Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    in relation to the post, no I'm not going...all my friends are and all I can say to them is that they are only contributing to the things they are against. £5 million on security which has been upped because of these protests.....thats £5 million that could have been spent on helping student grants coming back, the NHS....what does that make you think?
    Not to mention the media will only report on the violence, not the peacefulness which will give protesters a "troublemaker" or "folk devil" status...and it's not as if Bush or Blair will pay any attention will they?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    in relation to the post, no I'm not going...all my friends are and all I can say to them is that they are only contributing to the things they are against. £5 million on security which has been upped because of these protests.....thats £5 million that could have been spent on helping student grants coming back, the NHS....what does that make you think?
    Not to mention the media will only report on the violence, not the peacefulness which will give protesters a "troublemaker" or "folk devil" status...and it's not as if Bush or Blair will pay any attention will they?
    i was hoping you would say it was because you welcomed a foreign visitor to Britain with the respect and warmth he deserved. least not the decorum.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you'll be pleased to know that you hold similar concerns to Mr.Bush,
    who said in his speech today,

    "We cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
    Yes, yes, yes.
    Nice speech. But that's all. A speech.

    If everyone that claims himself christian acted like a real one ... damn, this would be a better world...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Yes, yes, yes.
    Nice speech. But that's all. A speech.

    If everyone that claims himself christian acted like a real one ... damn, this would be a better world...
    i cant help your cynicism or scepticism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    i cant help your cynicism or scepticism
    Come on ...
    You must be kidding...

    Is there someone who believes what Bush says????

    Really???
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Oh yeah and because the British are known for being really good ambassadors, plus I'm from a service family that knows what the real conflicts of war are, my dad used to work for the RAF Police (intellegence) and I know that for two major superpowers to declare war on someone is not because they "feel like it" or it's do with oil but merely they have intellegence reports the citizens of those countries do not have access to and SHOULDN'T have access to or else they'd be running around like headless chickens looting and murdering because they all think they are gona die.
    I say let him get on with his visit, I know people who are meeting him due to deaths in Iraq (7 of my friends have been out there as has my brother in law who witnessed 2 of the helicopter crashes)
    this means a lot to them and people who protest and cause disruption are merely making their deaths for their country, the one they live in and are free to have their own opinions and beliefs in, a joke.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    though I do have to say that he needn't have made a dig at France and it was funny when he said to the camera "Those that are evil are in plain sight" lol that made me giggle
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    . 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
    Considered in the context of a discussion about the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Central America, by the U.S. or with assistance from the U.S., I think this comment could be taken as an attempt to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected government of a sovereign state in the name of U.S. national interest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Considered in the context of a discussion about the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Central America, by the U.S. or with assistance from the U.S., I think this comment could be taken as an attempt to justify the overthrow of a democratically elected government of a sovereign state in the name of U.S. national interest.
    but the US is not doing any overthrowing is it. and has a right to express its support for one or more opposition factions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    this means a lot to them and people who protest and cause disruption are merely making their deaths for their country, the one they live in and are free to have their own opinions and beliefs in, a joke.
    As you point out, one of the reasons why people fight for Britain is because they are proud of the fact that in Britain they have the right to have their own opinions, and to air them freely. Do you not think it's a bit ironic therefore, that you're complaining about people exercising this very right.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    but the US is not doing any overthrowing is it. and has a right to express its support for one or more opposition factions.
    O.k, I was talking about things on a historical level without direct reference to the present Iraqi situation therefore. As regards Iraq, it has already done the overthrowing (although I for one am not exactly sad to see Saddam go). Do you not think though, that in the interests of the "free and fair" democracy that the U.S. promises, it should remain politically neutral and allow the Iraqi's to make up their own mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saddam it's crap, OK, but that doesn't gives USA the right to invade a country.

    Actually it's pretty hilarious to see how the yesterday allies of USA (Bin Laden,Saddam,Noriega a graduate from the school of americas by the way) are enemies today.


    Take a look at USA foreign policy in Panama (Noriega's country)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    O.k, I was talking about things on a historical level without direct reference to the present Iraqi situation therefore. As regards Iraq, it has already done the overthrowing (although I for one am not exactly sad to see Saddam go). Do you not think though, that in the interests of the "free and fair" democracy that the U.S. promises, it should remain politically neutral and allow the Iraqi's to make up their own mind.
    in regards to Chile and many of the 'supported' regimes, the US never overthrew the existing leaders. see my previous posts for my views on that.

    yes, it should remain politically neutral and will, but when there is considered to be an immediate security threat and its in the interest of world peace and security then no. that is of course another argument. that is the difference between attitudes towards Saudi Arabia and India and countries like Pakistan and Iran.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eternal Idol)
    Saddam it's crap, OK, but that doesn't gives USA the right to invade a country.

    Actually it's pretty hilarious to see how the yesterday allies of USA (Bin Laden,Saddam,Noriega a graduate from the school of americas by the way) are enemies today.


    Take a look at USA foreign policy in Panama (Noriega's country)
    its not hilarious, its to be expected. read my post and ive expressed the reasons why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    World security?

    Yeahhh, Noriega were a really threat ....

    Come on!

    Aren't you going to admit that USA acts for it's own benefit and not for taking care of anybody else?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    As you point out, one of the reasons why people fight for Britain is because they are proud of the fact that in Britain they have the right to have their own opinions, and to air them freely. Do you not think it's a bit ironic therefore, that you're complaining about people exercising this very right.
    To some extent but when my mate got punched in the face by a "pacifist" because he went to war as he was in the army by some guy n a pub, then it ****ing takes the piss
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    in regards to Chile and many of the 'supported' regimes, the US never overthrew the existing leaders. see my previous posts for my views on that.

    yes, it should remain politically neutral and will, but when there is considered to be an immediate security threat and its in the interest of world peace and security then no. that is of course another argument. that is the difference between attitudes towards Saudi Arabia and India and countries like Pakistan and Iran.
    What about in Guatemala and Nicaragua?


    And who decides if there is a “threat to world peace and security”- America? The U.S. went into Iraq as “liberators”, how could the liberated Iraqi’s possibly elect a regime that posed a security threat? There is no reason therefore for the Americans to have any say in the make up of the Iraqi government following democratic elections, and nor, under any circumstances, should they be allowed such a say.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danithestudent)
    To some extent but when my mate got punched in the face by a "pacifist" because he went to war as he was in the army by some guy n a pub, then it ****ing takes the piss
    Obviously; don't tar all protestors with the same brush however.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Obviously; don't tar all protestors with the same brush however.
    No No i know, my mates are going and they actually think that will have an effect...and they are saving the country when they 5 milion quid that is being used to protect Bush from terrorists and protesters could have gone into the NHS which they keep complaining about...you understand where I'm coming from
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    What about in Guatemala and Nicaragua?

    And who decides if there is a “threat to world peace and security”- America? The U.S. went into Iraq as “liberators”, how could the liberated Iraqi’s possibly elect a regime that posed a security threat? \
    well who do you expect to protect the world. if the policeman is going to clean up, who makes the laws?

    before the conflict obviously.

    There is no reason therefore for the Americans to have any say in the make up of the Iraqi government following democratic elections, and nor, under any circumstances, should they be allowed such a say.
    i think we are jumping ahead of ourselves. none of this has happened yet.
 
 
 
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.