Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    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.
    Yes, they are extremists, they are not however born with an inherent hatred for the West, their is a motivation and a rationale behind their actions. Simply ignoring the problem by saying "they're extremists, full stop" will not solve anything. If their reaction isn't based in any way on American foreign policy, what is it based on?

    You keep coming back to this point about people wanting to see US casulties and US failure. I honestly don't believe this is the case, people's reaction is twofold. On one hand there is a genuine feeling of sympathy for the plight of the soldiers, who after all are only following orders. And on the other their is a feeling of sorrow of the pointlessness of it all, of the fact the despite all the money wasted on the invasion, stability and peace have still not been restored.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Yes, they are extremists, they are not however born with an inherent hatred for the West, their is a motivation and a rationale behind their actions. Simply ignoring the problem by saying "they're extremists, full stop" will not solve anything. If their reaction isn't based in any way on American foreign policy, what is it based on?

    You keep coming back to this point about people wanting to see US casulties and US failure. I honestly don't believe this is the case, people's reaction is twofold. On one hand there is a genuine feeling of sympathy for the plight of the soldiers, who after all are only following orders. And on the other their is a feeling of sorrow of the pointlessness of it all, of the fact the despite all the money wasted on the invasion, stability and peace have still not been restored.
    they are born into islam and are taught by islam and by the media to hate the west. it may not be true islam, but US foreign policy will not stop the suicide bombings. factual events have shown that.

    if you look at the article and the people it mentions and then i cite two further examples. these are people who openly take a line that US failure is the priority, not Iraqi success.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    they are born into islam and are taught by islam and by the media to hate the west. it may not be true islam, but US foreign policy will not stop the suicide bombings. factual events have shown that.

    if you look at the article and the people it mentions and then i cite two further examples. these are people who openly take a line that US failure is the priority, not Iraqi success.
    In my opinion "Islam” and “the West” are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly.There isn’t a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futilely tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly.

    The unfortunate fact is, that to most people in the Islamic and Arab worlds the official US is synonymous with arrogant power, known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements and people who have real grievances.

    If you honestly believe that US foreign policy won't have an impact on the Arab's world perception of the West, how do you propose that we deal with the problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    In my opinion "Islam” and “the West” are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly.There isn’t a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futilely tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly.

    The unfortunate fact is, that to most people in the Islamic and Arab worlds the official US is synonymous with arrogant power, known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements and people who have real grievances.

    If you honestly believe that US foreign policy won't have an impact on the Arab's world perception of the West, how do you propose that we deal with the problem?
    please, everytime i answer something the goal posts move. i said,
    "US foreign policy will not stop the suicide bombings". im not saying that US foreign policy cant change the wider view of America. and my comments were not talking about Islam in the widest, most appreciative sense.

    "known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements "

    America, since the second world war, has gone out of its way to protect nations and their right to exist. Israel, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Kosovo..the US fought tooth and nail to protect them and funnily enough the majority were muslim..that is a right that it will not haggle over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    please, everytime i answer something the goal posts move. i said,
    "US foreign policy will not stop the suicide bombings". im not saying that US foreign policy cant change the wider view of America. and my comments were not talking about Islam in the widest, most appreciative sense.

    "known for its sanctimoniously munificent support not only of Israel but of numerous repressive Arab regimes, and its inattentiveness even to the possibility of dialogue with secular movements "

    America, since the second world war, has gone out of its way to protect nations and their right to exist. Israel, Bosnia, Kuwait, Kurdistan, Kosovo..the US fought tooth and nail to protect them and funnily enough the majority were muslim..that is a right that it will not haggle over.
    I'm answering just because the people should know ALL, not just a point of view.

    America protect nations?
    They fought to protect Latin American countries in 70's?
    No, they planted regimens to keep communism out of those countries.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    In my opinion "Islam” and “the West” are simply inadequate as banners to follow blindly.There isn’t a single Islam: there are Islams, just as there are Americas. This diversity is true of all traditions, religions or nations even though some of their adherents have futilely tried to draw boundaries around themselves and pin their creeds down neatly.
    Very well made point, the assumption of intellectual, religious and poltiical uniformity in otehr cultures is a very destructive tendency in our society. it means we destroy the possibility of reasoning with elements of different cultures and thus destroy the means by which we can work towards a world of greater understanding.

    no individaul is one thing, we are collections of many identities foot ball players, liberals, patriots, jazz lovers etc etc. this recognition is i believe key to esacping the narrow confines of the "us" and "them" mentality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    I'm answering just because the people should know ALL, not just a point of view.

    America protect nations?
    They fought to protect Latin American countries in 70's?
    No, they planted regimens to keep communism out of those countries.
    exactly. they were fighting against regimes supporting communism from their cold war soviet threat. this was not only in their interest but in the interest of the Europeans and free market countries, including those in the middle east.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kebab22)
    Very well made point, the assumption of intellectual, religious and poltiical uniformity in otehr cultures is a very destructive tendency in our society. it means we destroy the possibility of reasoning with elements of different cultures and thus destroy the means by which we can work towards a world of greater understanding.

    no individaul is one thing, we are collections of many identities foot ball players, liberals, patriots, jazz lovers etc etc. this recognition is i believe key to esacping the narrow confines of the "us" and "them" mentality.
    but it has little relevance when talking about a minority who hold that very mentality.

    did anyone see David Frum knock Jeremy Paxman for six last night? hilarious, Jeremy lost his cool and got very upset.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but it has little relevance when talking about a minority who hold that very mentality.
    that is true. there will always be a minority who identify themsevles with being one thing only and therefore lose any capacity to reason beyond this identity. Islamic fundamentalists are an example of this. but i belive that there are dangerous tendencies in our own society to respond to this by making our views equally parochial and identifying ourselves only as "the upholdrers of democracy", the negation of Islamic fundmaentalism, so much so it loses meaning and causes very wrong and destructive links (if not scrutinized) between say Islamic fundamentalism adn the wider Muslim world.

    there is intersting work done by a guy whose name i can't rememerb but he talks abou the developmetn of political and racial identities in the black community of the twentieth century. the very strength of the racial idenitifcation in the first place that lead to the success of the civil rights movement, eventuall becomes a tyrnay where a black community may only identify themselves with being one thing that is "black" when they are this but also many otehr things.

    vienna i think you talked about this on some other thread in relation to feminism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    exactly. they were fighting against regimes supporting communism from their cold war soviet threat. this was not only in their interest but in the interest of the Europeans and free market countries, including those in the middle east.
    No, you are wrong at all.
    There weren't regimes until USA installed them.
    There were DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS elected by the people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    No, you are wrong at all.
    There weren't regimes until USA installed them.
    There are were DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT elected by the people.
    can you clarify exactly what you are talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    can you clarify exactly what you are talking about?
    Yes, USA supported and installed dictatorship regimes in all Latin America.
    Pinochet : Chile.
    Videla, Massera: Argentina

    And a large large etc.
    All those governments were supported by USA.

    http://www.soaw.org/

    http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Yes, USA supported and installed dictatorship regimes in all Latin America.
    Pinochet : Chile.
    Videla, Massera: Argentina

    And a large large etc.
    All those governments were supported by USA.

    http://www.soaw.org/

    http://www.soaw.org/new/type.php?type=8
    erm, well as much as the US supported Pinochet, what he promised was not really what he delivered. over the period of his junta they turned a blind eye to his doings and the CIA supported him primarily because of the Cuban missile crisis and the fact the the previous government under Allente(i think) had nationalised US-property and supported Cuba. some of the declassified information is pretty interesting. after that subsided, Reagan, Bush and then Clinton as they did throughout Latin America, made efforts to open up free-trade on the continent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    na WAS GONA GOP BU CHANGED PLAN

    HOW BOT U
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    erm, well as much as the US supported Pinochet, what he promised was not really what he delivered. over the period of his junta they turned a blind eye to his doings and the CIA supported him primarily because of the Cuban missile crisis and the fact the the previous government under Allente(i think) had nationalised US-property and supported Cuba. some of the declassified information is pretty interesting. after that subsided, Reagan, Bush and then Clinton as they did throughout Latin America, made efforts to open up free-trade on the continent.
    As you problably saw they were behind all, maybe not directly, behind the scenes but they were.

    "Augusto Pinochet is not a graduate of the School of the Americas; yet
    his influence is hold in high esteem. in 1991, visitors could view a
    note from Pinochet, and a ceremonial sword donated by him, on display in
    the office of the Commandant (Charles Call, MH, 8/9/93)

    Graduates of the School of the Americas have also comprised 1 out of
    every 7 members of the command staff of DINA, the notorious Chilean
    intelligence agency responsible for many of the worst human rights
    atrocities during the Pinochet years. SOA grads who were members of the
    DINA command staff include: Luis Alberto Medina Aldea, Jorge Aro
    Peigneguy, Eugenio Videla, Rene Riveros, and Guillermo Salinas, as
    well as other officials mentioned below.

    GEN Leopoldo Galtieri, 1949, Engineer Course
    Military dictator, 1981-82: Achieved power by means of a violent coup,
    ousting Roberto Viola, below.
    (WP, 5/19/94) Galtieri was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison
    for leading Argentina into the d
    disastrous war with Britain for control of the Falkland Islands. He was
    pardoned, along with 280 other
    human rights abusers by President Carlos Menem in October 1989. (The New
    York Times, 10/12/89)

    GEN Roberto Viola, 1971, Tactical Officer, Arg. Cadet Course
    Military dictator, 1981: Achieved power via scheduled change of military
    rulers. (WP, 5/19/94) In
    December 1985, Viola was convicted of murder, kidnapping and torture
    during the "dirty war."
    (The New York Times, 10/8/89)

    GEN Hugo Banzer Suárez, 1956, Motor Officer Course; 1988, SOA “Hall of
    Fame”; 1989, Guest Speaker
    Military dictator, 1971-78: Achieved power by means of a violent coup.
    Developed the "Banzer Plan" to silence
    outspoken members of the Church; the plan became a blueprint for
    repression throughout Latin America. Also known for
    sheltering Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, "The Butcher of Lyons," and
    for supporting and collaborating with Garcia
    Meza's regime. (Americas Watch Report, Bolivia: The Trial of
    Responsibilities: The Garcia Meza Tejada Trial, 1993; The Atlanta
    Journal Constitution, 10/30/88)"

    US property ... that's very very debatable.

    Anywat they don't fight for freedom, NEVER. They fight for their own MONEY. Right now, ten years ago and when they got rid off UK
    government.

    And if they made efforts to open up free trade it's just to have benefits of it. To earn more money.
    If they really want to open up a free market then they should stop investing so much money in their own vegetable productions and let other countries compete in a really OPEN market.


    By the way, the Chile's president name it's Allende.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    erm, well as much as the US supported Pinochet, what he promised was not really what he delivered. over the period of his junta they turned a blind eye to his doings and the CIA supported him primarily because of the Cuban missile crisis and the fact the the previous government under Allente(i think) had nationalised US-property and supported Cuba. some of the declassified information is pretty interesting. after that subsided, Reagan, Bush and then Clinton as they did throughout Latin America, made efforts to open up free-trade on the continent.
    ahem -free up american trade. sanctions are still imposed by the UN and other organisations, while only america agrres to trade.

    similarly, its not true that american administrations have always been against
    a) saddam
    b) bin laden
    c) che guevara
    d) pinochet (as mentioned earlier)

    in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) and pnochet was an attempt to "bring dstability to the region" (aka get it under our control). unfortunately they always seem to either lose control of their frankensteins, or simply lose interest: the military bases and training they gave to al -qaeda, and bin laden's faction in particular, when the USSR tried to invade Afghanistan (often called the USSR's Vietnam, for reference), now proves impossible for them to destroy.

    in short, american foreign policy has proved time and again to be short-sighted and naive; creating problems as short-term answers that they then cannot solve, and subsequently meaning the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

    oh, sorry- - "collateral damage"

    but you can't blame them really - and after all, as Georgie Jr. once said:

    "this foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    As you problably saw they were behind all, maybe not directly, behind the scenes but they were.

    "Augusto Pinochet is not a graduate of the School of the Americas; yet
    his influence is hold in high esteem. in 1991, visitors could view a
    note from Pinochet, and a ceremonial sword donated by him, on display in
    the office of the Commandant (Charles Call, MH, 8/9/93)

    Graduates of the School of the Americas have also comprised 1 out of
    every 7 members of the command staff of DINA, the notorious Chilean
    intelligence agency responsible for many of the worst human rights
    atrocities during the Pinochet years. SOA grads who were members of the
    DINA command staff include: Luis Alberto Medina Aldea, Jorge Aro
    Peigneguy, Eugenio Videla, Rene Riveros, and Guillermo Salinas, as
    well as other officials mentioned below.

    GEN Leopoldo Galtieri, 1949, Engineer Course
    Military dictator, 1981-82: Achieved power by means of a violent coup,
    ousting Roberto Viola, below.
    (WP, 5/19/94) Galtieri was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison
    for leading Argentina into the d
    disastrous war with Britain for control of the Falkland Islands. He was
    pardoned, along with 280 other
    human rights abusers by President Carlos Menem in October 1989. (The New
    York Times, 10/12/89)

    GEN Roberto Viola, 1971, Tactical Officer, Arg. Cadet Course
    Military dictator, 1981: Achieved power via scheduled change of military
    rulers. (WP, 5/19/94) In
    December 1985, Viola was convicted of murder, kidnapping and torture
    during the "dirty war."
    (The New York Times, 10/8/89)

    GEN Hugo Banzer Suárez, 1956, Motor Officer Course; 1988, SOA “Hall of
    Fame”; 1989, Guest Speaker
    Military dictator, 1971-78: Achieved power by means of a violent coup.
    Developed the "Banzer Plan" to silence
    outspoken members of the Church; the plan became a blueprint for
    repression throughout Latin America. Also known for
    sheltering Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie, "The Butcher of Lyons," and
    for supporting and collaborating with Garcia
    Meza's regime. (Americas Watch Report, Bolivia: The Trial of
    Responsibilities: The Garcia Meza Tejada Trial, 1993; The Atlanta
    Journal Constitution, 10/30/88)"

    US property ... that's very very debatable.

    Anywat they don't fight for freedom, NEVER. They fight for their own MONEY. Right now, ten years ago and when they got rid off UK
    government.

    And if they made efforts to open up free trade it's just to have benefits of it. To earn more money.
    If they really want to open up a free market then they should stop investing so much money in their own vegetable productions and let other countries compete in a really OPEN market.


    By the way, the Chile's president name it's Allende.
    i dont understand the significance of those names.
    the US had property in Cuba under Batista and in Chile under AllenDe, which both nationalised into the state. so, yes the americans were pissed. the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies.

    i find it rather amusing that you complain about the US' motives for free trade and then complain when they have a monopoly on it. NAFTA is the worlds largest free trade area, what are your thoughts about mechanisms in place in other parts of the world, notably the EU?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i dont understand the significance of those names.
    the US had property in Cuba under Batista and in Chile under AllenDe, which both nationalised into the state. so, yes the americans were pissed. the main reasons they supported these dictators was to keep the areas surrounding the Cuban regime preferential to the US and not the soviets. it all seems fair game in the name of national interest and at the time the security of the Americas and its allies.

    i find it rather amusing that you complain about the US' motives for free trade and then complain when they have a monopoly on it. NAFTA is the worlds largest free trade area, what are your thoughts about mechanisms in place in other parts of the world, notably the EU?
    i always find myself feeling scared when someone says "fair game" in the context of politics / international economics,especially when the two nations are so polarised in wealth and influence. all it reminds me of is thatcher and the rich can stay rich, the poor can get poorer - i dont give a damn about these things called 'morals and responsibilities'.

    scary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El_Borish)
    i always find myself feeling scared when someone says "fair game" in the context of politics / international economics,especially when the two nations are so polarised in wealth and influence. all it reminds me of is thatcher and the rich can stay rich, the poor can get poorer - i dont give a damn about these things called 'morals and responsibilities'.

    scary.
    no whats scary, is the entire latin american continent full of USSR missiles. Thatcher and Reagan with a huge slice of luck and domestic economic stupidity by the Soviets helped end a nuclear war that threatened the world. the US single handedly took responsiblity for those morals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by El_Borish)
    ahem -free up american trade. sanctions are still imposed by the UN and other organisations, while only america agrres to trade.

    similarly, its not true that american administrations have always been against
    a) saddam
    b) bin laden
    c) che guevara
    d) pinochet (as mentioned earlier)

    in fact, in all of these cases, the US government of the day has used these nations as means to make hits at the USSR (in the instance of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cuba) and pnochet was an attempt to "bring dstability to the region" (aka get it under our control). unfortunately they always seem to either lose control of their frankensteins, or simply lose interest: the military bases and training they gave to al -qaeda, and bin laden's faction in particular, when the USSR tried to invade Afghanistan (often called the USSR's Vietnam, for reference), now proves impossible for them to destroy.

    in short, american foreign policy has proved time and again to be short-sighted and naive; creating problems as short-term answers that they then cannot solve, and subsequently meaning the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
    thats reasonably accurate. except that you dont offer any third way. what choice does the US have in a situation where, if they dont support an opposition they will have the USSR on their door step with the support of their entire neighbouring continent. or they side with an opposition who while may not be in support of democracy, provide no support to the enemy and will pose no long term threat to the security of the region or the US, let alone the world. it would be ideal, if the US could go and install a free,democratic, friendly society but then the same people who complained about Pinochet would complain about US Imperialism, US elected leaders and enforcing US moral values...not to mention the absurd suggestion that they have the expenditure, justification,time and resource needed to control an entire continent, while they protect the western world for the soviets..
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.