Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you hate Indians or Pakistanis? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    i do hope it does believe me, i can think of nothing worse that iraq having a civil war which is what will happen if the americans fail,
    - noone in or close to Iraq seriously believes a civil war is imminent or likely.
    - the US now operates in a security capacity working with the Iraqis

    however that doesnt necessarily mean i agree with what they have done and the way they have gone about it, i certainly dont think what they have done is the only thing they could of done and waiting for UN support which may have taken a year would of been a better move
    a year of what? a year or 12?

    the move to democracy is a slow one i think and the i think only when islam becomes less dominant with time as the assess to infomation opens these countries up will democracy suceed
    a nice idea. when islam becomes less volatile you mean. how do you information to open up when they are oppressed by a dictator who starves them for his own profit?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    http://www.zpub.com/un/un-ma.html

    what point are you challenging? this was a pre-war decision, with pre-war consequence. those children died as a result of Saddam, a sanction is there for a reason as the UN and its oil for food program would stress and which you conveniently forget to mention.
    yes the sanition is there, but here we have a leading figue in the US gov. at the time saying that she isnt bothered by the death of children in iraq. The primmary reason for war in Iraq was WMDs, they havent been found, and the US President now even jokes about them. So the US looking for other arguements to justify their position is using an arguement they ignored because of political reasons at the time to try and appear as saints now. That personally worries me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    - noone in or close to Iraq seriously believes a civil war is imminent or likely.
    - the US now operates in a security capacity working with the Iraqis


    a year of what? a year or 12?



    a nice idea. when islam becomes less volatile you mean. how do you information to open up when they are oppressed by a dictator who starves them for his own profit?
    wow you even disagree with me when i show some sort of appreciation for the views you seem to be holding
    i never suggested civil war was likely as at the moment i cannot see the US pulling out suddenly, the situation is only slightly bad and its going to have to become a hellva lot worse for there to be a civil war

    i knew you would bring up the year thing and to be honest i dont know and predicting the future from previous events if a different decision is made is pretty futile, i would of done it differently but i think it would of worked better but that means nothing as its not the situation we face now

    and with the last bit, its very difficult i agree again, be at the moment i think that alot of muslims are very suspicious of US goals and a slower approach may of left them with less suspicion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    Because they were NOT the real reasons for going to war in the first place. Iraq was no breeding ground for terrorists, Bin Laden HATED Saddam, and the real reasons were:
    if you care to consult my posts, youll see i never cite these as the primary reasons for conflict. neither does Bush or Blair.

    i) **** Cheney and most of the US Cabinet having vested interest in an invasion and the business opportunties that would arise.
    vested interest? as in the vested interest that just got signed over to the Iraqis for their profit? as in the vested interest that, after war costs would total no more than 20billion for a country with an economy in trillions and approximately 1/5th of the interest that China, Russia and France had not to go to war. a vested interest so pitiful in relative terms, but worth risking all their political capital?

    ii) GWB's personal agenda against Saddam-essentially wanting to finish his fathers work.
    hehe, this one makes me chuckle as its the classic 'i dont have a clue about american politics' line.

    Bush came to power on a domestic footing, tax and education, and one of relative isolationism. Bush initially maintained the same security and defense measures, aswell as a number of policy staff that had worked under Clinton.
    Bush was the first to call for a complete examination of Iraq despite stronger calls from more experienced members of his administration. notably Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, to go unilaterally.
    Removing saddam was a Congress policy since 1998.

    have the decency to draw on some real political comment and not someones idea of amusement.

    The whole democracy thing was a front to appease flag waving democracy loving "patriots" such as yourself.
    the whole democracy thing, superficial and valueless as you find it as a concept, also means a stable and more secure world. appeasement is only for those who are uncertain of action.

    The real reasons are for all to see, but you'll only understand if you want to.
    ok.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    wow you even disagree with me when i show some sort of appreciation for the views you seem to be holding
    i never suggested civil war was likely as at the moment i cannot see the US pulling out suddenly, the situation is only slightly bad and its going to have to become a hellva lot worse for there to be a civil war

    i knew you would bring up the year thing and to be honest i dont know and predicting the future from previous events if a different decision is made is pretty futile, i would of done it differently but i think it would of worked better but that means nothing as its not the situation we face now

    and with the last bit, its very difficult i agree again, be at the moment i think that alot of muslims are very suspicious of US goals and a slower approach may of left them with less suspicion
    I hate to be a grammar pedant in the middle of quality debate but it really bugs me- its "would have" and "may have"-its shortened to would've and may've and so sounds like "of". Easy mistake to make.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    wow you even disagree with me when i show some sort of appreciation for the views you seem to be holding
    hehe, were evidently here for different reasons then!!

    i never suggested civil war was likely as at the moment i cannot see the US pulling out suddenly, the situation is only slightly bad and its going to have to become a hellva lot worse for there to be a civil war
    ok

    i knew you would bring up the year thing and to be honest i dont know and predicting the future from previous events if a different decision is made is pretty futile, i would of done it differently but i think it would of worked better but that means nothing as its not the situation we face now

    and with the last bit, its very difficult i agree again, be at the moment i think that alot of muslims are very suspicious of US goals and a slower approach may of left them with less suspicion
    but Iraqis hate the UN more than the US. Chalabi was picked by the US in the first place because he would be able to appease and gain the support from those who had lived under Saddams terror. Brahami of the UN is universally detested. when you say slower, do you mean, more time to let the coalition soldiers be subject of terrorist attacks, more time for people to cry 'occupation'? or more time for the UN inspectors to keep finding nothing and Saddam to be repeatedly in material breach of resolution 1441?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BIDDLESTICKS)
    Let me declare this upfront: too many people have a visceral and unfair dislike of all things American. However, the most vicious dislike is to be found among Continental Europeans, particularly from German-Speaking countries. I find their self-righteousness quite unbearable. UK people generally like Americans, altho' the Guardian crowd is a bit different.
    Where do you get that from? As far as I can see, it is more the French who tend to lead European anti-Americanism. The Germans on the other hand, while they are not very warm towards the current administration, are still grateful for America's tough stance towards communism. Without it, Germany would not be one country today.
    When President Reagan's death was announced, the German Bild newspaper (main German tabloid) titled something like "Ronald Reagan - The man who brought down the Iron Curtain".
    Also, Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner." is unforgotten in Germany.

    The French on the other hand bear considerable resentments towards the US ever since De Gaulle. France's antipathy towards America runs deeper than just dislike of a particular administration.

    So, I would not necessarily say, that the Germans (and Austrians and Swiss) stand out on continental Europe as anti-Americans.

    Now: having said that, let's keep in mind that there's a bit of a difference between ****ging off Americans and Indians and Pakistanis. This is a difference in practice, and not a difference in theory. Theoretically the point that this thread makes is valid. But in practice, there's a chalk and cheese difference because of the vast status difference between Americans who live here and Indians and Pakistanis who do.

    Americans run the show in the UK. Americans who did not complete their PhD at a US university get hired as associates by the London offices of I-banks for technical analysis jobs, whereas Brits who did complete a PhD get hired as senior analysts. I have seen this with my own eyes. Americans get paid more than their European counterparts. Americans run the tube, many financial and academic institutions etc. Undoubtedly many of these appointments are on merit. But Europe is a well-educated place with some significant advantages of its own- and in some areas (public transport, education up to the undergraduate level) does better than the US. So there is a sort of worship of all things American by the New Labour crowd that extends to areas where America itself does not have an enviable record.

    Hence the resentment of UK people against Americans is the kind of resentment that I feel toward my boss. For me to make jokes about him would, I suspect, be a form of release, but for him to make fun of me would be merely cruel.

    By contrast, Indians and Pakistanis (esp. the latter) have a much lower social status in the UK. The same goes for Eastern Europeans. All these countries have a huge amount of human talent- more than the US- but British people generally see them as spongers, asylum seekers and the like.

    The same thing applies to Jews. When people have faced the possibility of actual physical extinction (the Jews) or daily threats of racial violence and abuse (ethnic people and immigrants in many areas today) that does take things to an entirely different level. Even if many ethnic people do fine thank you, I think you'll find it hard to come up with too many people who say that they haven't at one time or other been abused or assaulted because of their skin colour. Just the other weekend, the Observer ran an article on the (White) widow of a mixed-race man beaten to death outside a Brighton nightclub and how the assailants walked the streets freely and laughed at her and mocked her when she encountered them. Doesn't happen to the rich Americans living in Earls Court, Knightsbridge, Chelsea etc....or even American students. If an American were beaten to death in the UK or Europe simply for being American, it would be headline news.

    The status of Americans in the world today, and the UK, especially is actually extremely privileged. This, I suspect, is the reason why many people don't get outraged by "do you hate Americans" threads, but might by "do you hate Indians" or "do you hate Blacks " or "do you hate Jews"- you simply cannot ignore the reality to which people are responding.
    Fair point.

    However, consider what happened to the Jews. In the beginning of the 20th century, anti-judaism was widespread all over Europe and the US. That was to a large extent due to the strong social and economic position many Jews held. They were seen as responsible for all the evils of capitalism.

    Now, these resentments could be compared to what you feel for your boss: The Jews were indeed in a strong position.

    Yet, the feelings got out of hand and in the end the Jews were the victims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    The primmary reason for war in Iraq was WMDs,
    yes, but not that he was ready to launch them on us.

    So the US looking for other arguements to justify their position is using an arguement they ignored because of political reasons at the time to try and appear as saints now. That personally worries me.
    Bush stated, from day 1, the humanitarian nature of Iraq under Saddam and his brutality. this is politics, they will maneouvre to the public so im sure you are seeing some shift in emphasis. id reiterate this is more a case for Blair than Bush.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Where do you get that from? As far as I can see, it is more the French who tend to lead European anti-Americanism. The Germans on the other hand, while they are not very warm towards the current administration, are still grateful for America's tough stance towards communism. Without it, Germany would not be one country today.
    When President Reagan's death was announced, the German Bild newspaper (main German tabloid) titled something like "Ronald Reagan - The man who brought down the Iron Curtain".
    Also, Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner." is unforgotten in Germany.

    The French on the other hand bear considerable resentments towards the US ever since De Gaulle. France's antipathy towards America runs deeper than just dislike of a particular administration.
    i cant believe i missed that one!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if you care to consult my posts, youll see i never cite these as the primary reasons for conflict. neither does Bush or Blair.
    Firsty, if you believe that they went to Iraq to ensure a democratic government then you are being naive. Secondly, Bush and Blair didn't cite terrorism as a reason for going to war? Get this! From "Dude Where's MY Country?"

    During the build-up to war in the fall of 2002, Bush and members of his administration kept repeating the claim, keeping it uncluttered by specifics so it stayed nice and simple and easy to remember. Bush circled the country at campaign stops for Republican congressional candidates, inseminating the minds of the American people with the bogus Saddam/Osama connection on a continuous loop. Check out just one week's worth of serial lying:

    "This [Hussein] is a person who can't stand America. This is a person who has had contacts with Al Qaeda"

    "He's a threat to America and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with Al Qaeda."

    "This is a man who cannot stand what we stand for. He hates the fact, like Al Qaeda does, that we love freedom. See, they can't stand that. This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

    "That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda."

    "We know that he's had ties with Al Qaeda"

    "This is a man who has had contacts with Al Qaeda. This is a man who poses a serious threat in many forms, but catch this form: He's the kind of guy that would love nothing more than to train terrorists and to provide arms to terrorists so they could attack his worst enemy and leave no fingerprints. This guy is a threat to the world."

    "This is a man who can't stand America and what we believe in. This is a man who hates some of our closest allies. This is a man who has had close Al Qaeda connections."

    "This is the kind of guy we're dealing with. This is a man who hates America, he hates our friends, he can't stand what we believe in. He's had contacts with Al Qaeda."

    vested interest? as in the vested interest that just got signed over to the Iraqis for their profit? as in the vested interest that, after war costs would total no more than 20billion for a country with an economy in trillions and approximately 1/5th of the interest that China, Russia and France had not to go to war. a vested interest so pitiful in relative terms, but worth risking all their political capital?
    No, the personal and business interests of the individual cabinet members. Even if they are not involved with companies in Iraq, they can be sure of huge campaign donations from the companies who profit from Iraq.

    hehe, this one makes me chuckle as its the classic 'i dont have a clue about american politics' line.

    Bush came to power on a domestic footing, tax and education, and one of relative isolationism. Bush initially maintained the same security and defense measures, aswell as a number of policy staff that had worked under Clinton.
    Bush was the first to call for a complete examination of Iraq despite stronger calls from more experienced members of his administration. notably Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, to go unilaterally.
    Removing saddam was a Congress policy since 1998.
    Yes, he came to power on a domestic footing, and then changed tack and went on his War on Terrorism instead. Sept 11th changed Bush's focus entirely, and as a result he is now a War President, which looks great on him until you see the cracks in the landscape, his failing domestic policy as money from schools and public services goes instead towards defense. 9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to remove Saddam and fulfil his very personal vendetta.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, were evidently here for different reasons then!!
    it seems so, i suspect while i am still finding my feet in current affairs you are deliberatly trying to hide them
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ok
    wow you can agree then sometimes
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but Iraqis hate the UN more than the US. Chalabi was picked by the US in the first place because he would be able to appease and gain the support from those who had lived under Saddams terror. Brahami of the UN is universally detested. when you say slower, do you mean, more time to let the coalition soldiers be subject of terrorist attacks, more time for people to cry 'occupation'? or more time for the UN inspectors to keep finding nothing and Saddam to be repeatedly in material breach of resolution 1441?
    I wasn't really talking specifically about Iraq here, more genarally intorelent regimes like that found in Iran
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    Firsty, if you believe that they went to Iraq to ensure a democratic government then you are being naive. Secondly, Bush and Blair didn't cite terrorism as a reason for going to war? Get this! From "Dude Where's MY Country?"
    no, Bush and Blair didnt cite Iraq as a breeding ground for terrorists., as you suggested in your last post.

    During the build-up to war in the fall of 2002, Bush and members of his administration kept repeating the claim, keeping it uncluttered by specifics so it stayed nice and simple and easy to remember. Bush circled the country at campaign stops for Republican congressional candidates, inseminating the minds of the American people with the bogus Saddam/Osama connection on a continuous loop. Check out just one week's worth of serial lying:

    "This [Hussein] is a person who can't stand America. This is a person who has had contacts with Al Qaeda"

    "He's a threat to America and he's a threat to our friends. He's even more of a threat now that we've learned that he's anxious to have, once again, to develop a nuclear weapon. He's got connections with Al Qaeda."

    "This is a man who cannot stand what we stand for. He hates the fact, like Al Qaeda does, that we love freedom. See, they can't stand that. This is a guy who has had connections with these shadowy terrorist networks."

    "That's the nature of this man. We know he's got ties with Al Qaeda."

    "We know that he's had ties with Al Qaeda"

    "This is a man who has had contacts with Al Qaeda. This is a man who poses a serious threat in many forms, but catch this form: He's the kind of guy that would love nothing more than to train terrorists and to provide arms to terrorists so they could attack his worst enemy and leave no fingerprints. This guy is a threat to the world."

    "This is a man who can't stand America and what we believe in. This is a man who hates some of our closest allies. This is a man who has had close Al Qaeda connections."

    "This is the kind of guy we're dealing with. This is a man who hates America, he hates our friends, he can't stand what we believe in. He's had contacts with Al Qaeda."
    Mohammed Atta, the 'leader' of the 9/11 attacks came to Baghdad on more than one occasion. Saddams agents also visited Al-Qaeda training camps.
    tenuous, maybe. lies? no.

    No, the personal and business interests of the individual cabinet members. Even if they are not involved with companies in Iraq, they can be sure of huge campaign donations from the companies who profit from Iraq.
    the democrat party receives around twice as much from the corporate sector and private institutions. the largest contributors to the GOP are americans. teachers, bankers, builders, doctors. secondly, campaign donations are exactly that. for the campaign. to blow your political capital in Iraq just to have the opportunity to spend more on a campaign to win it all back, doesnt make much sense.

    Yes, he came to power on a domestic footing, and then changed tack and went on his War on Terrorism instead. Sept 11th changed Bush's focus entirely, and as a result he is now a War President,
    so that kind of shoots your idea of 'daddys war' to pieces.

    which looks great on him until you see the cracks in the landscape, his failing domestic policy as money from schools and public services goes instead towards defense.
    Bush's 'no child left behind' policy is possibly the most ambitious education policy in many a year, it is also a cornerstone of re-election. other domestic policies include legislation against late term abortions(widely supported), affirming heterosexual marriage(widely supported), restricting stem-cell research to the private sector(widely supported), lowering taxes(an economy with a blistering growth rate, debt less than the Eurozone and this during a time of war).

    9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to remove Saddam and fulfil his very personal vendetta.
    which ive yet to hear explained and that according to you he dreamt up months into his presidency.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I hate to be a grammar pedant in the middle of quality debate but it really bugs me- its "would have" and "may have"-its shortened to would've and may've and so sounds like "of". Easy mistake to make.
    well i am sorry but to be honest i frankly couldnt care at the moment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    it seems so, i suspect while i am still finding my feet in current affairs you are deliberatly trying to hide them
    whose feet?

    wow you can agree then sometimes
    well, call me crazy, but when i agree with something yes.

    I wasn't really talking specifically about Iraq here, more genarally intorelent regimes like that found in Iran
    ok. but when you talk of going slower, in what sense? politically?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    whose feet?
    lol it doesnt matter

    (Original post by vienna95)
    well, call me crazy, but when i agree with something yes.
    obiviously the sarcasm was lost

    (Original post by vienna95)
    ok. but when you talk of going slower, in what sense? politically?
    in terms of time
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    lol it doesnt matter


    obiviously the sarcasm was lost


    in terms of time
    and related to going into Iraq or the time spent in Iraq?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    and related to going into Iraq or the time spent in Iraq?
    ah no its was kinda off the point at the time and is even more so now
    I will explain:
    the thing i orginally posted on was about the US ensuring civil liberties in Iraq right, i think the US having choosen the wrong path now have to stick to it. If they don't alot of Iraqis are going to get screwed over if the US goes ( and not suggesting they are, just that is what will happen if they did pull out)
    In general i think that US shouldnt try to force regieme change like that in other Muslim countires in the same way. The idea that they will have been expressed in the media recently. I think that these muslim states will only really change with time as the quickness of communications ulimately opens up Islam as a reiligion and the policies of these countries to new ideas. Only then will democracy work in a lasting way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    I think that these muslim states will only really change with time as the quickness of communications ulimately opens up Islam as a reiligion and the policies of these countries to new ideas. Only then will democracy work in a lasting way.
    ok.

    as i said initially, how do you expect this to happen without a catalyst? like Christianity during its volatility, it could take decades or centuries to progress out of turbulence, at the same time causing untold destruction to populations not only of the Islamic world but those directly opposed to it in the West.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ok.

    as i said initially, how do you expect this to happen without a catalyst? like Christianity during its volatility, it could take decades or centuries to progress out of turbulence, at the same time causing untold destruction to populations not only of the Islamic world but those directly opposed to it in the West.
    i think the expansion of the internet and as much as i hate to say it globalisation will force these ideas into these countries by economic means and then you will have uprisings
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    i think the expansion of the internet and as much as i hate to say it globalisation will force these ideas into these countries by economic means and then you will have uprisings
    if you hate to say it, what do most orthodox muslim populations think?
    if anything the uncensored spread of the consequences of Western values, only hardens a support for conservative islam. that and death by stoning.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.