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

USA Patriot Act watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    So you don't actually object to the nature of my post,
    your post raised many points. I objected to - as you can see from my quote and comment - one of those points that was not qualified and was subsequently used as a premise for your general argument.

    Your use of war mongering was inaccurate. The 'war on terror' relates to a multi-faceted, multi-operational, international cooperation, to combat global terrorism. In not declaring yourself a enemy of terrorism you effectively advocate and aid its cause, logic even the terrorists are quick to seize proclaim. No developed Western nation has taken such a stance and rightly so. In this context, your criticism of Bush's 'with or against us' view would be both extreme and ill-founded.

    and are nit-picking Fair enough.
    i either agree with everything or nothing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Your use of war mongering was inaccurate. The 'war on terror' relates to a multi-faceted, multi-operational, international cooperation, to combat global terrorism. In not declaring yourself a enemy of terrorism you effectively advocate and aid its cause, logic even the terrorists are quick to seize proclaim. No developed Western nation has taken such a stance and rightly so. In this context, your criticism of Bush's 'with or against us' view would be both extreme and ill-founded.
    define terrorism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    define terrorism
    lets start with the actions taken by Al-Qaeda and its affiliated allied groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    lets start with the actions taken by Al-Qaeda and its affiliated allied groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.
    how is that any different to the actions of Kurdish freedom fighters before teh invasion of iraq or the Nothern Alliance?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    well, the U.S. patriotic act is the same as the war measures act that was created in canadian parliment in 1915. During a times of crises, it was used to create better security. It has been only used 3 times.

    Well hitler used something similar in the german constitution to keep himself in power. Personally, it is a risk to have an act like that one, especially for america, with a man like bush.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    how is that any different to the actions of Kurdish freedom fighters before teh invasion of iraq or the Nothern Alliance?
    i) they have political aspirations or desires, Al-Qaeda exist solely for purposes of terrorism.
    ii) they dont pose a threat to the West.
    iii) there actions aid the removal a larger terrorist threat to the West
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i) they have political aspirations or desires, Al-Qaeda exist solely for purposes of terrorism.
    ii) they dont pose a threat to the West.
    iii) there actions aid the removal a larger terrorist threat to the West
    1. al queada i am sure has aims as well, and who are you to judge which is more worthy?
    2. and? completely subjective
    3. ah, you are effectively saying the west is more important here, another subjective notion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    1. al queada i am sure has aims as well, and who are you to judge which is more worthy?
    i judge those with some kind of political aspiration to be more worthy than those who seek to merely kill and murder.

    2. and? completely subjective
    to the Western nations who are fighting terrorism with a global reach, no.

    3. ah, you are effectively saying the west is more important here, another subjective notion
    no, im saying its realpolitik to use a smaller threat to conquer a greater one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i judge those with some kind of political aspiration to be more worthy than those who seek to merely kill and murder.
    I agree that western democracy is a more desirable system of government, but I would dispute this in the use of terrorism. For example, in a 3rd dictatorship is it right to support a military coup to introduce a different group of leaders with the same ideas on ruling the country?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    to the Western nations who are fighting terrorism with a global reach, no.
    if you were bush would you ignore terrorism that wasnt likely to affect you?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    no, im saying its realpolitik to use a smaller threat to conquer a greater one.
    ah my idealistic streak again i guess
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    Personally, it is a risk to have an act like that one, especially for america, with a man like bush.
    It is a risk to do anything that gives a man more power than he once had. It doesn't matter who the man is. Bush is not hitler. He is also not a dictator. Get over it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    It is a risk to do anything that gives a man more power than he once had. It doesn't matter who the man is. Bush is not hitler. He is also not a dictator. Get over it.

    He is a danger to the whole world, he has inflamed muslims across the world and he dosnt seem to realize it. The funny thing is that, all efforts he has tried result in failure on foreign policy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    He is a danger to the whole world, he has inflamed muslims across the world and he dosnt seem to realize it. The funny thing is that, all efforts he has tried result in failure on foreign policy.
    Anyone can be a danger to the whole world. What has he done to inflame muslims that he shouldn't have? How do you define failure when dealing with foreign policy?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    Anyone can be a danger to the whole world. What has he done to inflame muslims that he shouldn't have? How do you define failure when dealing with foreign policy?
    The invasion of Iraq has been a failure by all accounts, except the immediate military entry and the disposal of Saddam Hussein.
    It was supposed to prevent Saddam using or preparing to use "weapons of mass destruction". Saddam had no immediately usable weapons or a programme for future weapons and was not trying very hard to get them.
    It was supposed to stop Saddam assisting islamic terrorist groups. It looks like Saddam had no contact with them, and- it is said- islamic terrorists are now active in Iraq. How far al-Sadr and his men are islamic and how far they are out for power and revenge we don't know, but there is the potential to make the USA look even more anti-muslim than it is already perceived to be. There are also the various sunni groups, who are international in their aspirations, whose activities aren't as widely reported at the moment.
    It was supposed to restore the Iraqi economy: this is even worse than under Saddam, and the infrastructure is being harmed by "resistance" groups, as well as the apparent policy of handing out contracts to American companies in a pork-barrel hand out.
    It was supposed to make the Iraqi people safe: again, political prisoners were freed, but so were common criminals and it looks as though the more murderous Baath party members are still out and active too. The USA encouraged crime after the collapse of Saddam and then had no ability or policy for dealing with it- the Iraqi army and police were not ideal, but they were all there was to keep order. The USA seemed to have no idea that anything might happen between the destruction of the Iraqi armed forces and the rewards of victory. As well as the anti-occupation activity there also seems to be a low level civil war going on in Iraq too. We do not know how many political prisoners there are in Iraq, nor how many may be imprisoned with good cause.
    The revelations of Abu Ghraib have shamed the US army. The claim that what happened there is perfectly normal practice in US civil prisons shamed the whole country. If this is true, it is justifiable shame.
    The biggest mistake, for all the rhetoric, was not involving the Iraqi people from the start. If improvised, labour-intensive methods of restoring the infra-structure had been used, offering small rewards to everyone involved from the start, then there might have been more Iraqis working with an interest in seeing a present peace and a futuire success. Perhaps there were too many Iraqis who had an interest in keeping Iraq in chaos, but giving a lot of people an immediate short-term interest in stability and peace is a good policy.
    Finally, there is the even worse possibility of a US success. The US could still succeed in Iraq. Use its full military power on all areas of civilian resistance and kill tens of thousands of people; use a systematic policy of arbitrary arrest, summary execution and torture; install a corrupt dictator with murderous assistants and say the silence after slaughter is peace. But if they were to do that, why not just cut a deal with Saddam, who had shown he could do all these things well, in the first place?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why can't some of you see the good? You are so caught up with the accusations against the U.S. that you fail to see that those people are free and self governing for the first time in most of their lives.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    Why can't some of you see the good? You are so caught up with the accusations against the U.S. that you fail to see that those people are free and self governing for the first time in most of their lives.
    They are in principle, and hopefully given time they will be. However, at the moment it seems that the country's security situation is so dire that the reach of the new government is no further than a few hundred metres of its compound in central Baghdad. It's not that we loathe the US, but that time and time again US military intervention on purely ideological, or perhaps political terms (whether against communists or terrorists), has ended in guerilla war and disasterous failure. Afghanistan, for example, is in ruins, the heroin crop is proving harder and harder to stop, and outside of Kabul the government has very little power. There is no physical infrastructure and little political strucure in the country. I hope that Iraq will be different, and that the Iraqi people will be free, but amongst many Europeans, I have the impression that we are very skeptical of the USA's ability to 'liberate' a country, as well as their motives for doing so.

    Anyway, can we return to the subject of the patriot act. There are loads of thread about US foreign policy elsewhere.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i) they have political aspirations or desires, Al-Qaeda exist solely for purposes of terrorism.
    ii) they dont pose a threat to the West.
    iii) there actions aid the removal a larger terrorist threat to the West
    Are you sure about point i) Vienna? It strikes me that Al-Queda is a rather political organization. I don't think they're blowing things up out of boredom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    Why can't some of you see the good? You are so caught up with the accusations against the U.S. that you fail to see that those people are free and self governing for the first time in most of their lives.
    Yeh....sure they are. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bea)
    Are you sure about point i) Vienna? It strikes me that Al-Queda is a rather political organization. I don't think they're blowing things up out of boredom.
    they have no conceivable and certainly no declared political goals, they have no political aspirations as ETA or the IRA might be considered. they exist, in their own words, to destroy the infidel West and those who do not support the word of Allah. if you believe the contrary id be happy to hear your suggestions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bea)
    Yeh....sure they are. :rolleyes:
    the political mechanisms and bodies are there, the legislation is there and since 90+% of Iraq have legitimately elected council then I would suggest it is a possibility worth considering.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    youve got a lot to answer for and you are no longer protected by the US Bill of Rights.
    are you protected by any bill of human rights?
 
 
 
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.