Anyone seen Bin Landen recently? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by Speciez99)
So it worth allowing how many people to be tortured to stop one american dying?
Thats not an equation one can make. Democracy and freedom should be promoted. Where aid and support of undemocratic nations eases and aids the longer term propogation of democracy and freedom, it should be accepted as a policy having value. Support for states such as Saudi Arabia, in the context of the middle east, facilitates the active promotion of democracy in the wider region, while strengthening diplomatic opportunities to further improve national security and the standard of living for Saudi nationals.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by Speciez99)
Surely no country is going to say we are against stopping terrorists.
Id hope not.

You are deliberately giving a very vague definition of allies here methinks and I remeber what you said about having to 2nd guess people ealier and how its not good.
Ive defined my definition of allies in this context. There is nothing vague about it.

The problem is who the terrorists are. So for example is France an ally?
In the war on terror, yes.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#23
(Original post by vienna95)
Id hope not.

Ive defined my definition of allies in this context. There is nothing vague about it.
There's nothing vague about it! You admit that every country would consider themselves to be a member on the war on terror yet clearly some nations support terrorists. You have offered no destinction between the two at all so far.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
(Original post by Speciez99)
There's nothing vague about it! You admit that every country would consider themselves to be a member on the war on terror yet clearly some nations support terrorists. You have offered no destinction between the two at all so far.
The distinction is clear, all nations should and will wish to prevent terrorism, since it is defined by the state being the target of its violence. In the context of this campaign against Islamic terrorism, some nations are more active allies in this war, and for pragmatic issues of national interest, others are not.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#25
(Original post by vienna95)
Thats not an equation one can make. Democracy and freedom should be promoted. Where aid and support of undemocratic nations eases and aids the longer term propogation of democracy and freedom, it should be accepted as a policy having value. Support for states such as Saudi Arabia, in the context of the middle east, facilitates the active promotion of democracy in the wider region, while strengthening diplomatic opportunities to further improve national security and the standard of living for Saudi nationals.
By funding nations like Saudia Arabia the following things occur:
Foregin National abused in Saudia
Free speech a pillar in democracy is repressed in Pakistan

those promoting democracy arrested in saudi
It is very clear that when you support a government that has no regard for human rights the chance of getting democracy stability and a regime that is fair is next to none. Democracy is based on the rights of the individual to speak, vote, worship how they like and freedom to move unhindered. The Islamic regimes in both countries are very much against most of these traits and such is there fundamental nature are unlikely to shift their position when they recieve some aid. However the aid its self is allowing these regimes to survive. My equation between the human rights of many and the lives of a few are quite clearly justified.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by Speciez99)
By funding nations like Saudia Arabia the following things occur:
Foregin National abused in Saudia
Free speech a pillar in democracy is repressed in Pakistan

those promoting democracy arrested in saudi
You cannot link US support for the Saudi government in particular areas, to resulting Human Rights cases. The Saudi government holds full responsibility for its treatment of its citizens.


It is very clear that when you support a government that has no regard for human rights the chance of getting democracy stability and a regime that is fair is next to none. Democracy is based on the rights of the individual to speak, vote, worship how they like and freedom to move unhindered. The Islamic regimes in both countries are very much against most of these traits and such is there fundamental nature are unlikely to shift their position when they recieve some aid. However the aid its self is allowing these regimes to survive. My equation between the human rights of many and the lives of a few are quite clearly justified.
The Saudi and Pakistani governments do not require US aid to survive. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are regional powers and among the most stable. The United States requires their support in tackling rogue, unstable nations that pose more immediate threats to the national security of the region and to the United States. The United States should seek to pressure the Pakistani and Saudi governments to improve HR issues, but without jeopardising a wider promotion of democracy in the region and the national interest of the US.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#27
(Original post by vienna95)
You cannot link US support for the Saudi government in particular areas, to resulting Human Rights cases. The Saudi government holds full responsibility for its treatment of its citizens.

The Saudi and Pakistani governments do not require US aid to survive. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are regional powers and among the most stable. The United States requires their support in tackling rogue, unstable nations that pose more immediate threats to the national security of the region and to the United States. The United States should seek to pressure the Pakistani and Saudi governments to improve HR issues, but without jeopardising a wider promotion of democracy in the region and the national interest of the US.
The treatment of the its citizens is the responsiblity of the state governement however the USA is endorsing hte action by giving these countries the aid to allo the regimes to remain stable and functioning. The aid is not encouring democracy and hence the following aid you put forward of:
- prevention of terrorism through active promotion democracy and freedom
is quite clearly not true.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by Speciez99)
The treatment of the its citizens is the responsiblity of the state governement however the USA is endorsing hte action by giving these countries the aid to allo the regimes to remain stable and functioning.
which aid is this?

The aid is not encouring democracy and hence the following aid you put forward of:
is quite clearly not true.
I dont see why not. Working with the Saudi and Pakistani governments is active promotion of democracy and freedom.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
(Original post by vienna95)
Democracy and freedom should be promoted. Where aid and support of undemocratic nations eases and aids the longer term propogation of democracy and freedom, it should be accepted as a policy having value.
What evidence is there that any of the "aid and support of undemocratic nations" does that?
Support for states such as Saudi Arabia, in the context of the middle east, facilitates the active promotion of democracy in the wider region
How?
The US/UK attitude still seems to be "They may be sons of *****es, but they're our sons of *****es."- the attitude they took- disastrously in the long term- with Saddam Hussein. What Karimov is doing in Uzbekistan looks pretty much like terror. It's simply that it's the poor bloody Uzbeks that are being tortured and terrorised.
0
LH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
I saw him in Tesco last week.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 14 years ago
#31
(Original post by Weejimmie)
What evidence is there that any of the "aid and support of undemocratic nations" does that?How?
The US/UK attitude still seems to be "They may be sons of *****es, but they're our sons of *****es."- the attitude they took- disastrously in the long term- with Saddam Hussein. What Karimov is doing in Uzbekistan looks pretty much like terror. It's simply that it's the poor bloody Uzbeks that are being tortured and terrorised.
Saudi Arabia is, by the standard of its neighbouring nations, more progressive and stable. It is also sensitive to policy from Washington. While the US needs to pressure Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. to tackle their HR issues, it requires their help and support, as regional powers, to confront terrorism and regime change in rogue nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc.

In promoting democracy and freedom, the US or any other nation should be careful not to jeopardise their own security or national interest.
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
And handily enough Saudi Arabia has lots of oil....
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
(Original post by BloodyValentine)
And handily enough Saudi Arabia has lots of oil....
There is no coincidence. If the US wishes to leverage diplomatic force against rogue nations in the middle east, it needs to know that a constant supply of crude oil exists.
0
Kondar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
(Original post by vienna95)
In the war on terror, yes.
When you say the war on terror are you implying that the US wishes and is taking actions against ALL terrorism- or only against terrorist actions againt the US and its allies?

Would you consider the following to be allies or enemies in regard to the war on terror in the context that you have previously asserted.

Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by Kondar)
When you say the war on terror are you implying that the US wishes and is taking actions against ALL terrorism- or only against terrorist actions againt the US and its allies?

Would you consider the following to be allies or enemies in regard to the war on terror in the context that you have previously asserted.

Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
what she is asserting seems very unclear to me
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by vienna95)
Saudi Arabia is, by the standard of its neighbouring nations, more progressive and stable. It is also sensitive to policy from Washington. While the US needs to pressure Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. to tackle their HR issues, it requires their help and support, as regional powers, to confront terrorism and regime change in rogue nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria etc.
Afghanistan is still a rogue nation? I suppose it's all the opium poppies. As for the claim that a corrupt theocracy is more "progressive" than the other states around, it's a little dubious. If stability, progress and oil was all they wanted the USA could have done with Saddam what they did with Gaddaffy: announce he was a repentant sinner and got down to business. As i said, they've got equally repellent monsters allegedly fighting for freedom and democracy.
The "war on terror" is a confusion of motives and a gross overestimate of the people involved: a bunch of psychos, religious maniacs, ambitious crooks and people with genuine cause to hate their rulers and want to get rid of them. They can't actually kill many people or do much long-term damage. Some of them might even be improvements on the regimes they hope to get rid of. What they can do is provoke gross responses which they can use to make themselves look important and their enemies look stupid and wicked- it doesn't matter whether the US is actually being stupid and wicked if it looks it. As for the damage they do, the agricultural policies of the US and the EU and the World Bank and other international lenders' habit of pursuing the countries that were conned into debt, not the thieves that did the stealing, are probabl.y responsible for many more deaths
0
material breach
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Afghanistan is still a rogue nation? I suppose it's all the opium poppies. As for the claim that a corrupt theocracy is more "progressive" than the other states around, it's a little dubious. If stability, progress and oil was all they wanted the USA could have done with Saddam what they did with Gaddaffy: announce he was a repentant sinner and got down to business. As i said, they've got equally repellent monsters allegedly fighting for freedom and democracy.
The "war on terror" is a confusion of motives and a gross overestimate of the people involved: a bunch of psychos, religious maniacs, ambitious crooks and people with genuine cause to hate their rulers and want to get rid of them. They can't actually kill many people or do much long-term damage. Some of them might even be improvements on the regimes they hope to get rid of. What they can do is provoke gross responses which they can use to make themselves look important and their enemies look stupid and wicked- it doesn't matter whether the US is actually being stupid and wicked if it looks it. As for the damage they do, the agricultural policies of the US and the EU and the World Bank and other international lenders' habit of pursuing the countries that were conned into debt, not the thieves that did the stealing, are probabl.y responsible for many more deaths
Owe you rep, IMO an excellent post.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 14 years ago
#38
(Original post by Kondar)
When you say the war on terror are you implying that the US wishes and is taking actions against ALL terrorism- or only against terrorist actions againt the US and its allies?
The US wishes to tackle all terrorism.
The US is and will primarily target Islamic terrorism and its support its allies in that war.

Would you consider the following to be allies or enemies in regard to the war on terror in the context that you have previously asserted.

Russia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.
I would consider them all to be allies in a war on terror.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Afghanistan is still a rogue nation?
No.

As for the claim that a corrupt theocracy is more "progressive" than the other states around, it's a little dubious.
Provide me with some social and economic comparisons. Saudi Arabia is not a liberals haven, but its society is stable and governed well. The US would like to see democracy reign in SA but pragmatism dictates that their stability is required to acheive success elsewhere.

If stability, progress and oil was all they wanted the USA could have done with Saddam what they did with Gaddaffy: announce he was a repentant sinner and got down to business.
I dont understand the point.

As i said, they've got equally repellent monsters allegedly fighting for freedom and democracy.
Fighting for freedom and democracy being the key difference.

The "war on terror" is a confusion of motives and a gross overestimate of the people involved: a bunch of psychos, religious maniacs, ambitious crooks and people with genuine cause to hate their rulers and want to get rid of them. They can't actually kill many people or do much long-term damage. Some of them might even be improvements on the regimes they hope to get rid of.
Again, I dont understand the relevance. The US should be happy to see a democratic government formed by the will of the people. If you believe they are all equally incapable of recognising democratic freedoms then that is your pessimism to harbour.

As for the damage they do, the agricultural policies of the US and the EU and the World Bank and other international lenders' habit of pursuing the countries that were conned into debt, not the thieves that did the stealing, are probabl.y responsible for many more deaths
there is a topic, try and stay on it.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 14 years ago
#40
(Original post by vienna95)
Provide me with some social and economic comparisons.
Most of the other gulf states.
Saudi Arabia is not a liberals haven, but its society is stable and governed well. The US would like to see democracy reign in SA but pragmatism dictates that their stability is required to acheive success elsewhere.
Is SA either stable or governed well? A combination of theocracy and kleptocracy is not inherently stable.


I dont understand the point.
If stability is the virtue you think it is, then the USA could have cut a deal with Saddam or some other Baath. If the motives their opponents attribute to the USA were correct- greed for oil and reconstruction jobs- the USA could have cut a deal with them. If you are going to give a people democracy it is as well to see if they want it and to check on their exact definition of it. Whatever the US's motives and intentions their activity in Iraq and the area around has damaged democracy and the likelihood of democracy there.


Fighting for freedom and democracy being the key difference.
Karimov is fighting for freedom and democracy?
Again, I dont understand the relevance. The US should be happy to see a democratic government formed by the will of the people. If you believe they are all equally incapable of recognising democratic freedoms then that is your pessimism to harbour.
The USA is supporting murderous and dictatorial governments and helping them suppress their opponents in the names of "freedom and democracy".



there is a topic, try and stay on it.
You shifted from the fairly trivial question of whether anyone has seen Bin Laden lately to the "war on terror". In the latter context a comparison of casualty rates and suffering imposed is right on topic.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (860)
80.37%
Leave (210)
19.63%

Watched Threads

View All