Go to first unread
Back
to top
anyone going to london on thursday to protest against George W.?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#181
(Original post by Elle)
Arguments are often pointless with someone whose views are as extreme as yours
Arguments are often pointless with someone whose views are as extreme as yours
where are these 'extreme' views?
the views that happen to disagree with prominent spokespeople who advocate the deaths of coalition soldiers in order to end the US Imperial rule...
Imperial rule? ..wackos, complete wackos..
0
Report
#182
(Original post by vienna95)
im sure he was concerned, but he couldnt have justified it purely on those grounds. once the security threat was raised and the problems the UN inspectors were having, thats when his strategy would have changed..honestly, its pretty obvious..
im sure he was concerned, but he couldnt have justified it purely on those grounds. once the security threat was raised and the problems the UN inspectors were having, thats when his strategy would have changed..honestly, its pretty obvious..
0
Report
#183
Hmmm, I always think about joining in these arguements but can never find an appropriate oppurtunity. It disturbs me that the only person who seems to be putting their point across in a reasonably coherent manner is the person who's views are the furthest (in terms of position on the political spectrum) away from my own.
0
Report
#184
(Original post by kildare)
Hmmm, I always think about joining in these arguements but can never find an appropriate oppurtunity. It disturbs me that the only person who seems to be putting their point across in a reasonably coherent manner is the person who's views are the furthest (in terms of position on the political spectrum) away from my own.
Hmmm, I always think about joining in these arguements but can never find an appropriate oppurtunity. It disturbs me that the only person who seems to be putting their point across in a reasonably coherent manner is the person who's views are the furthest (in terms of position on the political spectrum) away from my own.
0
Report
#185
(Original post by hotnanoo)
so if nothing happened in Iraq that Blair couldn't prove but now 9/11 has happened it gives him all the right to attack Iraq. My question is can 9 11 justify the war on Iraq, a yes or no answer will suffice
so if nothing happened in Iraq that Blair couldn't prove but now 9/11 has happened it gives him all the right to attack Iraq. My question is can 9 11 justify the war on Iraq, a yes or no answer will suffice
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 concentrated the US administration on the threats to national security that were now imminent. the Bush administration had already begun to put in place mechanisms to reduce the bureacracy regarding intelligence on foreign threats(now known in some form, as the patriot act), following the clinton administration. however, after the attacks, both as a wake up call and as a result of public concern, the administration made pre-emption of another attack a priority and combatting terrorism became as we all know, a priority. Tony Blair had been concerned with Iraq since late-2000 and his support of the UN at that time was probably less than that from the US.
from intelligence, the exisiting sanctions and thus probable intl. support as well as the strategic benefits, iraq was targeted as a threat to security, based upon what we knew from those who committed the attack on the twin towers. 9/11 was the slap in the face the west needed. be thankful that because of the US/UK alliance there hasnt been another on our or US shores.
0
Report
#186
(Original post by hotnanoo)
i assume you are refering to Vienna well if you had been arguing with a perso n that never changes their mind and always believes whatever is said in western media you'd understand. Ohh and don't let our pettty arguments get in your way theres always room for people to voice their opinions
i assume you are refering to Vienna well if you had been arguing with a perso n that never changes their mind and always believes whatever is said in western media you'd understand. Ohh and don't let our pettty arguments get in your way theres always room for people to voice their opinions
do you believe everything that puts a case against the war? yes.
how was an article and opinion put forward by myself treated? with contempt.
do i consistently moan and make attacks against you because your arrogant, hypocritical, self-pitying and dont change your mind. NO.
0
Report
#187
(Original post by vienna95)
but thats the point, a yes or no answer does not suffice.
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 concentrated the US administration on the threats to national security that were now imminent. the Bush administration had already begun to put in place mechanisms to reduce the bureacracy regarding intelligence on foreign threats(now known in some form, as the patriot act), following the clinton administration. however, after the attacks, both as a wake up call and as a result of public concern, the administration made pre-emption of another attack a priority and combatting terrorism became as we all know, a priority. Tony Blair had been concerned with Iraq since late-2000 and his support of the UN at that time was probably less than that from the US.
from intelligence, the exisiting sanctions and thus probable intl. support as well as the strategic benefits, iraq was targeted as a threat to security, based upon what we knew from those who committed the attack on the twin towers. 9/11 was the slap in the face the west needed. be thankful that because of the US/UK alliance there hasnt been another on our or US shores.
but thats the point, a yes or no answer does not suffice.
the terrorist attacks on 9/11 concentrated the US administration on the threats to national security that were now imminent. the Bush administration had already begun to put in place mechanisms to reduce the bureacracy regarding intelligence on foreign threats(now known in some form, as the patriot act), following the clinton administration. however, after the attacks, both as a wake up call and as a result of public concern, the administration made pre-emption of another attack a priority and combatting terrorism became as we all know, a priority. Tony Blair had been concerned with Iraq since late-2000 and his support of the UN at that time was probably less than that from the US.
from intelligence, the exisiting sanctions and thus probable intl. support as well as the strategic benefits, iraq was targeted as a threat to security, based upon what we knew from those who committed the attack on the twin towers. 9/11 was the slap in the face the west needed. be thankful that because of the US/UK alliance there hasnt been another on our or US shores.
Intelligence is varied and sceptical at most Blair said $5 mins to attack us but that was a lie
0
Report
#188
They refer to an "American Imperalistic rule" because America has committed a number of war crimes which have gone unnoticed by many people because of the biased Western media. Maybe you'd like to research some of these instead? They literally get away with murder and disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost.
0
Report
#189
The thing is, Vienna is clearly more knowledgeable than most of the people she argues with (as would be expected, she is quite a bit older). She therefore uses the strategy of never really committing herself too strongly in any argument thereby allowing other people to weaken their own arguements by getting generally pissed off and losing their cool.
0
Report
#190
(Original post by vienna95)
do you ever change your mind? no.
do you believe everything that puts a case against the war? yes.
how was an article and opinion put forward by myself treated? with contempt.
do i consistently moan and make attacks against you because your arrogant, hypocritical, self-pitying and dont change your mind. NO.
do you ever change your mind? no.
do you believe everything that puts a case against the war? yes.
how was an article and opinion put forward by myself treated? with contempt.
do i consistently moan and make attacks against you because your arrogant, hypocritical, self-pitying and dont change your mind. NO.
Do you believe in everything for the war, maybe i cannot say
But what i can say is that you take an detached view witout emotion, which is probably better but you cannot see that the was is bsed on nothng but you carry one rebutting my remarks with words from the president and the foreign policy, it can be wrong
0
Report
#191
(Original post by Elle)
They refer to an "American Imperalistic rule" because America has committed a number of war crimes which have gone unnoticed by many people because of the biased Western media. Maybe you'd like to research some of these instead? They literally get away with murder and disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost.
They refer to an "American Imperalistic rule" because America has committed a number of war crimes which have gone unnoticed by many people because of the biased Western media. Maybe you'd like to research some of these instead? They literally get away with murder and disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost.
0
Report
#192
(Original post by Elle)
They refer to an "American Imperalistic rule" because America has committed a number of war crimes which have gone unnoticed by many people because of the biased Western media. Maybe you'd like to research some of these instead? They literally get away with murder and disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost.
They refer to an "American Imperalistic rule" because America has committed a number of war crimes which have gone unnoticed by many people because of the biased Western media. Maybe you'd like to research some of these instead? They literally get away with murder and disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost.
0
Report
#193
(Original post by kildare)
Imperialism has very little to do with war crimes really, I think the argument this person is trying to make is that this US administrations foreign policy is a sort of “New Imperialism” whereby America is now the colonial power, assuming a sense of inherent superiority and trying to expand their influence with scant regard for the citizens of the country which they “control”.
Imperialism has very little to do with war crimes really, I think the argument this person is trying to make is that this US administrations foreign policy is a sort of “New Imperialism” whereby America is now the colonial power, assuming a sense of inherent superiority and trying to expand their influence with scant regard for the citizens of the country which they “control”.
0
Report
#194
(Original post by Elle)
Yes, but these crimes drive their Imperlism. As you say they think they have "control" over the world. So whats a few war crimes going to do if it gets yet another country serving its needs?
Yes, but these crimes drive their Imperlism. As you say they think they have "control" over the world. So whats a few war crimes going to do if it gets yet another country serving its needs?
0
Report
#195
(Original post by kildare)
I don't see how war crimes drive their Imperialism to be honest. I think that have little respect for international law but that's another issue entirely.
I don't see how war crimes drive their Imperialism to be honest. I think that have little respect for international law but that's another issue entirely.
0
Report
#196
(Original post by kildare)
Imperialism has very little to do with war crimes really, I think the argument this person is trying to make is that this US administrations foreign policy is a sort of “New Imperialism” whereby America is now the colonial power, assuming a sense of inherent superiority and trying to expand their influence with scant regard for the citizens of the country which they “control”.
Imperialism has very little to do with war crimes really, I think the argument this person is trying to make is that this US administrations foreign policy is a sort of “New Imperialism” whereby America is now the colonial power, assuming a sense of inherent superiority and trying to expand their influence with scant regard for the citizens of the country which they “control”.
0
Report
#197
(Original post by Elle)
Well as you said they are trying to "expand their influence" through a sense of superiority. The way in which they are doing this is pretty relevant I think.
Well as you said they are trying to "expand their influence" through a sense of superiority. The way in which they are doing this is pretty relevant I think.
0
Report
#198
(Original post by kildare)
The thing is, Vienna is clearly more knowledgeable than most of the people she argues with (as would be expected, she is quite a bit older). She therefore uses the strategy of never really committing herself too strongly in any argument thereby allowing other people to weaken their own arguements by getting generally pissed off and losing their cool.
The thing is, Vienna is clearly more knowledgeable than most of the people she argues with (as would be expected, she is quite a bit older). She therefore uses the strategy of never really committing herself too strongly in any argument thereby allowing other people to weaken their own arguements by getting generally pissed off and losing their cool.
1 - "American Imperalistic rule because America has committed a number of war crimes."
flawed on 2 counts, a) war crimes? proven where?
b) war crimes = imperialistic?
2 - "disregard many of their former allies in purusing a goal which will ultimaltey benefit only the minority, while the majority of people pay the cost."
a) disregarded which allies? the anglosphere that roundly supported them? no. Europe where the majority of nations supported them? japan? no. israel? no.
b) benefit the minority? the US taxpayer is shelling out billions to keep the entire western world aswell as asia and parts of the middle-east protected. europe could not defend its own backyard let alone other continents. whether you agree with their policy or not. the promotion of US defence policy, is a promotion of our security and that of the democratic world.
c) cost the majority? how much is this free defense costing Europe?
3- "on the basis of Iraq being a threat and using a preemtive strike i feel its rediculous no other time has a war started on the chance some one might attack."
a)because this is not a war. and the state of Iraq was not the direct threat
b) but since your asking, the Franco-Prussian war, as a random example.
4)By the way how ere they a threat no links with al-Queda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html
0
Report
#199
(Original post by kildare)
I don't see how war crimes drive their Imperialism to be honest. I think that have little respect for international law but that's another issue entirely.
I don't see how war crimes drive their Imperialism to be honest. I think that have little respect for international law but that's another issue entirely.
0
Report
#200
(Original post by kildare)
She therefore uses the strategy of never really committing herself too strongly in any argument thereby allowing other people to weaken their own arguements by getting generally pissed off and losing their cool.
She therefore uses the strategy of never really committing herself too strongly in any argument thereby allowing other people to weaken their own arguements by getting generally pissed off and losing their cool.
0
X
new posts
