Turn on thread page Beta

anyone going to london on thursday to protest against George W.? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    yes very true. this New imperialism i would say is economic imperialism. take south korea, something like 80% of previously state-owned companies are now american run. america literaly own south korea. such economic superiority allows america to piss all over people.
    Imperialism is based around the concept of forced, occupational control of countries in order to indoctrinate them culturally and politically for your own needs and to retain full control and benefit.

    the south korea argument is flawed on the first half, the iraq argument flawed on the latter.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Amen
    ah, dont put yourself down.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    take a look at my last argument. normally i would expect replies challenging Iraq as a strategic target, after all that is the flaw in my point.(i even make it easy for them). instead i get back,

    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.

    4)By the way how ere they a threat no links with al-Queda

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103176,00.html
    Don’t get me wrong, I think its pretty clear that your arguments are well thought out and intelligently expressed, I just disagree with the value judgments that you make. Oh and you’re not seriously trying to use a “FOX news” story to support your argument are you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Don’t get me wrong, I think its pretty clear that your arguments are well thought out and intelligently expressed, I just disagree with the value judgments that you make. Oh and you’re not seriously trying to use a “FOX news” story to support your argument are you?
    i normally never would, but this is a leaked memo. they cannot fabricate or distort fact in this form. obviously you saw the link so you knew this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Imperialism is based around the concept of forced, occupational control of countries in order to indoctrinate them culturally and politically for your own needs and to retain full control and benefit.

    the south korea argument is flawed on the first half, the iraq argument flawed on the latter.
    ok you can call it economic conquest. American dominance of south korea is based on economic strength, which can be as powerful as military conquest. with iraq we are yet to see the full effect of american multi-nationals coming in but they will. at some point american companies will be as important to iraq as the are with south korea.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Imperialism is based around the concept of forced, occupational control of countries in order to indoctrinate them culturally and politically for your own needs and to retain full control and benefit.

    the south korea argument is flawed on the first half, the iraq argument flawed on the latter.
    I would take imperialism to mean the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or for that matter by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over an other nation. I think, as things stand, this definition could indeed be applied to the current situation in Iraq. Korea is perhaps a slightly different case and not one I know a great deal about so I would find it hard to make any definitive statements on the issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattG)
    ok you can call it economic conquest. American dominance of south korea is based on economic strength, which can be as powerful as military conquest. with iraq we are yet to see the full effect of american multi-nationals coming in but they will. at some point american companies will be as important to iraq as the are with south korea.
    thats the global market. whatever you think about it, its not imperialism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    I would take imperialism to mean the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or for that matter by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over an other nation. I think, as things stand, this definition could indeed be applied to the current situation in Iraq. Korea is perhaps a slightly different case and not one I know a great deal about so I would find it hard to make any definitive statements on the issue.
    but there is no intent to stay in full political control of Iraq.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i normally never would, but this is a leaked memo. they cannot fabricate or distort fact in this form. obviously you saw the link so you knew this.
    I've taken a look at the article and it think the main weakness with it is that is doesn't elaborate on the circumstances around its leakage. I'd also take issue with the claim that the evidence is "conclusive", I think without knowing the circumstances surrounding the various CIA, FBI and NSA intelligence reporting it would be difficult for me to comment either way on its validity. I'd also question why, if this intelligence was available beforehand, it is only being released now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but there is no intent to stay in full political control of Iraq.
    Fair enough, that's your opinion, I personally think it's too early to say what will happen over the next few years in Iraq. I would be suprised however, if the U.S. did not try and maintain some sort of sway over Iraqi politics in the future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    I've taken a look at the article and it think the main weakness with it is that is doesn't elaborate on the circumstances around its leakage. I'd also take issue with the claim that the evidence is "conclusive", I think without knowing the circumstances surrounding the various CIA, FBI and NSA intelligence reporting it would be difficult for me to comment either way on its validity. I'd also question why, if this intelligence was available beforehand, it is only being released now.
    its obtained from Iraqi defectors or collaborators. its not being released now or not in a points scoring play anyway. a government cant say, this is proof, but actually theres nothing that ties Saddam directly to 9/11. were 80% sure they are telling the truth but they could be lies. they knew it all along as the memo suggests. as far as policy and the public goes its easier to say, we believe Iraq was and could aid terrorists and we are going to take further pre-emptive action based on our hunch than say, well heres some proof but the minute you disprove it we need to find some more or dismiss it as unimportant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Fair enough, that's your opinion, I personally think it's too early to say what will happen over the next few years in Iraq. I would be suprised however, if the U.S. did not try and maintain some sort of sway over Iraqi politics in the future.
    of course they would, but all countries have their fingers in each others pies. to level this as a grand crime solely committed by the US when its natural as the worlds and regional superpower to interest itself is just scaremongering.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    its obtained from Iraqi defectors or collaborators. its not being released now or not in a points scoring play anyway. a government cant say, this is proof, but actually theres nothing that ties Saddam directly to 9/11. were 80% sure they are telling the truth but they could be lies. they knew it all along as the memo suggests. as far as policy and the public goes its easier to say, we believe Iraq was and could aid terrorists and we are going to take further pre-emptive action based on our hunch than say, well heres some proof but the minute you disprove it we need to find some more or dismiss it as unimportant.
    Hmmm, I'm personally not sure if the sources they used are necessarily that objective. I think the U.S's conduct vis-à-vis the information they have presented as "fact" in relation to the Iraqi war hasn't exactly been exemplary. I'm also bewildered as too why any connection is still trying to be made between 9/11 and Saddam when even the U.S and U.K governments seem to have put that strategy to bed. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that pre-emptive strikes can only aid and abet terrorism by providing them with a justification for their actions and by alienating ordinary people who then look for an outlet for their discontent
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    of course they would, but all countries have their fingers in each others pies. to level this as a grand crime solely committed by the US when its natural as the worlds and regional superpower to interest itself is just scaremongering.
    "to level this as a grand crime solely committed by the US when its natural as the worlds and regional superpower to interest itself is just scaremongering" - please don't put words in my mouth.

    My point was that if one of the main reasons for overthrowing Saddam was to "liberate" the people and provide them with sovereign democracy then they should do just that. There would be no point in helping to establish democracy in Iraq if the U.S then decided to impose "conditions" on Iraqi democracy and did not allow the Iraqi population free choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Hmmm, I'm personally not sure if the sources they used are necessarily that objective. I think the U.S's conduct vis-à-vis the information they have presented as "fact" in relation to the Iraqi war hasn't exactly been exemplary. I'm also bewildered as too why any connection is still trying to be made between 9/11 and Saddam when even the U.S and U.K governments seem to have put that strategy to bed. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that pre-emptive strikes can only aid and abet terrorism by providing them with a justification for their actions and by alienating ordinary people who then look for an outlet for their discontent
    well i dont think they have presented anything as fact. intelligence reports admitted as such. alot of this so called connection making and information and fact is from the media.

    pre-emption doesnt provide the terrorists with justification, in their eyes they had that when they became conscious of Allah. it only provides justification for the anti-war loonies to wish death upon Western soldiers put in a country to aid peace and democracy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    "to level this as a grand crime solely committed by the US when its natural as the worlds and regional superpower to interest itself is just scaremongering" - please don't put words in my mouth.

    My point was that if one of the main reasons for overthrowing Saddam was to "liberate" the people and provide them with sovereign democracy then they should do just that. There would be no point in helping to establish democracy in Iraq if the U.S then decided to impose "conditions" on Iraqi democracy and did not allow the Iraqi population free choice.
    i believe that will happen.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)

    pre-emption doesnt provide the terrorists with justification, in their eyes they had that when they became conscious of Allah. it only provides justification for the anti-war loonies to wish death upon Western soldiers put in a country to aid peace and democracy.
    Yes, but do you not accept that people are "drawn to Allah" for specific reasons, one of which may be the assoication of the U.S. with abuse of power and meddling with Arab governements internal affairs (Iran under the Shah being case in point). Furthermore, do you honestly believe that the only reason that Western soldiers went into Iraq was the aid peace and democracy? Notwithstanding the fact that the these "anti-war loonies" who wish death upon the soldiers make up a tiny tiny minority of the anti-war movement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i believe that will happen.
    Even if free and fair elections resulted in the coming to power of an Islamic fundamentalist party?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Even if free and fair elections resulted in the coming to power of an Islamic fundamentalist party?
    but they will have a representational government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Yes, but do you not accept that people are "drawn to Allah" for specific reasons, one of which may be the assoication of the U.S. with abuse of power and meddling with Arab governements internal affairs (Iran under the Shah being case in point). Furthermore, do you honestly believe that the only reason that Western soldiers went into Iraq was the aid peace and democracy? Notwithstanding the fact that the these "anti-war loonies" who wish death upon the soldiers make up a tiny tiny minority of the anti-war movement.
    no i dont accept it. there are extremists and they are the ones conducting the attacks based on hatred of the west, full stop.
    a view of america doesnt help, but i dont think they react based on foreign policy. the arab media has alot to answer for in this respect.

    the soldiers in Iraq are trying to establish peace and democracy. what ever the opinions of the anti-war crowd it is hyprocritical and despicable to want to see US casulties or failure ahead of Iraqs stability.
    of course they are a minority, but so is the US government. that doesnt stop the brush tarring.
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.