Sept. 11th

[Damini]

I was waiting for that...

 

[Wij]

Bah - bagsy 2nd then

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by stu



The regime of a country is the responsibility of that country - if the people do not want Saddam in power, it's up to them to overthrow him. It may sound harsh, but it's true, and outside intervention is actually illegal. Show me some evidence that Saddam does pose a threat to the world, and that's a different issue.

Outside intervention in this case in not illegal, because Iraq has not complied with the PEACE TREATY.

People are often quick to critisize the US for its failings in its role as a global policeman. There are always grey areas and the US risks treading on other world powers toes by intervening in another countries affairs. Im not talking about the individual countries themselves - for example throughout Asia and South Eastern Europe, China and Russia are considered the dominant power. If the US intervenes in these areas, it will directly cross these powers. Regardless of what you may think, the US is not SO powerful that it can boss large miltiary powers like Russia/China around in thier own backyard. Most of the time they will get thier way, however if they dont, there isnt much they can do about it.

In Africa its slightyl different, theres a sort of latice work of international and local power bases, a lot of the countries are also landlocked making it difficult to project military power there. Typically the African countries do stick up for each other when international pressure is applied (see the recent johanesburg conference) because they feel it is a form of "colonialism", regardless of how much they hate each other. In other African countries European nations tend to have the main international voice (Holland, France & Britain etc).

Israel is more difficult than people give the US credit for. Whilst I do not agree with the Israeli position, and I personally feel they should give the land taken in the 60s back, the Pallestinians are hardly blameless in the whole affair - the land was taken as a pre-emptive strike against Israels neighbours, taken because they were planning a large scale military offensive against Israel. At Israels inception the US 'promised' to protect Israel against foreign aggression. They are damned if they do , and damned if they dont.

it is not as simple as the days of the Brittish Empire (global polcing comparrison), when we could do what we wanted, because we really were far more powerful than any other nation, and the only weapon of mass distruction was our own Navy (always twice as big as any other on the planet). Subsequently we were able to stamp out slavery (of which we had originally been involved with admittedly), piracy and open up free trade. America is trying to do a similar thing, but in this day of propaganda, WOMD and "civil liberties" the long term goals can easily be torpedoed before they become clear to the worlds populace.

I still find it hard to beleive that so many people are so quick to villify the US, do you seriosuly believe that the US is this evil empire determiend to do nothing for the world but bad? Whats worse is that people on the whole seem to prefer to defend the Iraqi regime, than admit for a second that the US might be right.

I personally dont care about the "well even if he HAS got them he might not USE them" argument, thats a bit like the council argument of "we have to wait until 5 people have actually died on the road before we put a crossing/warning in place there - even if everyone is screaming at us that the potential for an acident there is extremely high. Id rather we put the preventetive measures in place before we wait for the death toll to justify them.

 

[exxxie]

Some good argument Prime1. I dont think anyone here is defending Sadam Husein or the Iraqi regime on past human rights records. But the UN is the "worlds policeman" not the US. Their self appointed role as such is full of double standards and self interest.

Heres a small list of countries the US has had overt "involvement" with since the end of World War II:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980
Nicaragua 1980
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998-?
Yugoslavia 1999

Are we seeing a list here of some of the WORST dictatorial states the last century ever saw? No.

We wont even mention covert operations in South America. (Tho I must mention Gen. Pinochet in Argentina got away with slaughtering thousands of his own people without even a blink from its Superpower neighbour to the north).

Funny you should mention Africa. AIDS has reached epidemic proportions and yet the big US pharmaceutical companies defend their patented medicines making the cost of treatment totally unviable.

People will continue to villify the US until they stop dropping bombs to implement their foreign policy.

 

[prime1]

Lets be honest, the UN wouldnt, and couldn't do jack shit without the US, it even pays for 33% of its funding.

There is also more to that list than meets the eye, its primary foreign policy its the protection of the "free" world. To do this it will stop invasions of soverign nations where it can, it will hire or assist local fighters in resisting the particular threat that has arisen where it is not feasable for the US to intervene.

For exampel Afghanistan when russia invaded - if the US did 'nothing' then russia could conceivably have moved in to Pakistand and then India etc, threatening the "free worlds" supply of oil, as well the sovereignty of several allied nations in the area. But the US could not realistically challenge the super power militarily (although it warned Russia if it went any furhter than afghanistan it would respond) so it covertly helped the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan to hold up the russian advance etc. Most of the time its a case of choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[prime1]

Originally posted by exxie


Heres a small list of countries the US has had overt "involvement" with since the end of World War II:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980
Nicaragua 1980
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998-?
Yugoslavia 1999

Are we seeing a list here of some of the WORST dictatorial states the last century ever saw? No.

erm .. yes...
China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Cuba 1959-60
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Libya 1986
Iraq 1991-99
Afghanistan 1998-?
Yugoslavia 1999

Are you trying to tell me that these events/regimes were not serious? that these were micky mouse regimes that didnt really have any effect on anyone?

I would say that the MILLIONS of people who have lost thier lives as a result of the above regimes actions would say otherwise. Cleary the worst offender in this time period was Russia itself, however that was too powerful before, and has arguably now cleaned up its act. I fail to see where else you will find a more serious list of dicators and brutal regimes, invasions and direct threats to the US/West.

They may nothave always succeeded in thier goals, but to do nothing would have been far worse.

 

[Shocko]

You are one retarded fuckwit. You are clearly American, which i can be sure of due to your spelling of certain countrys names.

First of all, to do with the list of countrys that the US has illegally intervened in. Instead of waffling on about history, i'll just point out that you included Vietnam in your list of justified aggression receivers. A bunch of peasants, fighting for their freedom after rebelling against colonial french rule, a threat to the world? What bollocks.

The US makes up 33% of the UN's funding, due to the fact that the US controls over 25% of the world's wealth - Go look at the combined funding for all EU nations(who together equal the wealth of the US), and you'll see that the US is only paying what it should. You point to Afghanistan in the 80s as an example of good US involvement. Wtf is that? Russia invaded Afghanistan, because it wanted to, just like the US invaded Vietnam because it wanted to, and is now to invade Iraq(so it seems). If you are against the Soviet agression of the past, how can you be for the American agression of the past, and especially the present?

Yes, the US is the most evil state in the world, yes, the US is an evil empire, and yes, i vote yes, for the whole general board jointly flaming you for daring to justify the actions of the US so blatantly, whilst spewing such utter BS!

 

[Damini]

Originally posted by Shocko

Yes, the US is the most evil state in the world

The US is hardly the most evil state in the world. I don't see any law indoctrinated persecution of ethnic minorities, I don't see mass genocide, I don't see the infringement of womens rights, I don't see baby girls being left to die on the streets, I don't see orphans tucked away in bare rooms, people with metal illnesses being stoned to death... The US is flawed, but its hardly overt evil.

 

[*Kornholio*]

I'm with Prime1 on this one... he's named quite a few there that were really bad dictatorships that needed some intervention...

 

[*charlton_thd*]

*has been sat at back listening intently*

Yes, the US is the most evil state in the world, yes, the US is an evil empire, and yes, i vote yes, for the whole general board jointly flaming you for daring to justify the actions of the US so blatantly, whilst spewing such utter BS!

Tbh we've been quite naughty in the past too......

 

[Scooba Da Bass]

Past actions are not really very relavent over the kind of scale you need to look at to make the UK anything more than a small country with a big history.

The US is generally a well meaning state, but manages to blunder incredibly hard, either due to stupid choices, or serving self interests, particularly economic.

As for the Yugoslavia issue, I have a vested interest in the affairs there. Yes, Milosevic was pretty much a terrible man, however, the US's encouragement of Albanian rebels to invade Serbia, resulting in not only the deaths of thousands of police men who were called up to fight in lieu of the army was shocking. Even worse is the continued harrasment of said Police Captains, who are currently being charged with war crimes with very little in the way of evidence or support.

You may remember the ex Serbian Police chief who shot himself outside the Parliament in Belgrade rather than be taken to the war crimes tribunal. I knew him, he was my fiancéé's godfather, a kind, gentle man, who stood up to the US involvement in internal politics.

It's no wonder the US is hated.

 

[stu]

Originally posted by prime1


Outside intervention in this case in not illegal, because Iraq has not complied with the PEACE TREATY.

Unfortunately the very first line of your argument is wrong. Bush signed a 'contract' with the CIA to essentially do everything within its power to promote a 'regime change' in Iraq. That is illegal. With a capital I. As in, it breaches International Law. Feel free to go look it up.

I'm tempted to pick apart much of the rest of your argument (your little list about 'evil empires' is laughably ignorant), but 1) my dinner's ready and 2) you are firmly entrenched in your views, and aren't going to change them.

Damini - regarding abuse of rights etc - you should check out a list of the basic civil liberties and human rights that the US has removed from its own citizens in the wake of Sept 11th. And don't forget those hundreds of 'suspects' in Guatanamo Bay languishing indefinitely without access to legal representation, information, or indeed the basic right of actually being charged with anything. Not saying that this is necessarily "evil", but the US is certainly no angel when it comes to human rights.

 

[exxxie]

Originally posted by prime1
For exampel Afghanistan when russia invaded - if the US did 'nothing' then russia could conceivably have moved in to Pakistand and then India etc, threatening the "free worlds" supply of oil

ahh OIL.....


I was wondering how long it would take before the spectre of the Black Gold raised its ugly head...

Please......


... dont get me started.

 

[SLiC3R-]

Interesting.

No comment from prime1.

2 days till september 11th. Now where was we. i think we could be in for some "interesting times when the 11th hits.

 

[SLiC3R-]

Favourite band currently: Doves.

Yes.

Sit back and listen to "Caught by the River" by Doves, and chill the fuck out.

 

[Damini]

I've seen the list, and also know that the UK rules are under scrutiny because of infringement issues on human rights. I'm not saying that the US is an angel, but to call it the evillest state of all is hysterical pap.

 

[SLiC3R-]

Suggestions on what will be attacked?

I recon the us embassy in the uk, london cars will blow up, and a mighty few bombs in the US. Stay in, all of you!

I recon a football match might be attacked involving england or something like that.

 

[Fergus]

I think you are paranoid.

 

[SLiC3R-]

quote me that, in 54 hours.

 

[FatBusinessman]

Personally, I think that the only attacks on 11th September (if any) will be small attacks by crazed copycats.

Someone who is clever enough to mastermind the flying of two planes into a prominent landmark is clever enough to know that he has already caused large parts of the world to hate America and plunged the Middle East into chaos.

 

[SLiC3R-]

agreed.

but, not definate.

 

[SLiC3R-]

i'm considering trying for the Royal Marines, Officer training.

Any advice would be welcomed.

 

[Kippa.]

Originally posted by SLiC3R-
i'm considering trying for the Royal Marines, Officer training.

Any advice would be welcomed.

If it'll get you off this forum, you have my full backing

 

[SLiC3R-]

 

[bodhi]

Now I honestly don't know a thing about politics (It's the only thing I find more boring than cricket), but I do know that invading Iraq is the way to go. Cos I'm pretty sure the world would be better off without Saddam than we are with him still around playing with all his toys.

 

[Shocko]

Originally posted by SLiC3R-
i'm considering trying for the Royal Marines, Officer training.

Any advice would be welcomed.

Think about why you are considering this. There are various reasons why someone would join the forces, and even more when you're talking about becoming an officer:

• Fittness - Easy way to stay in shape and get paid for doing so.
• Hardness - All males have an instinct which makes them want to be macho, being in the army, especially an elite-ish unit, fullfils this.
• Patriotism - Do you think "It's right and proper to die for one's country"?
• Fighting - Do you have an excessivly strong desire to fight, and to kill?
• Money - Do you think it's a simple enough job, that brings in enough money and a solid pension?

Ask yourself what your reasons are - I'm fairly confident that i'd never join the Army(The RAF wouldn't be out of the question), simply because of the discipline/death factor, let alone the lack of most of the reasons above.

I guess you might want to talk to some current soldiers, or recently retired soldiers, to see whether it would be for you - I don't think anyone here is in a great position to advise you.

Oh, and Bods, cricket owns j00

 

[Nos-]

I'm sure he'd be better off with a career in the navy tbh

 

[xane]

Originally posted by stu
Damini - regarding abuse of rights etc - you should check out a list of the basic civil liberties and human rights that the US has removed from its own citizens in the wake of Sept 11th. And don't forget those hundreds of 'suspects' in Guatanamo Bay languishing indefinitely without access to legal representation, information, or indeed the basic right of actually being charged with anything. Not saying that this is necessarily "evil", but the US is certainly no angel when it comes to human rights.

The US has a good record on Human Rights, no country is an "angel" simply because of the difficulties in the implementation of them. The US for example imposes the death penalty for murder, whilst this is a violation of a human right to life, it is being imposed on someone who has themselves violated that right, this is a highly debateable subject of whether those found guilty of human rights abuse should be afforded those rights.

Iraq imposes the death penalty on simplistic and petty "crimes", like insulting the president in public, you can read the UN's1998 special report on Iraq detailing all the basic human rights abuses there, this is a country who executed 1500 people that year for political reasons alone.

In comparison with the massive violations going on in countries like Iraq I'd say the western nations are as angelic as you can get.

 

[granny]

Originally posted by camazotz
The US has a good record on Human Rights

Hahhahahahahha

Edit: Sorry, couldn't resist The gist of your point is right though but I really don't want to get into this thread...

 

[S-Gray]

Originally posted by Shocko
Ask yourself what your reasons are - I'm fairly confident that i'd never join the Army(The RAF wouldn't be out of the question), simply because of the discipline/death factor, let alone the lack of most of the reasons above.

I guess you might want to talk to some current soldiers, or recently retired soldiers, to see whether it would be for you - I don't think anyone here is in a great position to advise you.

Oh, and Bods, cricket owns j00

Heh, and not forgetting that once you join, you get a Skin 'Ed, which would mean cutting off your "Beautiful Locks"