Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by FaraxZeroIncome)
    What's that suppose to mean? Are you saying you "ran" away from Iraq? You did serve in the Gulf War, so are you saying you should have been in Iraq?

    Also don't flatter yourself, you aren't even fighting a military force, just a couple of Soviet-made air defence systems..
    No I am not saying any of what you just said nor am I saying we should of been in Iraq.

    You are reading too much into a simple joke.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    You're criticising my point about how there is no interest to attack Gaddafi for oil etc on the basis that the same circumstances I pointed out were also present in Iraq. Therefore if Iraq 03 was about oil, presumably Libya 11 could be.

    So it's based on the premise that Iraq 03 was about oil. Well, my defense is very simple-I don't believe Iraq 03 was primarily about oil at all either. I've gone into details about why not before, primarily for exactly these reasons-there was no obvious sudden threat to oil flows as there had been in 91, what actually changed? 9/11. You could say this gave them the political capital to do something they had wanted to do for a while. It is true that some planning for attacking Saddam had been going on before 9.11, but the majority of the government was not thinking along those lines, and I think it's fair to say that without 9.11 there would not have been a war in Iraq. What does that say? It says that any economic/strategic pressures were not in and of themselves sufficient for that war. So it's not "about oil" as much as people like to say it. 9.11 linked in with the WMD threat. Plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people took the WMD issue (mistakenly) as a serious threat and in the aftermath of 9.11 it was scaring people.

    Also I fail to see any economic interest in fighting. The cost of an operation like Iraq is absolutely vast. Stiglitz (a nobel-prize winning economist) has estimated that the total economic cost could be up to three trillion dollars! Many individuals with anti-war stances have some bizarre idea that America was going in and physically shipping out oil to the US! As it happens, in the aftermath of the war, in order simply to keep the Iraqi people supplied with oil, America had to import billions of dollars worth of oil into Iraq to keep the oil price artificially low, as Saddam had for ages (Saddam maintained the lowest petrol pump price in the world effectively as a governmental subsidy). The value of the aid America gave to Iraq was nearly 90 billion in 03, and oil revenues did not exceed 8 billion dollars in 03. Even the ridiculously optimistic outlooks pre-war forecasted that Iraq would not be able to wholly fund it's reconstruction. America would be footing the bill, and as it happened, the cost of the operation would probably not be repayed by the Iraqi oil industry for deacades, even if America had full control of the wells, which they don't/

    Absolutely none of it adds up, it's an absolute myth and I don't understand why it isn't challenged harder. I used to simply accept the "common knowledge" that Iraq was "about oil" before I actually read something about it and quickly realised that that simply did not add up.

    Another theory on it can be found in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", in which they cite the fact that officials in the top of the Pentagon have been reported to discuss the oil issue rarely in the run up to the invasion. They argue that the Israel Lobby was the primary motivating factor in the build-up to war. Don't accept that, but anyway.


    Go on then, prove it. I just went into extensive detail about why I don't believe Iraq was about oil. You tell me why Gaddafi was just on the brink of nationalising western investments conincidentally and happily at exactly the same time as a widespread Arab revolt, providing Obama with the perfect excuse?

    Given that you implicitly conceded that Gaddafi was, as you put it "selling out" to the West, I can't see how you fit this in. But irrationality is all part and parcel of this world view that places the majority of the blame for everything on the world on the most benign and moral global hegemon yet.



    Yeh, it's all a giant conspiracy against itself, presumably orchestrated between various administrations? Think about what you're saying, and the implications, and then try to prove it! Tbh I don't have the time for these wild statements.

    I am NOT trying to protect America in everything. I have said that I am not convinced by Iraq 03, or even Afghanistan. But what you are doing is trying to find malicious intent where there is none, because you are part of a group (and I used to be part of it too) that considers America the primary evil in the world. If you look twice at any of the countries that define themselves by their "anti-American/Imperialist/Colonialist/Crusader" etc stance, and have a look at what they do, it's twice as bad.

    You think America was bad in Iraq? Look at what Iran did!!!! They deliberately funded militias that killed not only American troops, but civilians, and fermented a civil war that further devastated sectarian balance and continues in their negative effects to this day. Look at what Iran does in Lebanon! They are far more ruthless with their attempt at imperialism than anything America does.



    The reason I don't believe it's about money is that I can't see a greater financial benefit in this than the massive costs of running the operation. Absolutely definitely not in the shot-medium term, and in the long-term I think the outlook for any potential economic investors is sketchy. BP's share price has been hit, and realistically, what British PM cares today about what it's share price is going to be in 5 years time! They won't be in office quite likely. Can't see it.



    Ha. You kidding?
    Most of them include America militarily?
    LOL-the ones you hear about involve America militarily.

    It's just total bull**** mate. Why don't you care about Soviet Russia's much more violent wars, or the Lebanese civil war paid for by Arab governments that the Lebanese could continue to butcher each other? Why don't you care about Darfur, about Congo, the Balklands where America was involved as a humanitarian actor, the Soviet actions in East European countries during the Cold War.

    Well, you don't care because America didn't do it
    .


    Then you're no better than the Chinese mother****ers at the UN. It's a disgusting view to hold, one that I simply cannot understand, let alone countenance. That one would be happy to sit by with a capacity to help whilst a people gets slaughtered, all on the basis of "sovereignty". I would hope most people can think morally, beyond artificial constructs such as "soeverignty" in artificial national constructs.

    Human rights are universal, not bound within the United States and European Union's borders.

    What interests me is how the poles have changed. Your views on these are historically those of the far-right, and mine of an ideological left.



    Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a culture or ethnicity. Nobody's claimed that is happening in Libya. What is happening is the widepsread slaughter of thousands of civilians in an attempt to quell an uprising of people demanding political rights.
    That was quite an essay, but the sections I read made perfect sense, and I lean to the left economically
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    You're criticising my point about how there is no interest to attack Gaddafi for oil etc on the basis that the same circumstances I pointed out were also present in Iraq. Therefore if Iraq 03 was about oil, presumably Libya 11 could be.

    So it's based on the premise that Iraq 03 was about oil. Well, my defense is very simple-I don't believe Iraq 03 was primarily about oil at all either. I've gone into details about why not before, primarily for exactly these reasons-there was no obvious sudden threat to oil flows as there had been in 91, what actually changed? 9/11. You could say this gave them the political capital to do something they had wanted to do for a while. It is true that some planning for attacking Saddam had been going on before 9.11, but the majority of the government was not thinking along those lines, and I think it's fair to say that without 9.11 there would not have been a war in Iraq. What does that say? It says that any economic/strategic pressures were not in and of themselves sufficient for that war. So it's not "about oil" as much as people like to say it. 9.11 linked in with the WMD threat. Plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people took the WMD issue (mistakenly) as a serious threat and in the aftermath of 9.11 it was scaring people.

    Also I fail to see any economic interest in fighting. The cost of an operation like Iraq is absolutely vast. Stiglitz (a nobel-prize winning economist) has estimated that the total economic cost could be up to three trillion dollars! Many individuals with anti-war stances have some bizarre idea that America was going in and physically shipping out oil to the US! As it happens, in the aftermath of the war, in order simply to keep the Iraqi people supplied with oil, America had to import billions of dollars worth of oil into Iraq to keep the oil price artificially low, as Saddam had for ages (Saddam maintained the lowest petrol pump price in the world effectively as a governmental subsidy). The value of the aid America gave to Iraq was nearly 90 billion in 03, and oil revenues did not exceed 8 billion dollars in 03. Even the ridiculously optimistic outlooks pre-war forecasted that Iraq would not be able to wholly fund it's reconstruction. America would be footing the bill, and as it happened, the cost of the operation would probably not be repayed by the Iraqi oil industry for deacades, even if America had full control of the wells, which they don't/

    Absolutely none of it adds up, it's an absolute myth and I don't understand why it isn't challenged harder. I used to simply accept the "common knowledge" that Iraq was "about oil" before I actually read something about it and quickly realised that that simply did not add up.

    Another theory on it can be found in Mearsheimer and Walt's "The Israel Lobby", in which they cite the fact that officials in the top of the Pentagon have been reported to discuss the oil issue rarely in the run up to the invasion. They argue that the Israel Lobby was the primary motivating factor in the build-up to war. Don't accept that, but anyway.


    Go on then, prove it. I just went into extensive detail about why I don't believe Iraq was about oil. You tell me why Gaddafi was just on the brink of nationalising western investments conincidentally and happily at exactly the same time as a widespread Arab revolt, providing Obama with the perfect excuse?

    Given that you implicitly conceded that Gaddafi was, as you put it "selling out" to the West, I can't see how you fit this in. But irrationality is all part and parcel of this world view that places the majority of the blame for everything on the world on the most benign and moral global hegemon yet.



    Yeh, it's all a giant conspiracy against itself, presumably orchestrated between various administrations? Think about what you're saying, and the implications, and then try to prove it! Tbh I don't have the time for these wild statements.

    I am NOT trying to protect America in everything. I have said that I am not convinced by Iraq 03, or even Afghanistan. But what you are doing is trying to find malicious intent where there is none, because you are part of a group (and I used to be part of it too) that considers America the primary evil in the world. If you look twice at any of the countries that define themselves by their "anti-American/Imperialist/Colonialist/Crusader" etc stance, and have a look at what they do, it's twice as bad.

    You think America was bad in Iraq? Look at what Iran did!!!! They deliberately funded militias that killed not only American troops, but civilians, and fermented a civil war that further devastated sectarian balance and continues in their negative effects to this day. Look at what Iran does in Lebanon! They are far more ruthless with their attempt at imperialism than anything America does.



    The reason I don't believe it's about money is that I can't see a greater financial benefit in this than the massive costs of running the operation. Absolutely definitely not in the shot-medium term, and in the long-term I think the outlook for any potential economic investors is sketchy. BP's share price has been hit, and realistically, what British PM cares today about what it's share price is going to be in 5 years time! They won't be in office quite likely. Can't see it.



    Ha. You kidding?
    Most of them include America militarily?
    LOL-the ones you hear about involve America militarily.

    It's just total bull**** mate. Why don't you care about Soviet Russia's much more violent wars, or the Lebanese civil war paid for by Arab governments that the Lebanese could continue to butcher each other? Why don't you care about Darfur, about Congo, the Balklands where America was involved as a humanitarian actor, the Soviet actions in East European countries during the Cold War.

    Well, you don't care because America didn't do it
    .


    Then you're no better than the Chinese mother****ers at the UN. It's a disgusting view to hold, one that I simply cannot understand, let alone countenance. That one would be happy to sit by with a capacity to help whilst a people gets slaughtered, all on the basis of "sovereignty". I would hope most people can think morally, beyond artificial constructs such as "soeverignty" in artificial national constructs.

    Human rights are universal, not bound within the United States and European Union's borders.

    What interests me is how the poles have changed. Your views on these are historically those of the far-right, and mine of an ideological left.



    Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a culture or ethnicity. Nobody's claimed that is happening in Libya. What is happening is the widepsread slaughter of thousands of civilians in an attempt to quell an uprising of people demanding political rights.

    You have accomplished the rare feat of packaging naivety into a well articulated convincing argument but ultimately if you think any government wages war on moral grounds then you are deluded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No I am not saying any of what you just said nor am I saying we should of been in Iraq.

    You are reading too much into a simple joke.
    Ok.. :beard:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    You have accomplished the rare feat of packaging naivety into a well articulated convincing argument but ultimately if you think any government wages war on moral grounds then you are deluded.
    I'll take that as a...compliment?

    I'm not naive. I believe 91 was about Oil, but I also think Libya is primarily about human rights. I think that a very few governments in the history of nationalism (US, UK, France, and a few others) have engaged in a few wars that were fought primarily on moral grounds.

    Three examples:
    Sierra Leone
    Kosovo
    Libya

    I don't think 03 was about human rights, but I don't think it was about oil either.

    Considering these countries have fought three wars on moral grounds, it makes them the most moral nations on the planet.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    I'll take that as a...compliment?

    I'm not naive. I believe 91 was about Oil, but I also think Libya is primarily about human rights. I think that a very few governments in the history of nationalism (US, UK, France, and a few others) have engaged in a few wars that were fought primarily on moral grounds.

    Three examples:
    Sierra Leone
    Kosovo
    Libya

    I don't think 03 was about human rights, but I don't think it was about oil either.

    Considering these countries have fought three wars on moral grounds, it makes them the most moral nations on the planet.
    Can you not see though that the common denominator with all the countries that have been subject to intervention is socialism of some kind?

    They've wanted Gadaffi gone for years but the general public won't just stand for outright colonialism so you have to use an excuse to get them on side. You can't be honest with the public and just say you're using military force on a country's regime because you don't like their politics, you need to tell the public that it's about protecting that country's citizens and/or the wider world.

    With Iraq they were exposed big time when it came out that there were no WMDs, so for Gadaffi they just needed to be patient and wait for a good excuse to go in and take him out. Right from the beginning of this conflict the media coverage has been outrageously biased, constantly undermining every statement Gadaffi makes whilst passing on the statements of the UK government without every questioning their motives or the validity of what they are saying.

    A countless number of people on this forum are just repeating what they've heard on the news, a common statement is 'Gadaffi is slaughtering thousands of civilians'. There is simply no evidence of this. Yes protestors were shot when the rebellion first started out but no one is placing that figure about a couple of hundred. And now the rebels are quite clearly armed they are still referred to as civilians, even though many of them are in makeshift uniforms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    You're criticising my point about how there is no interest to attack Gaddafi for oil etc on the basis that the same circumstances I pointed out were also present in Iraq. Therefore if Iraq 03 was about oil, presumably Libya 11 could be.

    So it's based on the premise that Iraq 03 was about oil. Well, my defense is very simple-I don't believe Iraq 03 was primarily about oil at all either. 9.11 linked in with the WMD threat. Plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people took the WMD issue (mistakenly) as a serious threat and in the aftermath of 9.11 it was scaring people.
    No my point was selling oil to the west does not mean, a country will not be invaded for control of oil.How can you not believe iraq was about oil. Intelligent people took the WMD issue because of purpose misinformation by the Media and the special interest. the 45 minute claim was a deliberate lie

    (Original post by bj_945)
    Also I fail to see any economic interest in fighting. The cost of an operation like Iraq is absolutely vast. The value of the aid America gave to Iraq was nearly 90 billion in 03, and oil revenues did not exceed 8 billion dollars in 03. Even the ridiculously optimistic outlooks pre-war forecasted that Iraq would not be able to wholly fund it's reconstruction. America would be footing the bill, and as it happened, the cost of the operation would probably not be repayed by the Iraqi oil industry for deacades, even if America had full control of the wells, which they don't/
    You keep thinking for some reason that I said the war will benefit the US government finances.It wont, it will benefit **** Cheneys haliburton shares and put up 3 trillion dollars worth of contract for america firm to hire people and pay tax on.Also aid money mostly comes back to donor country in form of influence and alot of aid is conditional on contracts going to firm in the donors country.The Media is owned by the same corporations which stand to gain from taking lucrative us govt contracts

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXofzCPl7U

    (Original post by bj_945)
    Go on then, prove it. I just went into extensive detail about why I don't believe Iraq was about oil. You tell me why Gaddafi was just on the brink of nationalising western investments conincidentally and happily at exactly the same time as a widespread Arab revolt, providing Obama with the perfect excuse?

    Given that you implicitly conceded that Gaddafi was, as you put it "selling out" to the West, I can't see how you fit this in. But irrationality is all part and parcel of this world view that places the majority of the blame for everything on the world on the most benign and moral global hegemon yet.
    Im not going to repeat what ive already said about lower royalties, and the word preemptive means to stop a future possibility you need proof of it happening imminently.Once ameria started backing a few armed rebels, gaddafi may have decided to stop trading with america

    Nationalisation : http://english.pravda.ru//hotspots/c...for_war_oil-0/

    Doing business in Libya is hard, you need to win over the gaddafi family, a weak democracy would make easier business partners



    Yeh, it's all a giant conspiracy against itself, presumably orchestrated between various administrations? Think about what you're saying, and the implications, and then try to prove it! Tbh I don't have the time for these wild statements.

    I am NOT trying to protect America in everything. I have said that I am not convinced by Iraq 03, or even Afghanistan. But what you are doing is trying to find malicious intent where there is none, because you are part of a group (and I used to be part of it too) that considers America the primary evil in the world. If you look twice at any of the countries that define themselves by their "anti-American/Imperialist/Colonialist/Crusader" etc stance, and have a look at what they do, it's twice as bad.
    (Original post by bj_945)
    You think America was bad in Iraq? Look at what Iran did!!!! They deliberately funded militias that killed not only American troops, but civilians, and fermented a civil war that further devastated sectarian balance and continues in their negative effects to this day. Look at what Iran does in Lebanon! They are far more ruthless with their attempt at imperialism than anything America does.
    So you wont believe Iraq is about oil, or the well documented influence of the Isreali lobby in support of getting rid of hostile saddam yet you believe low grade intel about alleged irainian arms


    (Original post by bj_945)
    BP's share price has been hit, and realistically, what British PM cares today about what it's share price is going to be in 5 years time! They won't be in office quite likely. Can't see it.
    BP share price is hit due to ongoing Russian issue.The British PM wont be in office is a huge motivation, revolving doors ? expect Cameron and civil servant cronies to get well paying jobs

    (Original post by bj_945)
    Ha. You kidding?
    Most of them include America militarily?
    LOL-the ones you hear about involve America militarily.

    It's just total bull**** mate. Why don't you care about Soviet Russia's much more violent wars, or the Lebanese civil war paid for by Arab governments that the Lebanese could continue to butcher each other? Why don't you care about Darfur, about Congo, the Balklands where America was involved as a humanitarian actor, the Soviet actions in East European countries during the Cold War.
    Soviet Russia fought a fraction of the wars America raged. Lebanon war was a civil war made much worse by intervention of Isreal and US Navy even then its 2 or 3 wars started by the Russians, 1 civil war amongst arabs.Anywhere there is trouble you can be assured somewhere in there will be Americas grubby hands.America has intervened Militarily more in Latin america since ww2 than other countries have fought wars anywhere.

    Well, you don't care because America didn't do it
    .

    [QUOTE=
    Then you're no better than the Chinese mother****ers at the UN. It's a disgusting view to hold, one that I simply cannot understand, let alone countenance. That one would be happy to sit by with a capacity to help whilst a people gets slaughtered, all on the basis of "sovereignty". I would hope most people can think morally, beyond artificial constructs such as "soeverignty" in artificial national constructs.

    Human rights are universal, not bound within the United States and European Union's borders.

    What interests me is how the poles have changed. Your views on these are historically those of the far-right, and mine of an ideological left [/QUOTE]

    America and Britain have lost the right to deicide what is moral and what is not. This is not about human rights like I said there have been plenty of conflicts in non oil rich countries. A country half way around the world has no right to intervene in the affairs of another.There is nothing disgusting about not using every crises to further you own domination of the world.Its not about sitting back its called minding your own business,and yes you have to respect sovereignty of other countries the world is not a playground where the strongest bully get decide what is right and what is wrong.

    (Original post by bj_945)
    Genocide is the deliberate extermination of a culture or ethnicity. Nobody's claimed that is happening in Libya. What is happening is the widepsread slaughter of thousands of civilians in an attempt to quell an uprising of people demanding political rights.
    there is NO slaughter of civilians only of armed protesters who set government buildings on fire. I remember before the Iraq war, Bush Adm tried to tie 9/11 to saddam, now its some story of how we are stopping a massacre . NATO is intervening in a civil war.1 million people are homeless in the ivory coast due to political instability I dont see any any UN troops there. If in London today the police kill a dozen protesters does that mean a NATO force should be dispatched to london ?. Gaddafi talked about crushing the armed militias in terms no different to how US senators talk about Julian Assange.If you still dont get it then sadly I give up your a lost cause, keep believing the corporate media.

    es. It was a

    Also how am I right wing ? is george gallaway right wing ? respecting other countries and being against imperialist is not right wing, neocons and left loonies favour wars. Progressives and Conservatives are against war. Am I right or left I consider my self Centrist on economic policy and non interventionist on foreign affairs
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James10000)
    How can you not believe iraq was about oil.
    Mate, half of my post was about why I don't believe Iraq 03 was about oil, none of which you've responded to. I can simply keep on re-posting it at you, but if you're not going to read or respond to it, there's no point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James10000)
    No my point was selling oil to the west does not mean, a country will not be invaded for control of oil.
    I know. That's what 91 was about. What I'm saying here is that without 9.11, Iraq would not have happened. This says something about the war. Presumably economic pressures alone could not have been great enough. There is plenty of other evidence to support that.

    You keep thinking for some reason that I said the war will benefit the US government finances.It wont, it will benefit **** Cheneys haliburton shares and put up 3 trillion dollars worth of contract for america firm to hire people and pay tax on.Also aid money mostly comes back to donor country in form of influence and alot of aid is conditional on contracts going to firm in the donors country.The Media is owned by the same corporations which stand to gain from taking lucrative us govt contracts
    And the whole government was engaged in a massive effort of corruption purely to line the pockets of a few. NO. I've no doubt that there may well have been some inside dealing going on with the Halliburton contract, and with many other contracts. And there is no doubt that there were important lobbies in various industries pushing for the war for financial interest.

    That is a LONG way from saying that that was the reason for the war. You can't run an entire war with a high-level governmental cabal. Iraq 03 was supported overwhelmingly by Congress, including by Democrats, and involved troops deployed from 39 of 192 member states of the UN. All for Halliburton, was it?

    Get a ****ing grip mate. And you simply CANNOT make these claims without providing supporting evidence, preferably sourced, that I can respond to. Otherwise this consists of you saying x and me saying you're wrong.


    Once ameria started backing a few armed rebels, gaddafi may have decided to stop trading with america
    Why back them to begin with then?

    Doing business in Libya is hard, you need to win over the gaddafi family, a weak democracy would make easier business partners
    Mate, the future in Libya is far from certain, and you're ignoring the fact that the American adminstration is massively hesitant about the whole thing.

    So you wont believe Iraq is about oil, or the well documented influence of the Isreali lobby in support of getting rid of hostile saddams
    Prove that it was about oil, or Israel So far you just keep on repeating that it was, and saying that Cheney's mates had an interest in war. Great. Can we make this a little more detailed and nuanced please?

    yet you believe low grade intel about alleged irainian arm
    I'm sorry, what the **** are you suggesting? That Iran wasn't involved in Iraq? If that is true, that tells me that honestly you know nothing about Iraq. Iranian backed and funded groups were probably the biggest political problem for the Americans, just look at al Sadr.

    Soviet Russia fought a fraction of the wars America raged. Lebanon war was a civil war made much worse by intervention of Isreal and US Navy even then its 2 or 3 wars started by the Russians, 1 civil war amongst arabs.Anywhere there is trouble you can be assured somewhere in there will be Americas grubby hands.America has intervened Militarily more in Latin america since ww2 than other countries have fought wars anywhere.
    The majority of the deaths in Lebanon have nothing to do with Israel or the US. Why don't you discuss the actions of Syria and Iran, which were far worse? Israel acted like any other regional actor, like Iran or Syria. The US acted a little differently, trying to mediate, although they increasingly backed the Christians. The massive attack on the American base in Beirut by Iranian backed militia-men forced their exit.


    America and Britain have lost the right to deicide what is moral and what is not.
    Jesus. It's not about them deciding what is moral and what is not. It's about what IS moral and what is not. Gaddafi's rule in Libya is immensely immoral, and whilst I don't think anyone would call America's history perfect, they're better than any of the Arab governments.

    This is not about human rights like I said there have been plenty of conflicts in non oil rich countries.
    Like Sierra Leone and Kosovo, perhaps? Humanitarian missions in both, neither have oil.

    Deal with it.

    Its not about sitting back its called minding your own business,and yes you have to respect sovereignty of other countries the world is not a playground where the strongest bully get decide what is right and what is wrong.
    But national states are?


    there is NO slaughter of civilians only of armed protesters who set government buildings on fire.
    OK, this is the first point where I think you've completely seperated from reality. Gaddafi killed over 1200 dissidents in 1996. The Coalition forces so far have not killed one civilian


    If in London today the police kill a dozen protesters does that mean a NATO force should be dispatched to london?
    No, of course not. Internal affairs in Britain are dealt with according to the law. We both know that the police take immense pains to keep protesters safe, even when they are violent. If any protesters were killed, even violent ones, we all know how massive the response would be. If it were twelve? Police/Governmental heads would roll.

    Don't try to pretend like a situation in Libya could ever be replicated here. British government and police is responsible, and answerable to the people.

    If that stopped, and the British government was slaughtering British civilians in the thousands, like in Libya, I for one would welcome international aid as a British civilians under threat from my government.

    Gaddafi talked about crushing the armed militias in terms no different to how US senators talk about Julian Assange.If you still dont get it then sadly I give up your a lost cause
    Perish the thought.

    Also how am I right wing ? is george gallaway right wing ? respecting other countries and being against imperialist is not right wing, neocons and left loonies favour wars. Progressives and Conservatives are against war. Am I right or left I consider my self Centrist on economic policy and non interventionist on foreign affairs
    You hold a view, as do Galloway etc, that is in favour of isolationism, and that is traditionally right wing, yes. I used to like Galloway. Now I realise how little he knows about most of these situations. All he does is scream buzzwords at his audience of Middle-Class spotty 17 year old anarchists.

    Blair, for instance, is more in the line of Woodrow Wilson's position, of Liberal Internationalists, often now described as the Liberal Interventionists. I have always been highly attracted to these idealistic postions. Whilst Liberal Interventionists insisted that America should enter WWII to protect the sovereignty of European nations, and prevent the spread of Nazism, American isolationists refused to engage.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,267

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.