View Full Version : 52nd State
Reading Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3260415.stm) good old geroge dubya is comming to town...
sad tho that the yanks are taking over our captial city for the trip...
The Americans are actually running the security operation in London as well... I'm getting a bit alarmed about the degree of invasion of our capital by the Americans.
"The idea of closing off large parts of London to ensure that President Bush is taken well away from any protests or demonstrators seems a little insensitive and an enormous inconvenience to an awful lot of people."
couldnt agree more myself......
good old livinston aint going quietly tho :)
"The ideas of some American security advisers that perhaps we should shut the whole of central London for three days, ignoring the economic consequences of that, I don't think that's got a chance at all,"
is it just me that finds this rather offensive? If hes that paranoid about not being welcomed here, why does he not just send the queen a bloomin postcard from his ranch where he seems to spend most of his time??
Reading Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3260415.stm) good old geroge dubya is comming to town...
sad tho that the yanks are taking over our captial city for the trip...
couldnt agree more myself......
good old livinston aint going quietly tho :)
is it just me that finds this rather offensive? If hes that paranoid about not being welcomed here, why does he not just send the queen a bloomin postcard from his ranch where he seems to spend most of his time??Unlike others here, I don't want to assasinate him but I think that he should not be able to shut down half of London when he's here!
Chimaera
11-11-2003, 23:09
No - but his bestest buddy Tone will do everything to accommodate his mate I'm sure! ;)
So the Yanks think they can take control of our capital then do they?? :grind:
Does Blair have ANY kind of backbone??
So the Yanks think they can take control of our capital then do they?? :grind:
Does Blair have ANY kind of backbone??
Relax, Russ, he's coming to London, not Cardiff ;) :D
I think there's more than a little hyperboly from the BBC here. The yanks may well have made some extreme requests but they certainly won't get them. The close security support etc etc that Dubya is bringing with him is fairly standard, and given the threat against him (whether or not it's his own fault is another matter) it's not unjustified. The wider security of London is still in the hands of the Police and doubtless MI5 are in the shadows too.
If Dubya was not bringing any of his own flunkeys, the protesters would be moaning about the British taxpayer having to pick up the bill for this. At least this way he's paying his own way.
Thankfully, the disgraceful handling of protests the Chinese state visit a couple of years ago was documented so publicly that they will not dare do the same again. This will go in the favour of those who want to be seen to be protesting in this case, I think.
Totally agree Towny, the BBC are trying to blow it up into something it's not.
The President of the USA should always be welcome, no matter who he is and no matter what our views about him are, the position he holds should be respected. I might agree security, supposing the BBC reports are true, is sometimes rather over the top.
Ken Livingstone is rather odd and doesn't speak for me.
:eek:
etccarmageddon
12-11-2003, 08:07
Thankfully, the disgraceful handling of protests the Chinese state visit a couple of years ago was documented so publicly that they will not dare do the same again.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who still has the bitter taste of that police 'operation' still in his mind.
The President of the USA should always be welcome, no matter who he is and no matter what our views about him are, the position he holds should be respected. I might agree security, supposing the BBC reports are true, is sometimes rather over the top.
Ken Livingstone is rather odd and doesn't speak for me.
:eek:
Ja, ve must blindly follow our leaders. :rolleyes:
Why should the president of the USA always be welcome? Are you actually stating that there are no circumstances under which you don`t think he should be welcome? Bush is a jumped up little tyrant who should be treated no differently to Hitler or Pol Pot.
Don`t forget, it is almost the 40th anniversary of Kennedy's assasination, perhaps we will get lucky on this visit.
Bush is a jumped up little tyrant who should be treated no differently to Hitler or Pol Pot.
That is patently absurd.
timewarrior2001
12-11-2003, 09:16
I wont welcome the war monger to these shores.
I couldnt give a rats ass if London came to a standstill either.
I dont want Dubya in this country even for a visit and for the Americans to have the audacity to make demands on our country.....well they can just go **** themselves as far as I am concerned. If Bush is assasinated the world will be safer.
Idiots shouldn't be allowed to posses Nuclear weapons.
That is patently absurd.
Bush has been the driving force behind the illegal invasion of Iraq. He is now making demands that all middle-eastern societies adopt a governmental type of his choosing or face the consequences. He has demonstrated time and again that he is willing to threaten countries that don't dance to the American drum. Closer to home is attempting to dictate control over a vast swathe of central London during his visit. As far as I am concerned he is a tyrant and war criminal.
philip.j.fry
12-11-2003, 11:53
I have this feeling that Bush is actually kept sheltered from a lot of the public opinion against him, I think that keeping the protesters away has as much to do with keeping him blind to the truth as to his security.
What the US security planners, and Tony Blair, must realise is that people in this country are free to express opinion and protest marches fall under that right. Bush is more than welcome to visit but that visit should not interfere with peoples rights.
Stuart W
12-11-2003, 12:02
REMINDER:
The USA are not only the worlds only super power, but they are also our ALLIES!
I think it would be a whole heartedly BAD idea to start limiting the presidents visits here. Do you guys have ANY idea what you are talking about?
FYI London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack. If Tony Blair was going to visit the terror capitol of the world, wouldn't you want him to have some decent security?
REMINDER:
FYI London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack. If Tony Blair was going to visit the terror capitol of the world, wouldn't you want him to have some decent security?
Of course but them using their own security over ours is like saying ours is sub-standard. Can you imagine us insisting we use our security if Blair went to Washington?
Stuart W
12-11-2003, 12:07
Hmm.... we do.
When Blair goes to the U.S. he takes his own security team and they instruct American security agencies. This is standard for all leaders.
REMINDER:
The USA are not only the worlds only super power, but they are also our ALLIES!
They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.
I think it would be a whole heartedly BAD idea to start limiting the presidents visits here. Do you guys have ANY idea what you are talking about?
Yes, I think we do. Just because someone is our ally doesn't mean that we should allow him to ride roughshod over *our* country and have his people dictate what *we* can or cannot do.
If you had forgotten, allow me to remind you that *we* are a Sovereign Nation, not some appendage of the USA, we have our own laws and codes of acceptable behaviour and I certainly don't think that we should be brow-beaten by an arrogant right-winger into following his lead simply to keep them happy.
There's a word for that. It's "Appeasement".
FYI London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack.
This is *utter nonsense*!
How many suicide bombings have we had here? How many tanks have we seen on the streets (apart from that ill-advised set of "scare tactics" at Heathrow)? If you asked a selection of people on London's streets how worried they are about terror attacks, I think most would say that they're glad they're not living in Israel or the occupied territories of Palestine.
If Tony Blair was going to visit the terror capitol of the world, wouldn't you want him to have some decent security?
Excuse me???
If London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack, how come we don't close down huge sections of the capital every time TB goes to the House of Commons or leaves for his constituency or whatever??
The fact is that what Bush's people *really* want is to try to protect him from the large number of people who would be out on the streets protesting against his illegal actions, the lies he used to justify a war and the sheer arrogance of his government which thinks it can dictate terms to the rest of the world!!
orangebird
12-11-2003, 12:40
They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.
Yes, I think we do. Just because someone is our ally doesn't mean that we should allow him to ride roughshod over *our* country and have his people dictate what *we* can or cannot do.
If you had forgotten, allow me to remind you that *we* are a Sovereign Nation, not some appendage of the USA, we have our own laws and codes of acceptable behaviour and I certainly don't think that we should be brow-beaten by an arrogant right-winger into following his lead simply to keep them happy.
There's a word for that. It's "Appeasement".
This is *utter nonsense*!
How many suicide bombings have we had here? How many tanks have we seen on the streets (apart from that ill-advised set of "scare tactics" at Heathrow)? If you asked a selection of people on London's streets how worried they are about terror attacks, I think most would say that they're glad they're not living in Israel or the occupied territories of Palestine.
Excuse me???
If London is now the SINGLE MOST LIKELY target for terrorist attack, how come we don't close down huge sections of the capital every time TB goes to the House of Commons or leaves for his constituency or whatever??
The fact is that what Bush's people *really* want is to try to protect him from the large number of people who would be out on the streets protesting against his illegal actions, the lies he used to justify a war and the sheer arrogance of his government which thinks it can dictate terms to the rest of the world!!
Well said that man!
Stuart W
12-11-2003, 12:50
America are guilty of a whole shed load of things, including the things you mention and polution etc. Does that mean they should not be given any say?
Yes, we are a soverign state, but I didn't think Bush wanted to pass new laws or anything, just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit, which has been blown out of all proportion by the british press.
I guess I'll just keep my opinions to myself.
Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.
Bush is a moron. The only reason he is in power is because of daddys friends in the supreme court.
If I was Amercian I'd be embarrased to have him as president.
It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it.
George W Bush
The researcher that highlights the fact that London is supposed to be a prime target for terrorists was covered on Radio 4, and they reasoned that this was primarily due to the British government being so supportive of Bush and his campaign. If there is any threat, it is the fault of that smug Texan dictator in the first place, and if his actions are going to contribute to putting the capital at risk then I don`t see why we should bend over backwards to protect him.
downquark1
12-11-2003, 13:10
Would this happen in a US city?
duncant403
12-11-2003, 14:16
Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.
Just because London is supposedly the "most likely target" does not make it the most dangerous city in the world - and I'd have thought that the cities that are the "most likely targets" and those that are currently experiencing terror attacks every day - aren't there something like 30 attacks a day in Iraq? I notice there's been another suicide bomb attack in Nasiriya (Iraq). Surely a suicide bomb forms part of a "terror campaign"? This would make Nasiriya a more likely target than London.
Given the Americans record on "friendly fire"...I would have thought the last people he needs to guard him are Americans
Slightly off topic, but interesting (Taken from todays Times):
Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience
by Michael Gove
The three questions you should answer if you intend to demonstrate next week
Download Failed (1)Sometimes you can never be more lonely than when you are in a crowd. And that will be me next week.
In seven daysââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ time the National Stop the War Coalition will be rallying thousands of people to protest at President Bushââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s visit to London. A big turn-out is expected next Wednesday for the alternative state procession with the Critical Mass bike riders and the Big Red Peace Bus. The day after there is a mass anti-Bush demonstration in Trafalgar Square, with tens of thousands expected to show. And as someone who believes in standing up and being counted, I will be there. Even among the crowds it should be easy to spot me. I know there will be a lot of other guys in T-shirts and badges ††but perhaps not those I am planning to wear: the T-shirt with the American flag on it, above the simple legend †œThese Colors Donââ‚ ¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t Runââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â. And the little pin proclaiming †œBush-Cheney ††Four More Years!ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â It will be interesting to see what the crowd make of my presence. According to Libby Purves, they are peaceable souls who wish only to uphold the traditional Anglo-Saxon right of free assembly. So I expect there will be a chance to engage in constructive dialogue. Because I would like to ask everyone opposed to President Bushââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s visit a few questions.
I would like first to ask everyone at these rallies if they are happy attending events organised by apologists for tyranny. The Stop the War Coalition is chaired by a man called Andrew Murray, now communications officer for the rail union Aslef. Andrew, who used to work for the Soviet Novosti press agency, sits on the politburo of the Communist Party of Britain and wrote an article in the Morning Star a couple of years ago celebrating the 120th anniversary of StalinÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s birth. Working alongside him in the Coalition is another indefatigable protester with a soft spot for Uncle Joe, the former Labour MP George Galloway, who once claimed that the collapse of Soviet Communism was the saddest event of his life.
Now any of us are entitled to the odd bit of nostalgia for the fallen heroes of our youth. I personally have a soft spot for Ally McLeod, the Scotland manager who crashed and burnt in the 1978 World Cup. But controversial figure from the past though Ally is, he did not organise the murder of 30 million people. Stalin did, and people who miss him are not just nostalgics for adolescent dreams: they are grown-ups getting misty-eyed about genocide.
The guys organising next weekâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anti-Bush rally are not really against war, they just think it is a pity that the free world won the Cold War. And anyone clambering aboard their Big Red Peace Bus is a fellow traveller with fans of totalitarianism.
Talking of which, the next question I would like to ask anyone standing next to me next Thursday is: do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq? Is that why you are angry? Andy, George and the rest of the crew organising this rally are admirably clear on this point. They want Western troops out of Iraq now, leaving the place free for SaddamÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s loyalists and Islamic fundamentalists to build their own new hells. They opposed the removal of SaddamÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s torture state, oppose the use of Western power to help to build the foundations of a free Iraq and want to see the West retreat in the face of terrorist action.
If George Bush were to stop his war now, as Andy, George and all their friends want, the consequences would be unthinkable. Iraq would be left, as it was tragically before in 1991, to the tender mercies of gangsters and fanatics. The hope of an alternative path for the Arab Middle East, towards modernity, freedom and prosperity, would crumble. The men who planned 9/11, and have unleashed suicide bombers on Tel Aviv and Riyadh, would be emboldened by a lack of Western resolution and encouraged to extend their campaigns. To our doorsteps.
I am sure that most of those tempted to rally next week want to do something to halt terror, indeed anything to stop the waste of innocent lives. Which prompts the third, and crucial, question. How do you think this war you say that you want to stop actually started?
The history of the past 80 years teaches us that it is when democracies are weak and slow to assert themselves that conflicts begin and innocents die. The march of the dictators in the 1930s was facilitated by the strength of the disarmament and isolationist lobbies in Britain, France and America. The mass slaughter and †œethnic cleansingâ₠¬Â of Milosevic gathered pace in the 1990s because the European Union prevaricated in the face of provocation. In that same decade the forces of terror in the Middle East were emboldened.
In Iraq the withering support for sanctions, especially among European nations, encouraged its dictator in defiance. In Palestine the willingness of idealistic Israelis to gamble security for peace only strengthened the hand of Islamic hardliners. Among the leaders of al-Qaeda the reluctance of America to meet outrages in Somalia, Yemen or Kenya with proper fortitude only encouraged escalation.
It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.
Of course Bush has made mistakes, on issues from global warming to steel tariffs. There may well be room to criticise much in his record. But given the people who want to occupy that space next week, it is not a place I want to go. I respect freedom too much to enjoy seeing it abused by those whose first instinct is to insult anyone who actually bothers to fight for it. And I admire what America has done for liberty, throughout its history, too much to want to join those people who are now biting the hand that freed them. Stop Bush? Not in my name.
Of course we can all pick holes in whatever bits of the above article that we want to but the general gist of it is thought provoking-Ramrod
They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.
Didn't we invade along side them? And wether the action was illegal or not depends on if you believe UN resolutions have an unwritten expiry date or not.
We also are holding people in "limbo", you just don't hear about them.
They are also the ones guilty of an illegal invasion of another country. They are also the ones guilty of holding people in limbo at Guantanamo Bay, denying them access to legal representation or giving them a fair trial. They are also the ones who have threatened other countries that if they don't change their behaviour they risk invasion.
Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.
btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.
Slightly off topic, but interesting (Taken from todays Times):
Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience
by Michael Gove
The three questions you should answer if you intend to demonstrate next week <snip>
Thanks for posting that, it was very interesting ... I'm waiting to see how Bush's critics in this forum answer the points it makes.
Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.
btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.
Yeh !! .......common sense of reality speaks instead of political rhetoric !! :cool:
Thanks for posting that, it was very interesting ... I'm waiting to see how Bush's critics in this forum answer the points it makes.Yup.....I'm ducking for cover as we speak!:D
My main beef was with the way the stop the war movement is being run by communists, people need to know this. Bit like the CND in the 80's.
Yup.....I'm ducking for cover as we speak!:D
My main beef was with the way the stop the war movement is being run by communists, people need to know this. Bit like the CND in the 80's.
I'm in a real bind myself, I'm a pacifist because of my faith, but when I look at the Godless way the world carries on I can see the logic of Bush and Blair's approach to all this. I guess I'll prolly sit on the sidelines for this thread ... but as I said, I am very interested in how those who are so quick to conemn Bush answer the charge that they are therefore by default expressing support for a regime that has been digging mass graves all over Iraq.
Earlier in this thread dr wadd likened Bush to Hitler or Pol Pot. If I remember my history, both Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler indulged in mass slaughter and indeed the digging of mass graves. Against this measure, Bush is nothing like them ... but Saddam Hussein, whom he has removed from power, measures up very nicely.
I'm in a real bind myself, I'm a pacifist because of my faith, .....
Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.
As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.
Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.
The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article.
As for the earlier comment about UN resolutions having an expiry date, they do not, but the earlier UN resolutions did not mandate a military campaign. The terminology in these things can be obtuse at times, but it did not go that far.
As for US mandated mass slaughter, I only have to point to the no-fly zones in Iraq. These were never authorised by UN action, they were implemented by the US, UK and French. The French pulled out a long time ago, while the US and UK continued to patrol these areas and attack military targets within the borders of Iraq. Many people will have died in these attacks, yet they had no legitimacy under international law. I`m also in no way convinced that the US government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11, even if through merely turning a blind-eye for political gain, so that's almost another 3000 deaths on the hands of the US government.
As for the US not using suicide bombers, they just use more covert means to bring death and destruction for their own political ends. The US were responsible for the rise of power of General Pinochet and the suffering that caused. The US had a major part in putting Saddam Hussein into the position of power he was in before they decided they didn`t like him. The US illegally carpet bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war just in case the enemy were there. No matter how much blood was on Saddam Hussein's hands, there is a lot more on the collective hands of the American people and their government.
Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.
As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.
Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.
From the rest of your post I`m not so sure that the only lesson that you learned wasn`t simply that violence = power = control.
<snip>
interesting article, but it makes a big thing of who is leading the stop the war campaign. I dont CARE who is, could be lord sutch for all i care.
What their motivations for their protest are are of no concern to me. I dislike the thought of bush coming over here and expecting the country to bend to his whim and desire because I, ME, personally dont like it, not cos some communist hippy tells me not to like it.
tho the thing that i really dissagree with is
We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.
IRA aside (and thats died out now anyway), i dont remember tanks in heathrow, concrete barriers outside parliment, public announcements by MI5 that there is a very high risk of terror attack, the govt sealin off parts of london to do drills for chemical attacks since we went hand in hand with bush 'in defense of democracy' to fight the good fight againsed terrorism
IRA aside (and thats died out now anyway), i dont remember tanks in heathrow, concrete barriers outside parliment, public announcements by MI5 that there is a very high risk of terror attack, the govt sealin off parts of london to do drills for chemical attacks since we went hand in hand with bush 'in defense of democracy' to fight the good fight againsed terrorism
Well said. I fully agree, if we are at an increased risk now then it is purely because we have supported Bush's crusade to impose his view of democracy on the rest of the world. Leaving aside the issue of Iraq, Bush has now demanded that *all* middle-eastern states adopt a fully democractic government, with the implication that if they don`t then they better watch out. Is it any wonder that the US is so vilified by so many people around the world, and if we continue to be their poodle then we too will be dragged into the whole sorry mess.
What their motivations for their protest are are of no concern to me. I dislike the thought of bush coming over here and expecting the country to bend to his whim and desire because I, ME, personally dont like it, not cos some communist hippy tells me not to like it.
I agree, I don't like it either.
The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article.
So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?
Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.
As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.
Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.
It's a mistake to equate pacifism with lack of willingness to impose discipline. You will find many Christians like myself find war abhorrent but are supportive of corporal punishment.
downquark1
12-11-2003, 16:59
The article was terrible 1st of all
It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.
Where is the proof we are safer. Now we have Iraqi terrriorists who now without a government will have no fear to attack us.
Sadam was a terrible man but the problems with the war were:
The government lied to the people about WOMD - how can we be a free democratic country if the government fills us with no just propa ganda but straight lies?
We accept we have no jurisdiction in iraq without UN support - what was the basis for war? Self defense from something we have no evidence off. We can't just attack a country because they may be a treat to us. This is enforcing your will and values and thus becoming a dictator/conquer yourself.
We do prefer that insane muderers do not run countries but who are we to say who is insane, and one system is democratic when one is not. Since we still have a monarchy tecnically in power we wouldn't grade as a US style democracy. If the queen decided to dissolved the government and take over the country will america attack us?
We do prefer that insane muderers do not run countries but who are we to say who is insane, and one system is democratic when one is not.
Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic. They'd speak up for themselves, but unfortunately they can't join us today because they are lying cold and dead in the mass graves Saddam had prepared for them.
Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic. They'd speak up for themselves, but unfortunately they can't join us today because they are lying cold and dead in the mass graves Saddam had prepared for them.I thought the number was closer to 3000 000....
So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?Jolly good, I came back to address Dr Wadd's point to find you had already done so. Ta for that.:)
So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?
The assumption that people protesting are doing so simply because the West "won" the cold war is simply absurd. This ties into the previous statements that the journalist made, deriding the organisers communist beliefs. This journalist seems to have the very much mistaken belief that not wanting a war somehow equates to being a communist. With this kind of paranoid fear about "reds under the bed" it is little wonder that he sides so heavily with the pro-American camp.
He also seems, in my opinion, to be taking a stance that the only way of dealing with these situations is through the use of force. One thing I would like to stress is that I am not opposed to the use of a military solution per se, if done legally and responsibly, and I don`t believe either of those apply in the case of Iraq. But the attitude in that article seems to be entirely based around the concept that either we get them first or they get us. It doesn`t address the wider issue of why they hate us so much in the first place.
The simple matter is that the anti-communist rhetoric in the article, in my opinion, completely destroys any credibility the rest of the article had. He could have put across his points far more eloquently if he had simply stuck to the relevant facts.
downquark1
12-11-2003, 17:22
Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic. Yes, but who are we to say this is reason to remove them. Did the pope start a war with england when we burnt catholics.
If we say all countries must be democratic we will set a dangerious precadent and then pretty soon any country without a MCdonalds will be 'liberated'
America has banned communist parties in their own country - if it was up to them the whole world would be banned. This fundamentally defies the point of democracy and each countries soverignty.
The article was terrible 1st of all
Where is the proof we are safer. Now we have Iraqi terrriorists who now without a government will have no fear to attack us.Sadam was a terrible man but the problems with the war were:The government lied to the people about WOMD - how can we be a free democratic country if the government fills us with no just propaganda but straight lies??
I don't believe the UK government knowingly lied about WMD. Given that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were so stubborn in regard to allowing a full UN weapons inspection what esle can we assume. If he had no WMD why did he not allow complete and unfettered access to all military sites and his umpteen palaces.
We accept we have no jurisdiction in iraq without UN support - what was the basis for war? Self defense from something we have no evidence off. We can't just attack a country because they may be a treat to us. This is enforcing your will and values and thus becoming a dictator/conquer yourself.
There were sufficient past UN resolutions that gave backing to allied intervention, in any case the UN is stuffed with timeserving politicians, though not all, who live a glamorous lifestyle at the expense of their own home country's taxes. Even the UN human right committtee is headed by Gadafi who has no interest in Human rights and apologises for mugabe's terror regime in Zimbabwe.
Rather puzzled about "Since we still have a monarchy tecnically in power we wouldn't grade as a US style democracy. If the queen decided to dissolved the government and take over the country will america attack us?"
We do have a constitutional monarchy and Parliament is supreme, not sure queenie would want to takeover the country as she can't control the antics of her children.
:rolleyes:
downquark1
12-11-2003, 17:51
We do have a constitutional monarchy and Parliament is supreme, not sure queenie would want to takeover the country as she can't control the antics of her children. OK, bad example - what if the BNP got democratically elected and started deporting anyone with foreign blood in the last 3 generations - would the US do anything about that? Same question if we were an oil rich country,
OK, bad example - what if the BNP got democratically elected and started deporting anyone with foreign blood in the last 3 generations - would the US do anything about that? Same question if we were an oil rich country,
1. I am under the impression the UK is an oil rich country.
2. Given your new example: I would hope that friendly democratic governments would at the very least impose economic and political sanctions on the UK. But given that the UN Human Rights Committee is led by Gadafi it's likely he would quite like a BNP government as they would have so much in common. Note that the Kenyan government now wants to expel 10,000 people of Asian origin one can only say the silence is deafening. The Zimbabwe government has been engaging in ethnic cleansing and again there is silence.
:cool:
America has banned communist parties in their own country - if it was up to them the whole world would be banned. This fundamentally defies the point of democracy and each countries soverignty.
Oh dear! Wrong again. The Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity, it has not been banned, these days it's a living museum, an irrelevant relic of the past.
The Communist Party in Iraq was illegal under Sadam Hussein and he murdered many of its militants whilst receiving weapons from the then USSR.
:cool:
downquark1
12-11-2003, 18:17
In Oct., 1949, 11 top Communist leaders were convicted on charges of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. In June, 1951, the Supreme Court found the Smith Act of 1940, under which the convictions had been obtained, constitutional, and the government proceeded to bring many lesser Communist officials to trial. In 1950 the McCarran Internal Security Act required that all Communist and Communist-dominated organizations register with the federal government the names of all members and contributors, and the Communist Control Act of 1954 further strengthened the provisions of the McCarran Act by providing severe penalties for Communists who failed to register, denying collective bargaining power to Communist-dominated unions, and taking away the †œrights, privileges and immunitiesââ ¬Â of the Communist party as a legal organization. At the same time many states passed †œlittle Smith Acts,ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šà ¬Ã‚Â with such provisions as the requirement of loyalty oaths from state employees and the denial of a place on the ballot to Communist parties. This was also the period of Senator Joseph McCarthyââ‚ ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s hysterical search for Communists in all branches of government.The Communist Party in Iraq was illegal under Sadam Hussein and he murdered many of its militants whilst receiving weapons from the then USSR. Well at least they agreed on one thing.
Well at least they agreed on one thing.
Sorry but you are out of date. You will find the web site on:
http://www.cpusa.org/
The CPUSA was indeed not banned, though its leaders did experience harassment on the dates quoted and suffered under Senator McCarthy's hysteria. But in this period it changed its name temporarily to the Communist Political Association under its General Secretary Earl Browder to get around restrictions.
There can never be any comparison in the treatment of CPUSA militants and those who suffered under Sadam Hussein. US Communists were not murdered by the state, life may have been uncomfortable but they were not murdered as in Iraq.
I repeat that the Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity and I suspect its members would be quite surprised to read what you have suggested.
:cool:
The assumption that people protesting are doing so simply because the West "won" the cold war is simply absurd. This ties into the previous statements that the journalist made, deriding the organisers communist beliefs. This journalist seems to have the very much mistaken belief that not wanting a war somehow equates to being a communist. No, he is just pointing out the dubious credentials that the leaders of the organisation have. He also seems, in my opinion, to be taking a stance that the only way of dealing with these situations is through the use of force. One thing I would like to stress is that I am not opposed to the use of a military solution per se, if done legally and responsibly I broadly agree
The simple matter is that the anti-communist rhetoric in the article, in my opinion, completely destroys any credibility the rest of the article had.I disagree. By the same token then, the communist ideals held by the leaders of the organisation would then also destroy their anti war arguments credibility.
Theodoric
12-11-2003, 18:58
Er, what's the 51st state? :)
downquark1
12-11-2003, 18:59
Sorry but you are out of date. You will find the web site on:
http://www.cpusa.org/
The CPUSA was indeed not banned, though its leaders did experience harassment on the dates quoted and suffered under Senator McCarthy's hysteria. But in this period it changed its name temporarily to the Communist Political Association under its General Secretary Earl Browder to get around restrictions.
There can never be any comparison in the treatment of CPUSA militants and those who suffered under Sadam Hussein. US Communists were not murdered by the state, life may have been uncomfortable but they were not murdered as in Iraq.
I repeat that the Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity and I suspect its members would be quite surprised to read what you have suggested.
:cool:Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.
I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.
Theodoric
12-11-2003, 19:05
Actually, if we reject the EU, then becoming the 51st American state could be a serious possibility. Think of it; each American state elects 2 senators and a number of congressman that is related to its population. If the UK went in as 4 states, that would give us 8 out of 116 senators and about about 15% of the congressman. Acting as a block, this would result in the former UK holding the balance of power and enabling us to dig deep into the American pork barrel.
PS I've never been able to understand why Canada hasn't become the 51st American state, Surely they are in all but name. :p
I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.
You could say that as there is no one trying to take TB to court over it, that infact it was a legal action.
How can you say that if it was legal it would have taken place sooner?
Surely you must see that with the democrats in power there was no force willing to enforce the UN resolutions?
They opted to try sanctions and diplomacy (and good on them for trying it for 12 years) but eventually you have two choices, walk away and tell the world we don't give a damn let them do what they like, or up the ante and use force.
As the article asked, if you are anti-war, would you have rather Saddam stayed in power?
Would you rather we turned our backs on Iraq now and pulled everyone out, abandoning them to what ever warlords decide to take control?
Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.
I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.
Members of the Communist Party of the USA do in fact campaign publically there are no restrictions on them at all. Membership can't be more than 15,000 and they take part in elections, even the presidential races when Gus Hall was their presidential candidate and at one time they had two councilmen on New York City Council, there is no restriction on their acitivities, in the USA free speech means free speech, rights protected under the constitution.
Nobody likes war, I'm sure both Tony Blair and George W. Bush were aware that people will be killed, they know young men will be going into battle, giving their lives for their country, no one wants war, but the responsibilty for the war is solely that of Saddam Hussein and the old ruling clique in Iraq.
:spin:
Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.
.Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!
downquark1
12-11-2003, 19:29
Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!
Ramrod you would make a fantastic american.
I do not think communism works and they have done terrible things to my family. If it wasn't for the communist I would be in a much bigger house in Europe and very well off. However, this is not reason to right off an entirely idealogy as evil.
Ramrod you would make a fantastic american.
I do not think communism works and they have done terrible things to my family. If it wasn't for the communist I would be in a much bigger house in Europe and very well off. However, this is not reason to right off an entirely idealogy as evil.Why not? -the results it spawns are.:confused:
...ask most of North Korea!
Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!
Ramrod,the CPUSA operates legally in the USA there are no limits as to its rights of freedom of speech and activities, downquark has been misinformed.
:eek:
Er, what's the 51st state? :)
Hawaii
Ramrod,the CPUSA operates legally in the USA there are no limits as to its rights of freedom of speech and activities, downquark has been misinformed.
:eek:I don't care if it is legal or illegal in the USA, it is still an obscenity.
....but we digress.....:D
Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!
You are quite incorrect there. The Soviet implementation of Communism was responsible for those deaths, not Communism itself. The acts committed by the Soviet regime are not called for in Communist doctrine. How many deaths has religion caused? How many deaths has Christianity caused? Are you going to claim that is an obscenity too. Two South American countries went to war over a game of football that cost tens of thousands of lives? You want to call football and obscenity as well.
Don't you mean 51st State ?
Theodoric
12-11-2003, 21:02
Hawaii
Remember Hawaii Five Oh? :)
philip.j.fry
12-11-2003, 21:04
You want to call football and obscenity as well.
Yes :D *dons asbestos suit*
You are quite incorrect there. The Soviet implementation of Communism was responsible for those deaths, not Communism itself. The acts committed by the Soviet regime are not called for in Communist doctrine. How many deaths has religion caused? How many deaths has Christianity caused? Are you going to claim that is an obscenity too. Two South American countries went to war over a game of football that cost tens of thousands of lives? You want to call football and obscenity as well.I am quite correct.
USSR: 20 million deaths
China:65 million
Vietnam:1 million
North Korea:2 million( and counting)
Cambodia:2 million
Eastern Europe:1 million
Latin America:150000(and counting)
Africa:1.7 million
Afghanistan:1.5 million
The international communist movement and communist parties not in power: approx. 10000
So it is not just the soviet implimentation of communism, it is a worldwide phenomenon. Most of those people would have lived out their lives if communism had not existed. To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia.
downquark1
12-11-2003, 21:32
I am quite correct.
USSR: 20 million deaths
China:65 million
Vietnam:1 million
North Korea:2 million( and counting)
Cambodia:2 million
Eastern Europe:1 million
Latin America:150000(and counting)
Africa:1.7 million
Afghanistan:1.5 million
The international communist movement and communist parties not in power: approx. 10000
So it is not just the soviet implimentation of communism, it is a worldwide phenomenon. Most of those people would have lived out their lives if communism had not existed. To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia.What are these figures? Death by execution or just deaths
To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia.
A disturbing but chillingly clear illustration. Thankyou for putting into words something that I felt was wrong but couldn't get my head round.
downquark1
12-11-2003, 21:37
So it is not just the soviet implimentation of communism, it is a worldwide phenomenon. Most of those people would have lived out their lives if communism had not existed. To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia. How can you compare that to the idealogy of everyone being equal? You could say the same thing about religious wars or indeed any war. War is not evil just the implementation. Taxes aren't evil just the implementation. Privatisation isn't desiasterous for the railways - just the implementation.
I'm sure when Marks developed the idea, secret police and cold war were not in his plan.
Communism is not the evil - it's human selfishness.
What is the source for your figures? If you don`t back them up with a source you may as well post pictures of little fluffy bunnies, they are both equally irrelevant.
Unlike others here, I don't want to assassinate him but I think that he should not be able to shut down half of London when he's here!
The problem is that his bodyguards tend to be triggerhappy and shoot first and ask questions later. I wonder what the situation would be if Bush's men perceived a situation to be hostile, opened fire and killed innocent civilians.
What's wrong with him flying to the military airbase nearest to London and being flown direct to Chequers by helicopter?
I'll tell you one thing. It will be extremely embarrassing for Blair if Bush was assassinated here.
How can you compare that to the idealogy of everyone being equal? You could say the same thing about religious wars or indeed any war.
I'm sure when Marks developed the idea, secret police and cold war were not in his plan.
Communism is not the evil - it's human selfishness.
The idea of everyone sharing and being equal is a nice one, but you're right insofar as you point out that basic human nature means it will never work. I don't think it is therefore possible to distil 'pure communism' and somehow set it apart from somebody's implementation of it. Communism is an attempt to deal with human nature, so to attempt to evaluate it in isolation from human nature is absurd. If human nature is such that applied communism always ends up being enforced by totalitarian dictatorship (and it always does), then the basic ideology is demonstrably wrong. Ramrod's statistics ably illustrate this.
What is the source for your figures? If you don`t back them up with a source you may as well post pictures of little fluffy bunnies, they are both equally irrelevant.The black book of communism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674076087/qid%3D1068676487/026-3225660-8911622)
What are these figures? Death by execution or just deathsExecution, deportation to gulag, engineered famins....
The black book of communism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674076087/qid%3D1068676487/026-3225660-8911622)
Thanks for posting that link.
Obviously I`ve not read the book, I get the impression you have. One of the reviews makes comment of the fact that it does not take into account the fact that Communism as practiced isn`t Marxist Communism. Was that your impression of the book as well?
In rererence to your other post, lots of countries have the death penalty, and the Guantanomo Bay prison is nothing more than a gulag. Don`t the the US have ever engineered a famine within their own borders though.
How can you compare that to the idealogy of everyone being equal?because thats not all the ideoligy is about. If it had stopped at everyone being equal all would have been fine, many ideoligies have that basic premise, it's the forcible social engineering and the state apparatus that you need to effect that engineering that is the problem with communism. Millions of people are suddenly declared 'enemies of the state' because of their parentage, skills or upbringing. Instant discrimination....odd for a ideoligy that you say proclaims that all are equal. George Orwell finished that statement rather well... You could say the same thing about religious wars or indeed any war. War is not evil just the implementation. War is evil but sometimes it is unfortunately nessesary. I'm sure when Marks developed the idea, secret police and cold war were not in his plan.
Communism is not the evil - it's human selfishness.Marx already new that vast swathes of society would have to be purged when he formulated his ideas. How else could he bring about such a radical change in a society without 're-educating' and controlling 'dissident elements'
Thanks for posting that link.
Obviously I`ve not read the book, I get the impression you have. One of the reviews makes comment of the fact that it does not take into account the fact that Communism as practiced isn`t Marxist Communism. Was that your impression of the book as well?
In rererence to your other post, lots of countries have the death penalty, and the Guantanomo Bay prison is nothing more than a gulag. Don`t the the US have ever engineered a famine within their own borders though.The book is 900 pages of depression, I have only managed 265 of them before I was too 'down' to read any more. I havent opened it for 2 years till tonight. One day I will finish it.
Guantanomo bay has food, doctors, heating/air con, sanitation and shelter. Buy the book and read about real gulags.
Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist, I don't care, It's all about controlling people and their lives by force and eliminating those that don't agree. If we lived in a communist state we would not be free to be typing on this forum without worrying about who is watching us.
...but we digress from the threads topic:D
America are guilty of a whole shed load of things, including the things you mention and polution etc. Does that mean they should not be given any say?
No, but it should give the clue that there is a strong taint of hypocrisy in their position.
Yes, we are a soverign state, but I didn't think Bush wanted to pass new laws or anything, just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit, which has been blown out of all proportion by the british press.
I'm sorry? What part of "just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit" do you consider *reasonable*?!
I guess I'll just keep my opinions to myself.
Why? Because you don't like people pointing out the flaws in them?
Stupid me thought that something printed in the national press (The Guardian, yesterday "London now most likely target for terror campaign") would have been researched.
Unfortunately since you haven't posted a link to that article and, despite several minutes googling I've been unable to *find* it, it's a bit difficult for me to address it except to point out that to say that something is "most likely" doesn't mean that it *will* happen.
Bushophobia can be bad for your conscience by Michael Gove (snip)
I would like first to ask everyone at these rallies if they are happy attending events organised by apologists for tyranny.(snip)
The guys organising next weekâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anti-Bush rally are not really against war, they just think it is a pity that the free world won the Cold War. And anyone clambering aboard their Big Red Peace Bus is a fellow traveller with fans of totalitarianism.
This is utter nonsense and I could swear I can see the ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the background!
Talking of which, the next question I would like to ask anyone standing next to me next Thursday is: do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
And why hasn't the US invaded all the other countries in this world, such as, say the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are run by mass murderers? Surely it couldn't be because they don't have any oil?
The history of the past 80 years teaches us that it is when democracies are weak and slow to assert themselves that conflicts begin and innocents die.
Obviously he never watched Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where, for instance, it pointed out how Winston Churchill proposed the use of gas bombs and chemical warfare against the people who lived in what is now called Iraq...
It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.
Sorry, didn't someone just say that London was "most likely" to be a terrorist target? Why should we be a target if not for the fact that TB is seen as Bush's poodle and jumps whenever he whistles?
I respect freedom too much to enjoy seeing it abused by those whose first instinct is to insult anyone who actually bothers to fight for it.
When someone says "you're either with us or against us" and other such things, are they *really* "fighting for freedom" or trying to dictate to everyone else how they should run their affairs??
Of course we can all pick holes in whatever bits of the above article that we want to but the general gist of it is thought provoking-Ramrod
Yes, the general gist of it is that the author has a clear agenda that he wants to push and is willing to ignore any inconvenient facts that get in its way.
Hmmm....at least they don't deliberatly send suicide bombers to blow up busses, red cross hospitals, skyscrapers and other civilian targets.
No, they use A-10's to attack journalists.
Oh, and don't forget that in 1991 they *deliberately* targetted power stations, water and sewerage treatment facilities and many other *civilian* targets!
btw....what is wrong with threatening countries with invasion if they don't change their terrorist ways? It is analagous to threatening criminals with jail if they don't stop offending.
Two quotes for you to think about...
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
And "One person's patriot is another man's terrorist."
As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.
Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.
However, just like in school, if you're a big enough bully, you can get away with your actions because nobody will (or can) stand up against you.
Saddam? No, I was talking about Bush!
Either his statements are true or they are false.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
He mixes facts with supposition, falsehood, innuendo and hearsay to make his points. There is some truth in what he says, I have no doubt, but that only makes the lies more palatable.
To say that it is the implimentation of communism that caused the problem not communism itself is like saying that paedophilia is not the problem it's just the implimentation of paedophilia.
And how many people have been killed by Christians?
Try substituting "Christianity" into the above sentence and see how many people take exception!
I'm sorry? What part of "just asked for most of London to be shut down for his visit" do you consider *reasonable*?!
You know, I suspect that the source of this was something more along the lines of:
US agent: you know, it'd be so much easier if we could shut down central london :D
UK agent: yeah, tell me about it, anyway, what we're suggesting is...
Then the media got hold of it and decided to blow it all out of proportion.
Or it was just Mad Ken sounding off
From the rest of your post I`m not so sure that the only lesson that you learned wasn`t simply that violence = power = control.
You are 100% correct !! But a great many kids need to be controlled until such time as they can demonstrate self control and similarly a great many dictatorial administrations need to be controlled by force until such time as they can demonstrate conformity with international humanitarian law.
Don't miss the point that these school bullies or international bullies would control us by violent force if allowed to. Oh sorry they already try to daily with bombings and terrorist attacks.
The West may not have it all right with our obsession with capitalism, but I prefer that to genocide and suppression.
And how many people have been killed by Christians?
Try substituting "Christianity" into the above sentence and see how many people take exception!LOL, that still dosn't negate my argument.
...and I think that Cristianity and Communism are two totally different things in terms of the way they are implimented, for one, Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends. That is part and parcle of communism.
Anyhow....we digress from the topic.
.............Christianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends.......
Erm.......the more extreme Moslem practitioners do !!
downquark1
13-11-2003, 10:12
LOL, that still dosn't negate my argument.
...and I think that Cristianity and Communism are two totally different things in terms of the way they are implimented, for one, Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends. That is part and parcle of communism.
Anyhow....we digress from the topic.
Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.
Erm.......the more extreme Moslem practitioners do !!....lets not go there:)
Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.but where did he advocate a class war, centralization, state control of everything....etc?:confused:
This is utter nonsense and I could swear I can see the ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the background!How is it nonsense? The leaders are 'fans of totalitarionism' and anyone with them is thus a 'fellow traveller' with 'fans of totalitarionism'
And why hasn't the US invaded all the other countries in this world, such as, say the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are run by mass murderers? Surely it couldn't be because they don't have any oil? Answering a question with another question is not an answer...
Obviously he never watched Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where, for instance, it pointed out how Winston Churchill proposed the use of gas bombs and chemical warfare against the people who lived in what is now called Iraq... 'Proposed'? So he didn't actually do it then? Saddam did.
Sorry, didn't someone just say that London was "most likely" to be a terrorist target? Why should we be a target if not for the fact that TB is seen as Bush's poodle and jumps whenever he whistles? True. We were probably less of a target before if only for the fact that we let so many terrorist types live here!
When someone says "you're either with us or against us" and other such things, are they *really* "fighting for freedom" or trying to dictate to everyone else how they should run their affairs?? Perhaps sometimes telling people/countries how to run their affairs negates the need for greater more forceful action later on.
Yes, the general gist of it is that the author has a clear agenda that he wants to push and is willing to ignore any inconvenient facts that get in its way. Yes, we are all guilty of doing things like that at times;)
Of course it does, Jesus helped lepers, criminals and tax collectors - social outcasts. He proclaimed love thy neighbour as yourself - IE you are equal to your neighbour - if anything Jesus was communist.uh oh ... fairness and equality are hallmarks of Jesus' teaching, but Communism? No. Communism is about more than that. Communism calls for redistribution of wealth (by force if necessary), something you can't claim Jesus advocated, even after allowing for statements he made like 'give your riches to the poor and come, follow me.' Additionally, his portrayal of the afterlife clearly indicates a 'heirarchy' in which his people have greater or lesser rewards according to their life on earth.
And why hasn't the US invaded all the other countries in this world, such as, say the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are run by mass murderers? Surely it couldn't be because they don't have any oil?This is a valid point, but it doesn't answer the question you quoted above it. So here it is again:
Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
You yourself admitted that there are some truths in this Times article, albeit serving to make lies more palatable. However what you have not done is to say which you think is which.
Sadly this thread is dominated by much posting of contrary points of view, with each side dismissing the other's view as 'agenda' or 'dogma', but there is precious little willingness to debate the substantive issues.
I say again, the 'facts' quoted in the article are either true or they are false. You called this 'nonsense' but then in your very next sentence you agreed with me:
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
He mixes facts with supposition, falsehood, innuendo and hearsay to make his points. There is some truth in what he says, I have no doubt, but that only makes the lies more palatable.
Right, so, as I pointed out, and as you clearly agree, what he publishes as fact is either true or it is not. In your case, you clearly have an idea what you think is true and what you think is false. Would you care to say which is which?
downquark1
13-11-2003, 10:50
but where did he advocate a class war, centralization, state control of everything....etc?:confused:
Communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community. we must not confuse the basic ideas with different methods of implemenation. The idea listed above is very simular to the believes of Native americans (ie. no personal property). Nuclear power can destroy but it also powers the sun - the source of all life. Fireworks look nice but can injure people seriously.
You are defining the source by the possible affects it can produce. You could call capitolism evil because it pollutes the planet and leaves people hungry. While the ideas behind it seems fair.
downquark1
13-11-2003, 10:55
Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq? No, but that doesn't make it right. If my neighbour died it would mean no more loud music at night - but this doesn't mean I condone his murder.
we must not confuse the basic ideas with different methods of implemenation.
No, you cannot separate the basic idea from the people it was intended to influence. Communism attempts to deal with human nature. Human nature is basically selfish. Therefore any political theory that seeks to deal with that must acknowledge the need for change by force. So we have a political theory that calls for peace, harmony and equality that cannot possibly work without strife, oppression and an overseeing party elite to ensure it stays that way.
Communism is an absurdity that belongs in history. Even the Chinese have abandoned it, albeit very subtly.
downquark1
13-11-2003, 11:05
No, you cannot separate the basic idea from the people it was intended to influence. Communism attempts to deal with human nature. Human nature is basically selfish. Therefore any political theory that seeks to deal with that must acknowledge the need for change by force. So we have a political theory that calls for peace, harmony and equality that cannot possibly work without strife, oppression and an overseeing party elite to ensure it stays that way.
Communism is an absurdity that belongs in history. Even the Chinese have abandoned it, albeit very subtly.
I agree that it doesn't work and not worth trying, this doesn't mean it will never work. Native Americans lived with a simular system for a very long time - granted it was in a remarkably simple and small society.
Communism doesn't work but I believe describing it as evil is wrong. It's simply misguided. The path to hell is pathed with good intentions
Communism doesn't work but I believe describing it as evil is wrong. It's simply misguided. The path to hell is pathed with good intentionsI merely called it an obscenity (but evil will do as well) because it was directly responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century and continues to kill as we speak.
Capitalism does not set out to kill people (even though that might occur, cristianity does not set out to kill people even though that happened in the past) communism does.
No, but that doesn't make it right. If my neighbour died it would mean no more loud music at night - but this doesn't mean I condone his murder.
What if rather than being murdered, he was evicted?
No longer had control over the hi-fi system, so no longer could keep others awake with his loud music at night?
Again I ask the anti-war people, do you think we should just move out of iraq now and leave them to it?
, Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends.
No, they just had, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition which was an attempt to destroy a complete group of people ie "heretics" to further its own ends.
But, of course, that's *entirely* different...!
No, they just had, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition which was an attempt to destroy a complete group of people ie "heretics" to further its own ends.
But, of course, that's *entirely* different...!
Now, really, do we have to go over this again? Christianity was instituted by Jesus of Nazareth, and a small group of his closest friends, a little under 2,000 years ago. What they said Christianity is, is what Christianity is.
The actions of a politically-motivated elite (namely the Roman church) over 1,000 years later do not demonstrate that Christianity advocates violence in pursuit of its aims. The Roman church has always been led by a Pope who claims to be God's mouthpiece on Earth and therefore what he says, is what the Christian God wants, thereby sidestepping the Bible's clear message on this point.
'Bible believing' Christians throughout the last two millennia have always rejected this. You may have heard of the 'Reformation' in connecton with this.
You really don't peruade anyone who knows anything about it that the Spanish Inquisition demonstrates Christianity is a violent philosophy. But I think you knew that. :)
How is it nonsense? The leaders are 'fans of totalitarionism' and anyone with them is thus a 'fellow traveller' with 'fans of totalitarionism'
Because it attempts to imply that anyone who goes on an anti-war march is, ipso facto, a "fan of totalitarianism" which, I re-iterate, is utter nonsense.
And why hasn't the US invaded all the other countries in this world, such as, say the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are run by mass murderers? Surely it couldn't be because they don't have any oil?
Answering a question with another question is not an answer...
The answer is implicit in the question.
If the USA was really so determined to liberate people from oppressive and murderous regimes, they have plenty of choices in this world, and ones where they don't have to make up claims of WMD or links with Al Qaeda or suggest that Saddam had anything to do with September the 11th.
The fact is that Dubya and his cronies had an agenda of their own and they used the above as excuses to let them exercise that agenda.
'Proposed'? So he didn't actually do it then? Saddam did.
The only reason that he didn't was that, at that time, it was technologically impractical. The will was most certainly there. See http://www.iraqwar.org/chemical.htm and scroll down to about half way down the page to where it says "Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes"
Perhaps sometimes telling people/countries how to run their affairs negates the need for greater more forceful action later on.
And just WHO DECIDES? Who is so arrogant to say that *their* way of behaving is so much better than yours or anyone else's? Hell, this sounds like the sort of fanaticism of certain extreme Islamic groups who think that we should all be Muslims and worship Allah or be murdered as heretics! Is that *really* the sort of thing you *want* to emulate?!
<snip>The answer is implicit in the question.<snip>
Maybe ... personally I am happy to concede you have a point. But you still haven't answered this question:
Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
downquark1
13-11-2003, 12:44
I merely called it an obscenity (but evil will do as well) because it was directly responsible for 100 million deaths in the last century and continues to kill as we speak.
Capitalism does not set out to kill people (even though that might occur, cristianity does not set out to kill people even though that happened in the past) communism does.
Where in Marx theory does he set out to kill people?:confused:
No, they just had, for instance, the Spanish Inquisition which was an attempt to destroy a complete group of people ie "heretics" to further its own ends.
But, of course, that's *entirely* different...!Ok thats one example, now supply us with further examples, one from each continent will do, preferably from the last century (ie. recent history) and if you can do that then the numbers will still not nearly approach 100 million.
Communism is in a different league to religion.
downquark1
13-11-2003, 12:46
What if rather than being murdered, he was evicted?
No longer had control over the hi-fi system, so no longer could keep others awake with his loud music at night? Yes, and I would rather have had UN weapon inspecters remove the weapons from iraq rather than a war. So the pro-war opinion is that it doesn't matter how it's done as long as it is.
For the record I don't have a noisey neighbour that was just an example.
Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
I've seen this one so many times from people who supported the war and it always says to me "The ends justify the means". It doesn't matter what we did or how we did it, because we've got rid of Saddam that is a Good Thing (tm) and anything else is secondary to that.
Unfortunately I do *not* agree with that sort of "logic" because it simply justifies illegal behaviour.
You yourself admitted that there are some truths in this Times article, albeit serving to make lies more palatable. However what you have not done is to say which you think is which.
Ok, let's look at some of the author's claims:
1) I would like first to ask everyone at these rallies if they are happy attending events organised by apologists for tyranny.
As I've already mentioned in a message above, this implies that by attending the rally the people who do agree with and support *other* beliefs of the organisers. This is nonsese. Also it shows that the author has a clear agenda to denigrate the organisers by describing (or should that be mis-representing) their beliefs as being "apologists for tyranny".
2) The guys organising next weekâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s anti-Bush rally are not really against war, they just think it is a pity that the free world won the Cold War.
This is equally non-sensical and, again, just shows the author's colours.
3) do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
Addressed already. The ends do not justify the means.
4) If George Bush were to stop his war now, as Andy, George and all their friends want, the consequences would be unthinkable. Iraq would be left, as it was tragically before in 1991, to the tender mercies of gangsters and fanatics.
But the war *IS* over! Bush said so when he stopped a US Aircraft Carrier off the coast of the States so he could fly in and stand there with a big banner behind him saying "Mission Accomplished"!
Unfortunately nobody seems to have bothered to have worked out an "exit strategy" which means that there are US soldiers who have no idea when they're going home and, in fact, more are being called up. Don't they remember Vietnam??
5) The history of the past 80 years teaches us that it is when democracies are weak and slow to assert themselves that conflicts begin and innocents die.
Ah, the concept of the pre-emptive strike. Let's not bother with diplomacy or trying to solve problems via the UN, let's just go in there and kick seven bells out of them. A tactic that used to be known as "Gunboat Diplomacy".
6) We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.
ROFL!
7) I respect freedom too much to enjoy seeing it abused by those whose first instinct is to insult anyone who actually bothers to fight for it.
Ah, "Freedom of speech" means "Freedom to say things which *I* approve of...!"
there is precious little willingness to debate the substantive issues.
You mean like the heroic person who anonymously send me a reputation message answering the entirity of one of my longer messages in this thread with the single word "idiot"??
(NB, to whoever sent that, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your name to it, then I have nothing but contempt for you.)
I say again, the 'facts' quoted in the article are either true or they are false. You called this 'nonsense' but then in your very next sentence you agreed with me:
When someone mix facts with supposition, falsehood, innuendo and hearsay, to draw false conclusions that support their position because it is difficult for the reader to tell them apart, you are into the realms of propaganda of the type used by the regimes that that author so despises. There's a word for that...!
philip.j.fry
13-11-2003, 12:53
Do you miss the fact that mass murderers no longer run Iraq?
To answer this, no of course not. It's unfair of the reporter to draw the conclusion that all attending the demonstration next week believe this. It is also unfair to say that because the organisers are 'fans of totalinarism' all of those in the crowd must also be 'fans...'. That's like saying that because you are friends with someone who might have certain beliefs you must also share those beliefs by assosciation, it's just plain untrue.
Everybody in that crowd next week will have their own indivdual reasons for being there. If I were to go, it would be my belief that that war was mishandled due in part to G. Bush's obvious ignorance and lack of respect for any opinions other than his own. Also not only the war, but the way he conducts himself in other matters such as regulating pollution. Now that the war has occured though it needs to be seen through, retreating from Iraq now would only cause worse problems.
I'm not sure if I've got my points across properly or not :/
Christianity was instituted by Jesus of Nazareth, and a small group of his closest friends, a little under 2,000 years ago. What they said Christianity is, is what Christianity is.
The actions of a politically-motivated elite (namely the Roman church) over 1,000 years later do not demonstrate that Christianity advocates violence in pursuit of its aims. The Roman church has always been led by a Pope who claims to be God's mouthpiece on Earth and therefore what he says, is what the Christian God wants, thereby sidestepping the Bible's clear message on this point.
So you're saying that it is the implimentation of Christianity that caused the problem not Christianity itself.
I do believe that that was the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
<snipsnipsnip>While I support the general principle of the rep system being anonymous, I don't think it's fair to use it as a substute for PM or replying ion open forum, just to be able to say things to people from behind a blanket of anonymity. :(
Thank you for your point-by-point on the Times article, I really do think this whole Iraq War debate (speaking as widely as possible, not just on this forum) has been clouded with agendas rather than issues so it's good to get a handle on what some of the genuine points of contention are.
To pick you up on point (4) tho' ... I don't think you actually answered the charge. Pointing out that the war IS over is picking at semantics, the substantive charge levelled by the Times article was not whether the 'war' has finished, it was, what do you think will happen if the Coalition leaves Iraq now?
What do you think?
philip.j.fry
13-11-2003, 13:06
levelled by the Times article was not whether the 'war' has finished, it was, what do you think will happen if the Coalition leaves Iraq now?
What do you think?
Civil war I expect
Ok thats one example, now supply us with further examples, one from each continent will do, preferably from the last century (ie. recent history) and if you can do that then the numbers will still not nearly approach 100 million. Communism is in a different league to religion.
Irrelevant. You said "Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends." so I gave an example of them wishing to destroy a complete "class" of people who didn't fit in with their mindset.
I am not playing the "numbers" game that "A killed X million, but B only killed Y million, so A is worse than B". The point is that the deaths *resulted* from someone's idea of how to implement a philosophy/ religion/ whatever.
So you're saying that it is the implimentation of Christianity that caused the problem not Christianity itself.
I do believe that that was the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
I don't accept that the 'implementation' argumet translates from Christianity to Communism or vice versa.
Communism attempts to employ flawed humans to addres flawed humans. It must necessarily therefore accept the use of force to achieve peace, and is therefore fundamentally flawed because the practicalities of implementing the theory must have been abundantly clear to those who proposed it.
Christianity attempts to employ flawed humans strengthened by perfect divine power to address flawed humans. The Bible makes clear how to spot the character traits, habits and nature of those that rely on God for their strength and those that do not. By answering the problem of human nature through the introduction of an external factor - divine influence -the Bible is able to separate theory and implementation in a way that it is not possible to do with Communism.
downquark1
13-11-2003, 13:15
I don't accept that the 'implementation' argumet translates from Christianity to Communism or vice versa.
Communism attempts to employ flawed humans to addres flawed humans. It must necessarily therefore accept the use of force to achieve peace, and is therefore fundamentally flawed because the practicalities of implementing the theory must have been abundantly clear to those who proposed it.
Christianity attempts to employ flawed humans strengthened by perfect divine power to address flawed humans. The Bible makes clear how to spot the character traits, habits and nature of those that rely on God for their strength and those that do not. By answering the problem of human nature through the introduction of an external factor - divine influence -the Bible is able to separate theory and implementation in a way that it is not possible to do with Communism.
Towny you've hit the nail on the head - we need a big computer to run communist countries:D. One incapable of corruption or selfishness - so nothing running microsoft's programs
Where in Marx theory does he set out to kill people?:confused:I am not au-fait enough with Marx to comment. (and I can't be bothered to look it up as I don't want to be depressed)
I don't think that the crimes of communism can be in any way equated with the crimes of religion. Religion has had it's 'blips' and will continue to have them. They have been spread over millenia.
Communism on the other hand has been an unmitigated disaster on both a human and an economic basis worldwide, almost without exeption.
It is possible to to take the origional cristian teachings and subvert/pervert them to dubious or genocidal goals but on the whole cristianity (and indeed all religions) has stayed true to it's origional beliefs (imo)
Communism has just taken it's origional beliefs and implimented them again and again with the same tragic results, it is built on graves.
To pick you up on point (4) tho' ... I don't think you actually answered the charge. Pointing out that the war IS over is picking at semantics, the substantive charge levelled by the Times article was not whether the 'war' has finished, it was, what do you think will happen if the Coalition leaves Iraq now?
What do you think?
I think it's astonishing to think that the US is still so pig-headed that they appeared to think that they could just stroll in there, kick over Saddam's regime and then expect everyone to go "Hooray, let's have a Western Democracy!"
There are so many examples from recent history that demonstrate that this sort of thing just *doesn't* happen and *doesn't* work, yet still the US is guilty of over-weaning arrogance that military might solves everything.
The fact is that they, and we, went into Iraq with no clear "exit strategy". The US thought they could do it all themselves, they didn't need the UN, they didn't need to worry about what would happen next because once they'd got rid of Saddam everything would be hugs and puppies.
Of course anyone who bothered to *think* about the situation would realise how wrong this conclusion is and the response would be "thanks for getting rid of Saddam, now get out of here and let us run our own country", but it seems that that sort of thought was not part of Dubya and friends' plan.
OK .. questions to all who think Bush / Blair were wrong in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.
What would you do or have done to prevent (further) terrorist attacks on the West ??
How would you proceed to stabilise those countries ??
I don't accept that the 'implementation' argumet translates from Christianity to Communism or vice versa.
Communism attempts to employ flawed humans to addres flawed humans.
Christianity attempts to employ flawed humans strengthened by perfect divine power to address flawed humans.
Sorry, Towny, but remember what someone was saying about Dogma and Agendas?! :Peaceman:
downquark1
13-11-2003, 13:18
OK .. questions to all who think Bush / Blair were wrong in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq.
What would you do or have done to prevent (further) terrorist attacks on the West ??
How would you proceed to stabilise those countries ??
I was for Aufghanistan - has Iraq ever made a terriorist attack on american soil? :shrug:
I think it's astonishing to think that the US is still so pig-headed that they appeared to think that they could just stroll in there, kick over Saddam's regime and then expect everyone to go "Hooray, let's have a Western Democracy!"
There are so many examples from recent history that demonstrate that this sort of thing just *doesn't* happen and *doesn't* work, yet still the US is guilty of over-weaning arrogance that military might solves everything.
The fact is that they, and we, went into Iraq with no clear "exit strategy". The US thought they could do it all themselves, they didn't need the UN, they didn't need to worry about what would happen next because once they'd got rid of Saddam everything would be hugs and puppies.
Of course anyone who bothered to *think* about the situation would realise how wrong this conclusion is and the response would be "thanks for getting rid of Saddam, now get out of here and let us run our own country", but it seems that that sort of thought was not part of Dubya and friends' plan.
Again, you have a good point, but to press the question, what do you think will happen if the Coalition leaves Iraq now?
A quick message to everyone in this thread:
In a little while I'm probably going to be leaving for London to go to the Erotica Show, so I'm going to be out of computer range for the next few days (aaargh! Withdrawl symptoms!!)
So please don't think I'm not willing to reply to you, it's just that I'm not able to!
A quick message to everyone in this thread:
In a little while I'm probably going to be leaving for London to go to the Erotica Show, so I'm going to be out of computer range for the next few days (aaargh! Withdrawl symptoms!!)
So please don't think I'm not willing to reply to you, it's just that I'm not able to!
One way or another, everyone will agree that the forum will not be quite the same without you ;) :D
You mean like the heroic person who anonymously send me a reputation message answering the entirity of one of my longer messages in this thread with the single word "idiot"??
(NB, to whoever sent that, if you don't have the courage of your convictions to put your name to it, then I have nothing but contempt for you.)
.!Well it wasn't me!:nono:
What would you do or have done to prevent (further) terrorist attacks on the West ??
The important question is not how to prevent further attacks, but why are we being subjected to those attacks in the first instance. The answer is simple, the arrogance of the Western world in attempting to impose its ideals on other countries. If we didn`t go stomping around, poking our nose in where it isn`t wanted then there is a good chance that these attacks wouldn`t happen in the first instance.
A quick message to everyone in this thread:
In a little while I'm probably going to be leaving for London to go to the Erotica Show, so I'm going to be out of computer range for the next few days (aaargh! Withdrawl symptoms!!)
So please don't think I'm not willing to reply to you, it's just that I'm not able to!Have fun!:)
I was for Aufghanistan...
By that do you mean you supported the Taliban regime ??
- has Iraq ever made a terriorist attack on american soil? :shrug:
Who knows under what banner terrorists act ? I didn't specify only USA, there have been many terrorists attacks against the West and its allies. Afghanistan as a country didn't attack the West, but it is widely believed terrorists are (were) afforded safe haven there and in Iraq.
The important question is not how to prevent further attacks, but why are we being subjected to those attacks in the first instance. The answer is simple, the arrogance of the Western world in attempting to impose its ideals on other countries. If we didn`t go stomping around, poking our nose in where it isn`t wanted then there is a good chance that these attacks wouldn`t happen in the first instance.Is that apologism(?sp) for suicide bombers?!
Well it wasn't me!:nono:
Nor me !!! :cool:
Irrelevant. You said "Cristianity dosn't advocate destroying a complete class system to further it's own ends." so I gave an example of them wishing to destroy a complete "class" of people who didn't fit in with their mindset.
I am not playing the "numbers" game that "A killed X million, but B only killed Y million, so A is worse than B". The point is that the deaths *resulted* from someone's idea of how to implement a philosophy/ religion/ whatever.Well to an extent I am playing the numbers game....
As far as I remember (read a book on it once) the inquisition wasn't waged against classes of people, it targeted individuals.
The important question is not how to prevent further attacks, but why are we being subjected to those attacks in the first instance. The answer is simple <snip>
...people like Osama Bin Laden taking the holy words of the Quaran and twisting them to his own warped views.
He wants all non-muslims out of Saudi Arabia, and is willing to kill anyone to reach that goal.
If the US had nothing more than workers in Saudi they would still be targets.
To you and me an attack must have a valid reason behind it, so we find things like america etc poking its nose in to other countries because the real reason is too illogical to accept.
downquark1
13-11-2003, 14:02
By that do you mean you supported the Taliban regime ??
Who knows under what banner terrorists act ? I didn't specify only USA, there have been many terrorists attacks against the West and its allies. Afghanistan as a country didn't attack the West, but it is widely believed terrorists are (were) afforded safe haven there and in Iraq.
Yes but were any involved with Alqueda, as a comic pointed out the only connection is the letter Q
It has been admitted that the invasion of iraq was a pre-emptive attack, something that is spurias at best, we could attack France and in defense say they were going to attack us first for all we knew about Iraq.
Where in Marx theory does he set out to kill people?:confused:Right, I did research that one.
Taken from the communist manifesto:
In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
Right, I did research that one.
Taken from the communist manifesto:
Game, set and match to the anti-commies, I think. :)
downquark1
13-11-2003, 14:38
Right, I did research that one.
Taken from the communist manifesto:
Did marx right this, what would have happened if communism was already extablished. Death happens when imposing democracy - our own civil war proves that.
Is that apologism(?sp) for suicide bombers?!
In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.
Just as a slight *aside*.... does anybody know where the Jewish peoples lived prior to the annexing of Palestine in 1948 to start all this sh*t off ?????
In a little while I'm probably going to be leaving for London to go to the Erotica Show, [...]So please don't think I'm not willing to reply to you, it's just that I'm not able to!
One way or another, everyone will agree that the forum will not be quite the same without you ;) :D
Gosh! Thanks!
(I think...!!!) :D
In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.You what?! The west does it's damndest not to target civilians deliberatly. The terrorists do the exact opposite!
You what?! The west does it's damndest not to target civilians deliberatly. The terrorists do the exact opposite!
Either way people get killed. Plus, given the track record of the Western armies when it comes to collateral damage it forces one to wonder some times how much effort is actually put into avoiding civilian targets.
In many respects I don`t see a great difference between their actions and ours in these matters, just that we don`t send our bombs in strapped to people, we drop them from a great height by planes.
As I said, there's creating a theoretical 'moral vacuum' in which to debate competing worldviews, and then there's apologism for terrorist activity. This, IMO, falls firmly in the latter category.
No matter how obnoxious you believe the motives of the Coalition to be, there is a clear and obvious difference between a strategy that seeks to minimise or avoid civilian casualties, and a strategy that relies on maximum civilian casualties in order to press home a dogma by means of terror.
Just as a slight *aside*.... does anybody know where the Jewish peoples lived prior to the annexing of Palestine in 1948 to start all this sh*t off ?????
I think you are unaware that there has always been historically a Jewish presence in the Middle East region, where Jews have lived for centuries. Israel is in fact historically the birthplace of the Jewish people. As far as the modern state of Israel is concerned it is the result of the foundation of Zionism in the late 1890s from the activities of Theodore Herzl, though the tradition reaches much further back in history, which in itself was due to widespread anti-semitism in Europe as seen in Tsarist Russia and even in supposedly enlightened countries like France. The idea became reality in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. During the inter-war years many European Jews migrated to begin a new life in what was then British ruled Palestine.
It was agreed by the UN that two states, Israel and Palestine should replace the British mandate. Jewish survivors from the Holocaust decided to settle in Israel as they had lost relatives and their livelihoods in Europe as a result of the Nazi German regime. The Arab leaders including the Grand Mufti, chose to destroy Israel rather than allow the the UN proposed two state solution.
Israel did not annex Palestine in 1948, you have been misinformed.
I think you are unaware that there has always been historically a Jewish presence in the Middle East region, where Jews have lived for centuries. As far as the modern state of Israel is concerned it is the result of the foundation of Zionism in the late 1890s from the activities of Theodore Herzl, though the tradition reaches much further back in history, which in itself was due to widespread anti-semitism in Europe as seen in Tsarist Russia and even in supposedly enlightened countries like France. The idea became reality in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. During the inter-war years many European Jews migrated to begin a new life in what was then British ruled Palestine.
It was agreed by the UN that two states, Israel and Palestine should replace the British mandate. Jewish survivors from the Holocaust decided to settle in Israel as they had lost relatives and their livelihoods in Europe as a result of the Nazi German regime. The Arab leaders including the Grand Mufti, chose to destroy Israel rather than allow the the UN proposed two state solution.
Israel did not annex Palestine in 1948, you have been misinformed.
Indeed, the UN proposal was put to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians calculated that they could get a better deal and rejected the plan; the Israelis agreed to it and went ahead with setting up their state even though it could not officialy be put in place without the Palestinians on board. Hard-line Arabs to this day refuse to accept Israel's right to exist for this very reason.
Did marx right this, what would have happened if communism was already extablished. Death happens when imposing democracy - our own civil war proves that.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto early 1848 the year Europe exploded in revolutions. Democracy has not been imposed in the UK, here it came largely by peaceful protests and reform. Our own civil war? Which one, the War of the Roses a feudal squabble, or the one in 1640s associated with Parliamentary struggles against the monarchy. The Civil War in the 1640s did not bring democracy. It resulted in representative government after 1660, not democracy.
:eek:
No matter how obnoxious you believe the motives of the Coalition to be, there is a clear and obvious difference between a strategy that seeks to minimise or avoid civilian casualties, and a strategy that relies on maximum civilian casualties in order to press home a dogma by means of terror.
That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".
The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.
All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.
That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".
The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.
All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.So what you are saying is that everybody should stop figting and killing?
So what you are saying is that everybody should stop figting and killing?
I'd take that for a start. The problem is it probably is never going to happen for one reason or another.
That is true, but as I said, people die regardless. Therefore, the difference is only really relevant if you believe that some people have a greater right to live than others. It's not as though the coalition are innocent of waging a campaign deliberately designed to inspire fear and terror, "shock and awe".
The effort to minimise civilian casualties doesn`t stop when you stop firing weaponry. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the coalitions comical attempts to rebuild the infrastructure that they destroyed in the first instance. So what if they don`t deliberately target civilian areas, if you take out parts of the infrastructure that result in civilian deaths then the end result is the same.
All you've described are different gameplans, the end result is the same.
I certainly wouldn't deny that the Coalition strategy has resulted in civilian deaths, but I would contest the rate at which those deaths have occurred - on 9/11, about 3,000 people died in the space of a couple of hours. In Iraq ... well, withot having figures to hand, I can say I need to be convinced it has been anything like this bad.
And I think you give too little credence to the intent behind these people's actions. This isn't a laboratory experiment demonstrating two ways of achieving the same result, this is real life and real people are involved. And in an ideal world, according to Martin Luther King, people should be judged by the content of their character.
Sure, the road to hell might be paved with good intentions, but if were on the road to hell I would rather have George Dubya Bush along for the ride than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.
I'd take that for a start. The problem is it probably is never going to happen for one reason or another.So since you agree that it isn't going to happen I suggest that you ditch the rose tinted glasses and pick a side- and I happen to know that the other side wants to kill you out of hand for the colour of your skin and what they assume your religion is. Choose wisely!
Did marx right thisI lifted it straight off the communist manifesto by marx
So since you agree that it isn't going to happen I suggest that you ditch the rose tinted glasses and pick a side- and I happen to know that the other side wants to kill you out of hand for the colour of your skin and what they assume your religion is. Choose wisely!
And I choose not to side with your opinion, as it is precisely because of people like you who aren`t even willing to give peace a chance that this cycle of violence will continue.
About 30 minutes ago the figures for Iraqi deaths due to Coalition action were
Combatant deaths between 9200 - 10800
Civilian deaths between 7878 - 9708
What's your source? Did you include the camel deaths?
:eek:
And I choose not to side with your opinion, as it is precisely because of people like you who aren`t even willing to give peace a chance that this cycle of violence will continue.I agree we should give peace a chance.....only someone forgot to tell that to those peace loving chaps on theose planes on 9/11! Since there are countless more like them out there I say we should speak softly and carry a big stick.
Anyway, wtf does 'give peace a chance' mean exactly? Are you some sort of hippy?
Are you some sort of hippy? Well, you're only the second person to ever accuse me of that, but since I took it as a compliment first time around, thankyou.
downquark1
18-11-2003, 20:42
strange avator for a 'classic' hippy
I'm not - I'm for GM food and nuclear power.
I think any war should have a strong opposition purely for argument and justice sake. The fact is this war has set dangerous precidents and that worries me. If it's allowed once it can be allowed again.
Sometimes it is a good thing that the law is followed mechanically as Aristotle said 'Law is reason free from passion'
Sometimes it is a good thing that the law is followed mechanically as Aristotle said 'Law is reason free from passion'the trouble is that, very often 'the law is an ass'
Well, you're only the second person to ever accuse me of that, but since I took it as a compliment first time around, thankyou.np m8, my pleasure:)
...but do comment on the rest of my post.....
strange avator for a 'classic' hippy
Yes, he should have my avatar perhaps:D
downquark1
19-11-2003, 13:19
This is an interesting article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3283533.stm
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.