible for an election, was because they'd got involved militarily, but made a cease fire deal with the rebels, which involved an election being held. It's called 'Self determination", due to the fact that you're letting the people themselves decide what happens to them.

The reason the North invaded the South, was due to the fact that the South was basically the remaining Colonial part of the country, which the North hadn't seized control of before the US agreed a deal. When the US broke the deal, i think it's perfectly logical to expect the North to take the rebellion to the South. The US has no right to "delay" the refferrendum - The only reason the rebellion halted in the middle of the country, was because the people's party(in the North), were offered the deal by the US. If they were really evil communists out to conquer the world, they would have just carried on fighting, however being the people's party, they decided a refferendum was the best possible way.

As for these "far worse" regimes that Saddams, please name one that can be intervened in? - In fact name any that are worse now.

Zimbabwe. There are lots of states worse than Iraq, simply because Iraq isn't doing anything. When did Iraq gas all those Kurds? 10 years ago? Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We don't know, because the US is against sending weapons inspectors back in. Face it, Iraq has done bugger all.

As brought to light recently in Black Hawk Down, the US tried to get involved in Somalia for the RIGHT reasons and they got their fingers severely burned because the region was simply not quellable.

If you remember the film, you'll know they got their fingers burnt because they acted on their own, without consulting the UN. Remember? The pakistani troops there with the UN weren't pleased that they had to go rescue the Americans, since the Americans had gone behind the UN's back.

I beleive Shocko said in a previous post that he wished another september 11th type event on America

No, you know i said that, and i stand by it. The US is out of control, a rogue state, and we all know that rogue states must be dealt with

 

[prime1]

omg Zimbabwe is nto worse than Iraq!!!!!!!! Zimbabwe at least voted him in (no matter how dodgy he is, he still has a lot of support). yes Zombabwe is a terrible regime, but Zimbabwes regime does have a lot of support from its own people and the surrounding countries. There is nothing that can be done apart from what is being done. The west is using peaceful means of targeting the regim, inflicting sanctions on the leaders because anythign more than that would cause widespread hostility throughout Africa - as shown by the support given to Mugabe by the other African nations.

Te only reasons Saddam hasnt been able to gas any more people in the last 10 years is because Britain and America have been protecting the Kurdish regions - hence the no fly zones. If he was left to his own devices in that region he would coninue the operaions against them.


Somalia - The US was supposed to be acting alone, that was their mandate and why their forces were seperate from the peacekeepers.

It went wrong because of the way the US conducts its military operaions, big obvious over the top etc, but that was a mistake made by the general. The mission had to be conductedin broad daylight in the middle of the afternoon when the militia were easily available, and because they underestimated the numbers of militia available.

The UN did not need to know as the area of the operation was not covered by their mandate. As it happens it would have been helpful for the UN to have known to be able to assist, but i guess the american soldiers that got cut to ribbons in the resulting chaos got to learn that lesson the hard way.

And i still maintain that you are an arsehole for wanting another 3000 civilians to die.

 

[Will]

Originally posted by prime1
omg Zimbabwe is nto worse than Iraq!!!!!!!! Zimbabwe at least voted him in (no matter how dodgy he is, he still has a lot of support). yes Zombabwe is a terrible regime, but Zimbabwes regime does have a lot of support from its own people and the surrounding countries. There is nothing that can be done apart from what is being done. The west is using peaceful means of targeting the regim, inflicting sanctions on the leaders because anythign more than that would cause widespread hostility throughout Africa - as shown by the support given to Mugabe by the other African nations.

Democratic? Independant observers condemmed the elections, the MDC were not allowed to hold rallies, supporters were beaten or killed, membership in the ruling party was signed up at gun-point, etc etc.

And invading Iraq wouldn't cause widespread hostility in the Middle East?