Bush visits Iraq to say 'Goodbye' and has shoes thrown at him

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:37 pm

spot;1157846 wrote: My government was. I was protesting the actions of my government. Where were you?

George Bush did your country far more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Im not a big Bush fan. Ive made that clear but comparing Bush to Bin Laden is a stretch. I think youre just pushing buttons.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:01 am

Nomad;1158037 wrote: Im not a big Bush fan. Ive made that clear but comparing Bush to Bin Laden is a stretch. I think youre just pushing buttons.
You've been taught to be prejudiced.

The chap with the beard wanted the Middle East de-Westernised so he provoked a Western armed assault to infuriate his co-religionists into detesting the West.

The chap without the beard wanted the Middle East Westernising but couldn't interfere in the region militarily "absent a new Pearl Harbor". Lo and behold a year after assuming office he gets what he wanted.

Osama bin Laden is a saint by comparison. George Bush did your country far more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:07 am

spot;1158067 wrote: You've been taught to be prejudiced.

The chap with the beard wanted the Middle East de-Westernised so he provoked a Western armed assault to infuriate his co-religionists into detesting the West.

The chap without the beard wanted the Middle East Westernising but couldn't interfere in the region militarily "absent a new Pearl Harbor". Lo and behold a year after assuming office he gets what he wanted.

Osama bin Laden is a saint by comparison. George Bush did your country far more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did.

:wah:

Now I know your just scrapping for a reaction. You arent actually defending Bin Laden are you ?

Such a reasonable man as yourself.

No I didnt think so because you know better.

You understand that Bin Laden doesnt value any human life. Not our nation not yours and certainly not his own as evidenced by the cowardly fashion in which they brain wash the weakest soldiers and send them off to their death with the promise of great rewards.

They hide amongst civilians in order to save their own skins.

Stop toying with me now. Im not in the mood for laughing this morning.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:17 am

And another thing. What is this about being taught prejudice against the bearded man ?

Is that symbolism for the Middle East in general ?

Thats nonsense.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:06 am

1158150 wrote: You understand that Bin Laden doesnt value any human life. Not our nation not yours and certainly not his own as evidenced by the cowardly fashion in which they brain wash the weakest soldiers and send them off to their death with the promise of great rewards.

They hide amongst civilians in order to save their own skins.When Osama bin Laden and his Islamic irregulars were throwing the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Ronald Reagan was wiping drool from his mouth from laughing so much, what they did and the way they did it was fashionable. It was applauded. Our brave freedom fighters, that's what the US called them.

And now they're doing the same thing against the next foreign occupation and you're unhappy about it?

Be consistent. At least be consistent. Bin Laden values life as much today as he did back then. His fighters have exactly the same approach as they had at the time and the same objective. Did you cheer, back in the 1980s, when these irregular forces were beating the hell out of the occupiers? Well grit your teeth and clap your hands while they do it a second time.

George Bush did your country far more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:09 pm

spot;1158200 wrote: When Osama bin Laden and his Islamic irregulars were throwing the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 1980s and Ronald Reagan was wiping drool from his mouth from laughing so much, what they did and the way they did it was fashionable. It was applauded. Our brave freedom fighters, that's what the US called them.

And now they're doing the same thing against the next foreign occupation and you're unhappy about it?

Be consistent. At least be consistent. Bin Laden values life as much today as he did back then. His fighters have exactly the same approach as they had at the time and the same objective. Did you cheer, back in the 1980s, when these irregular forces were beating the hell out of the occupiers? Well grit your teeth and clap your hands while they do it a second time.

George Bush did your country far more harm than Osama bin Laden ever did.

Who dedicated Bin Laden as the Middle East Messiah ?

His own family has denounced him and he doesnt have a country.

Why did he fly planes into buildings spock ?

In retaliation for what ?

Please spell out the justification for that for me because clearly Im missing something.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:17 pm

I think I understand you. That you are a humanitarian, am I correct ? But how do you turn away from this ? How do you reconcile ?

Defend away spock.

By Paula Newton CNN

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A top Taliban commander has issued a new threat to foreign aid workers, saying that under the insurgent group's new "constitution" they will execute them as spies or hold them in exchange for the release of Taliban fighters.

"Our law is still the same old law which was in place during our rule in Afghanistan," he said. "Mullah Mohammad Omar was our leader and he is still our head and leader and so we will follow the same law as before."

Dozens of crimes across the country, especially acid attacks, have marred the opening of the new school year in Afghanistan. Afghan girls have been burned and scared randomly with acid as punishment for going to school. More than 600 schools did not open this year because of security issues, according to the Afghanistan Education Ministry. Watch what females face in Afghanistan »

Don't Miss

Is talking to Taliban the right approach?

Commentary: Deals with Taliban could be dangerous

Report: More young girls face rape in Afghanistan

TIME.com: Talking with the Taliban draws skepticism

The schools that did open, however, remain defiant. Young women admitted to CNN being fearful but also said they are determined to get an education and better their lives. It is a sentiment echoed by their principal, a 35-year veteran of Afghanistan's girls schools.

"I am asking those who close schools and throw acid on girls to let the children of this country go to school because it's crime to close the schools, a crime against the children of this country," said Safia Hayat, principal of the Zarghona Girls School in Kabul.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:51 pm

Nomad;1158245 wrote: I think I understand you. That you are a humanitarian, am I correct ? But how do you turn away from this ? How do you reconcile ?

Defend away spock.I'll deal with the earlier post in a while. What I asked was a central and legitimate question which you've completely walked past. I think you need to face it. When these same people did the same thing in expelling the Russians you cheered, all of you. Why have you stopped cheering? There's a spin applied to your perception for years. The consequence of this is you're refusing to look at what I asked. Try answering it.

Bin Laden values life as much today as he did back then. His fighters have exactly the same approach as they had at the time and the same objective. Did you cheer, back in the 1980s, when these irregular forces were beating the hell out of the occupiers? Where's your consistency?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:15 pm

spot;1158252 wrote: I'll deal with the earlier post in a while. What I asked was a central and legitimate question which you've completely walked past. I think you need to face it. When these same people did the same thing in expelling the Russians you cheered, all of you. Why have you stopped cheering? There's a spin applied to your perception for years. The consequence of this is you're refusing to look at what I asked. Try answering it.

Bin Laden values life as much today as he did back then. His fighters have exactly the same approach as they had at the time and the same objective. Did you cheer, back in the 1980s, when these irregular forces were beating the hell out of the occupiers? Where's your consistency?

I was a young man then. My interests were girls and beer.

Post by **spot** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:09 pm

Nomad;1158323 wrote: I was a young man then. My interests were girls and beer.

Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:15 pm

spot;1158336 wrote: Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

quote=spot;1158336

When these same people did the same thing in expelling the Russians you cheered, all of you. Why have you stopped cheering? There's a spin applied to your perception for years. The consequence of this is you're refusing to look at what I asked. Try answering it.

I was a young man then. My interests were girls and beer.
Honest answer.

I think I understand you. That you are a humanitarian, am I correct ? But how do you turn away from this ? How do you reconcile ?

Defend away spock.

Valid question.

Who dedicated Bin Laden as the Middle East Messiah ?

His own family has denounced him and he doesnt have a country.

Why did he fly planes into buildings spock ?

In retaliation for what ?

Please spell out the justification for that for me because clearly Im missing something.

Valid question

Im an eternal optimist. Thats not sarcasm. I am. Im hopeful to the point of naivete.

Dont judge me without knowing me. You dont.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:18 am

Nomad;1158351 wrote: Honest answer.I think mine was a quote from Kelly's Heroes actually.

As someone who watched, let me tell you the answer. There's no difference at all that I can see.

Post by **spot** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:33 am

Nomad wrote: Who dedicated Bin Laden as the Middle East Messiah ?

His own family has denounced him and he doesnt have a country.

Why did he fly planes into buildings spock ?

In retaliation for what ?

Please spell out the justification for that for me because clearly Im missing something.Right, let me try to put this as clearly as I know how.

I'll start with a quote if I may. After the Great Fire of London in 1666 a plaque was put on the rebuilt building where it started in Pudding Lane. It was put there by the Lord Mayor of London. It said

Here

by the permission of Heaven

Hell broke loose upon this Protestant City

from the malicious hearts of barbarous papists

Can you sense the total detestation in those words?

From then until 1815 the British involved themselves in wars on the European continent, invariably against the French and Spanish (who were, if I may generalize, both papist) and invariably allied with the Germans (who were, similarly generalizing, protestant).

We then - note this - we then had 99 years when we never once fought on European soil. Nowhere. From 1815 to 1914. The Germans and French went for each other on several occasions and the damned French came off worse as you'd expect.

In 1905 the British made a calamitous decision, partly through choice and partly serendipity. We switched alliances and sided against the Germans, our natural European ally. Within nine years the direct consequence was Europe aflame from end to end.

We then made a second catastrophic decision, to abide by that 1905 treaty obligation to participate. The direct consequence of that choice was the fall of Imperial Russia into the communist Soviet Union. Had the British stood aside, Germany (our natural ally) would have beaten the French (as they did in 1870) and beaten the Russians by 1916 and - I guess here - Russia would have become a representative democracy. Our choice to fight resulted in the Soviet Union.

In 1939 and 1940 FDR deliberately hemmed the Japanese so tightly in their need for external raw materials - oil and iron in particular - that the Japanese pre-emptively struck against Pearl Harbor triggering the Pacific theater combat. The direct result of that was the communist takeover of mainland China in 1949. Without the Japanese/US war there's no chance of China having turned communist. There's two major communist countries down to inept intervention, one by the British and one by the US. We're still living with the consequences of both.

In 1950 the UK and US intervened in the Korean Civil War and directly established North Korea as a result. Are we still living with the consequence of that now? I expect we are. That was 60 years ago. You saw what happened to Vietnam when that country successfully fended off US intervention and remained a single country. They're no problem. North Korea is. North Korea is the consequence of intervention.

1953, the UK and US directly overthrew the secular democratic government of Iran and installed the most wasteful, distasteful, corrupt egomaniac thieving client prince of the 20th century, the Shah. The direct consequence 26 years later was Iran's descent into theocratic fundamentalism. Without that coup Iran would now be no such thing.

I won't even go near the dozens of US interventions, coups and murders in Central and South America since then, it's just too obvious. Name me a single instance where intervention was in the interests of the people, where the intervention was still intact a generation later or where US long term interests weren't harmed as a result. The US pandered to killers and got burnt.

We're now down to your question. Why did Osama bin Laden part-fund the ludicrously cheap Saudi pilots' plot to fly hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Center. Because US armed forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia, that's why, and to every fundamentalist Saudi that's blasphemous. He wasn't the only one who thought so. As with all those other interventions there's the client princes in Riyadh, those US stooges keeping the oil flowing to the West. They, obviously, aren't fundamentalist Saudis, they're the wick-dipping Playboys of the Eastern World. The US wants menstruating armed uniformed women driving jeeps around the holiest places in Islam? Fine by them, why not, these princes are billionaires after all, why should they care. I might point out that Osama bin Laden did invite the US to withdraw these armed forces from Saudi Arabia as an alternative before he okayed the plot, and that subsequent to 9/11 the US did indeed completely withdraw them.

Every single instance in this list is one of US or UK deployment of troops outside their Homeland and every single one of them has been a complete national catastrophe. I'd add the UK deploying into Europe during World War Two as well, if it comes to that, but since there would have been no World War Two if we'd not entered World War One in the first place I didn't think saying it made for a coherent account. It stands to reason I think the US had no business deploying to Europe in either World War.

All of it harks back to that plaque in Pudding Lane. The British were bigots then, they remained bigots until 1815, they never stopped being bigots through the 19th century and only bigoted anti-German sentiment caused us to lose our heads in 1905 and side with the hated French. It's been downhill ever since.

Arguing against our foreign deployment, and in favour of mass legal immigration with citizenship, is my personal attempt to right the bigotry. It's gone on for too long.

What's silly is that the consequences of that First World War, the destruction of the social order, the forging of socialism in Britain between 1918 and 1945, the abandonment of the Empire, would never have happened had we not sided with the French. And none of it was desired, none of it intentional, none of it foreseen. Just as with the US arming the irregular militias in Afghanistan under Reagan. You're reaping the whirlwind.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:25 am

You have yet to defend these actions. I hope you cannot.

"Our law is still the same old law which was in place during our rule in Afghanistan," he said. "Mullah Mohammad Omar was our leader and he is still our head and leader and so we will follow the same law as before."

Dozens of crimes across the country, especially acid attacks, have marred the opening of the new school year in Afghanistan. Afghan girls have been burned and scared randomly with acid as punishment for going to school. More than 600 schools did not open this year because of security issues, according to the Afghanistan Education Ministry. Watch what females face in Afghanistan »

Report: More young girls face rape in Afghanistan

TIME.com: The schools that did open, however, remain defiant. Young women admitted to CNN being fearful but also said they are determined to get an education and better their lives. It is a sentiment echoed by their principal, a 35-year veteran of Afghanistan's girls schools.

"I am asking those who close schools and throw acid on girls to let the children of this country go to school because it's crime to close the schools, a crime against the children of this country," said Safia Hayat, principal of the Zarghona Girls School in Kabul.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:43 am

Nomad;1158515 wrote: You have yet to defend these actions. I hope you cannot.

"Our law is still the same old law which was in place during our rule in Afghanistan," he said. "Mullah Mohammad Omar was our leader and he is still our head and leader and so we will follow the same law as before."

Dozens of crimes across the country, especially acid attacks, have marred the opening of the new school year in Afghanistan. Afghan girls have been burned and scared randomly with acid as punishment for going to school. More than 600 schools did not open this year because of security issues, according to the Afghanistan Education Ministry. Watch what females face in Afghanistan »

Report: More young girls face rape in Afghanistan

TIME.com: The schools that did open, however, remain defiant. Young women admitted to CNN being fearful but also said they are determined to get an education and better their lives. It is a sentiment echoed by their principal, a 35-year veteran of Afghanistan's girls schools.

"I am asking those who close schools and throw acid on girls to let the children of this country go to school because it's crime to close the schools, a crime against the children of this country," said Safia Hayat, principal of the Zarghona Girls School in Kabul.

I'm starting to get used to writing for an hour and getting absolutely no response at all. You seem terrified of addressing the issues I raise.

So. Afghans threatening to fling battery acid into the faces of schoolgirls in an attempt to deter school attendance. Right.

Afghanistan used to be a stable country with the rule of law in which anything so wicked was an effectively policed punishable crime. Even during brief periods of civil insurrection nobody would have left such a crime unprosecuted.

The US destabilized the country throughout the 1980s. The direct consequence was the implementation of Taliban law under a Taliban government. The Taliban government also would not have left such a crime unprosecuted. It was still an illegal act.

The US has now for a second time, since November 2001, further destabilized the country. There is no rule of law any longer. Criminals can now threaten such action with impunity. It is no longer a policed country, people can do what they will there. This is what the US has achieved.

There's a legal concept, "sovereignty". It's central to this. A country is secure within its own borders. It's illegal to wage aggressive war. One country interfering in the internal affairs of another sovereign country is a breach of International law and an act of war.

During times of Empire, one country regards itself as above it neighbors. Sovereignty becomes a one-way street. What I do to you is different to what you can do to me. I can depose your political system but you can't depose mine. My economy runs your economy. I tell you what your foreign policy is going to be and by Christ you'd better stick to it. That's at best a paternalist tyranny. It's not in anyone's interest. You end up telling people what to do instead of negotiating.

In a sovereign country, where the opposition knows there's going to be no intervention from outside, the opposition knows it has to do what has to be done. It's the only legal free responsible agent of change. In a client state there can be no opposition. The only label you have for people like that is "terrorist" where in a sovereign country they'd be called the next government. Instead of bringing down the government and taking their place, which is their ordinary right of opposition (by constitutional or any other means) they find themselves faced with having to eject the occupation which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

In government, the Taliban wouldn't tolerate people making threats to fling battery acid into the faces of schoolgirls. It would bring people making such threats to trial, just as it did when it was in power. As an amorphous opposition trying to eject a foreign invader there's no overall control of a group like that. if there were it would be suborned, turned and emasculated. Consequently you can't describe that sort of act as Taliban policy. Taliban policy is to eject the foreign invader which is an entirely laudable aim. When the foreign invader was Russian the US funded them and cheered their successes.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:04 am

Nomad;1158155 wrote: And another thing. What is this about being taught prejudice against the bearded man ?

Is that symbolism for the Middle East in general ?And no, it was a reference to the man with the beard, Osama bin laden, in contrast to the man without the beard, George Bush. I was implying that, other than which had a beard, both are indistinguishably vile. You react viscerally to the one with the beard because you've been fed images of it with doom-laden music and ritual hatred, exactly as you were with the other man with the beard, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 3:52 am

Afghans threatening to fling battery acid into the faces of schoolgirls in an attempt to deter school attendance. Right.

These are the people your defending.

I'm starting to get used to writing for an hour and getting absolutely no response at all. You seem terrified of addressing the issues I raise.

Spare yourself the agony spock. No offence ok but you complicate things too much. We were talking about shoe throwing and then its 3 days of history lessons. You go off on tangents I cant occupy my time with right now.

I love you like a brother but......oh look a ball !

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:08 am

Nomad;1158888 wrote: These are the people your defending.

Spare yourself the agony spock. No offence ok but you complicate things too much. We were talking about shoe throwing and then its 3 days of history lessons. You go off on tangents I cant occupy my time with right now.

I love you like a brother but......oh look a ball !

Threads go where they want. You raised the consequences of attacking President Bush symbolically with a shoe, I raised the difference in your mind between President Bush (who, as you might imagine, I utterly and absolutely detest) and Osama bin Laden whom you're invited to kill on sight. I gave you history? It was relevant history. It's all about Western governments throwing their weight about and deploying their armed forces abroad. It's all it's ever been about. It's the answer to your question, why did Osama bin Laden do what he did. He did what he did in reaction to what the US had already done. How would you have preferred him to react? Lie on his back and get his stomach stroked? I think not.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:23 am

spot;1158892 wrote: Threads go where they want. You raised the consequences of attacking President Bush symbolically with a shoe, I raised the difference in your mind between President Bush (who, as you might imagine, I utterly and absolutely detest) and Osama bin Laden whom you're invited to kill on sight. I gave you history? It was relevant history. It's all about Western governments throwing their weight about and deploying their armed forces abroad. It's all it's ever been about. It's the answer to your question, why did Osama bin Laden do what he did. He did what he did in reaction to what the US had already done. How would you have preferred him to react? Lie on his back and get his stomach stroked? I think not.

Hes a lunatic spock. His methods are as brutal as Hitlers were. Come to think of it we dropped some pretty big bombs on Japan didnt we ?

Were all lunatics. Tit for tat tat for tit.

So throw acid on little girls because...................thats where I get lost.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:44 am

Nomad;1158894 wrote: So throw acid on little girls because...................thats where I get lost.Because they're criminals in a society which has had the rule of law wrenched from it. The Taliban had legitimate power violently removed by invasion and they're left with no alternative method of changing society than to throw out the invaders.

Up until 2001 the Taliban ran the Afghan government, remember? They had policies the US didn't approve of. The US decided they were better than the Taliban, they ignored issues of sovereignty, they invaded and occupied Afghanistan and made the Taliban fugitives.

What would the ex-government rather do? Implement their policies from within government. What has the US done? Occupied their country in contravention to good sense and reason. The fault for what's consequently happening is entirely and solely in the US camp.

Give Afghanistan back to the Afghans, go home and the Afghans will work out their own destiny. Whatever else that involves it will include the prosecution of people who throw acid into schoolgirls' faces, something the US obviously can't manage.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 4:58 am

spot;1158899 wrote:

Give Afghanistan back to the Afghans, go home and the Afghans will work out their own destiny. Whatever else that involves it will include the prosecution of people who throw acid into schoolgirls' faces, something the US obviously can't manage.

I guess we did the right thing by staying out of Rwanda then.

The world should have let Hitler "do his little thing"

Israel should be on its own.

Somalia...what a pain in the ass.

Apathy. Its an option.

Retraction: Nomad; I think I understand you. That you are a humanitarian, am I correct ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:13 am

Nomad;1158905 wrote: I guess we did the right thing by staying out of Rwanda then.

The world should have let Hitler "do his little thing"

Israel should be on its own.

Somalia...what a pain in the ass.

Apathy. Its an option.

Retraction:

What in hell's name do you think the US did in Rwanda???

There's an organization which sets rules which override sovereignty. It's the UN. It deals with genocide and torture.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:28 am

spot;1158911 wrote: What in hell's name do you think the US did in Rwanda???

There's an organization which sets rules which override sovereignty. It's the UN. It deals with genocide and torture.

Yes. They do that very well.

Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda. Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefireThe US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13).

President Clinton and US Ambassador to the UNMadeleine Albright refused to take action.Clinton and Albright would both later express regret for their inaction. President Clinton provided major funding for the Rwandan genocide memorial in Kigali, and visited Rwanda in 1998 and 2005. He apologised both times, and "expressed regret for what he says was his 'personal failure' to prevent the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 people there in 1994.He has attempted amends by sponsoring initiatives to help rebuild Rwanda through the Clinton Foundation.

In 2001 the government of the United States declassified documents, which confirm the attitude of the United States of not having taken into account the reality of the situation starting in January 1994

This attitude was perceived very negatively in the world and more specifically by the survivors of the genocide which led Clinton to present his reasons for not acting on the matter to the Rwandan people. The French political class also vigorously underlines it when France's responsibilities in the events are evoked

After events surrounding Mogadishu in the US refused to provide requested material aid to Rwanda. France, China and Russia opposed involvement in what was seen as an "internal affair". Dallaire was directly "taken to task," in his words, for even suggesting that UNAMIR should raid Hutu militants' weapons caches, whose location had been disclosed to him by a government informant. The UN "failed" to respond adequately to Dallaire's urgent requests.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:35 am

The UN set up an international court of justice. Warrants are issued against everyone responsible for genocide and torture. They're taken to the court and tried. It may take a long while but it works. It's new but it's permanent. It's changing what government leaders think they can get away with. The US hasn't signed up to its jurisdiction - and one can see exactly why not - but it'll happen eventually. There's still this fiction that the US is above the law. It has to end.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:44 am

spot;1158918 wrote: The UN set up an international court of justice. Warrants are issued against everyone responsible for genocide and torture. They're taken to the court and tried. It may take a long while but it works. It's new but it's permanent. It's changing what government leaders think they can get away with. The US hasn't signed up to its jurisdiction - and one can see exactly why not - but it'll happen eventually. There's still this fiction that the US is above the law. It has to end.

I agree !

No argument from me.

Should the US be involved with Israel ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:39 am

Nomad;1158922 wrote: I agree !

No argument from me.

Should the US be involved with Israel ?

The US should be involved with every country on earth. It has no excuse handing out aid though, either in kind or in preferential rates or in loans or in anything else, either from government funds or from private charities. Emergency relief is a different matter but aid is corrosive.

Israel's laws should be made indifferent to race, religion, creed, colour and sexuality as a matter of great urgency. If that were done I'd have no problem with Israel in the slightest.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 11:53 am

Get out of Afghanistan, let them govern themselves but the US should be involved with every country but dont offer them aide.........

Be consistent. Please, at least be consistent.

Post by **spot** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 1:42 pm

Nomad;1159061 wrote: Get out of Afghanistan, let them govern themselves but the US should be involved with every country but dont offer them aide.........

Be consistent. Please, at least be consistent.

That's completely consistent! It's entirely reasonable as well.

Perhaps you misinterpret "The US should be involved with every country on earth"? By all means trade with anyone if you feel it's to your benefit, by all means negotiate with everyone, by all means take a seat at the United Nations if that also seems to your benefit. It's an invitation to do things which you consider to be in your own interests as opposed to the less welcoming Yankee Go Home.

If you really feel the world learns more about America by watching the products of Hollywood then continue to export the products of Hollywood. If you have more corn than you know what to do with then see if you can find anyone abroad prepared to buy it from you.

That sort of engagement anyway, as opposed to "vote X or your village will be burned to the ground, your hospital blown up and your nurses raped to death" which is what Nicaraguans had to put up with under Oliver North.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:23 pm

quote=spot;1159151That's completely consistent! It's entirely reasonable as well.

You mean turning your head from the injustices of the world ? That kind of consistency ? A sweeping across the board every man for himself ?

Sound like Utopia. Ahhh, if only.

Perhaps you misinterpret "The US should be involved with every country on earth"? By all means trade with anyone if you feel it's to your benefit, by all means negotiate with everyone, by all means take a seat at the United Nations if that also seems to your benefit. It's an invitation to do things which you consider to be in your own interests as opposed to the less welcoming Yankee Go Home.

Doesnt matter. In a decade or two China will control everything and it will all be different. Let us have our fun now while we can.

If you really feel the world learns more about America by watching the products of Hollywood then continue to export the products of Hollywood. If you have more corn than you know what to do with then see if you can find anyone abroad prepared to buy it from you.

Well yes actually I do think Hollywood will eventually change the world. It will be a world of glamour and glitz, spotlights and red carpets for everyone. Hollywoods everywhere, Hollywoods for everyone ! Oh it will be grand ! And what do you suppose theyle be snacking on ? Popcorn ! Thats right. We have a master plan.

That sort of engagement anyway, as opposed to "vote X or your village will be burned to the ground, your hospital blown up and your nurses raped to death" which is what Nicaraguans had to put up with under Oliver North.

Ring a bell ?

India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:20 am

Nomad;1159277 wrote: Let us have our fun now while we can.If anyone ever asks me why the Americans are singing the world's death-song I'll quote that to them. I never thought I'd see anything so unconcerned about suffering, I'd always put it down until now to ignorance.

Nobody was ever so well placed to do it right. Nobody ever screwed up so mightily, so many times, so consistently, instead of succeeding.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:46 pm

spot;1159436 wrote: If anyone ever asks me why the Americans are singing the world's death-song I'll quote that to them. I never thought I'd see anything so unconcerned about suffering, I'd always put it down until now to ignorance.

Nobody was ever so well placed to do it right. Nobody ever screwed up so mightily, so many times, so consistently, instead of succeeding.

Originally Posted by Nomad

Let us have our fun now while we can.

If anyone ever asks me why the Americans are singing the world's death-song I'll quote that to them

You will ?

You are welcome to your perspective.

I personally have come to the conclusion in the last few days that while you most certainly are entitled to your opinion, you have about as many solutions for the worlds problems as any of us do.

Were all kind of winging it after all arent we ?

Ive discovered a couple of things about you neither good nor bad but interesting.

In short like the rest of us you are passionate, flawed, ideological, correct, incorrect, intelligent, belligerent and so on and so forth. Human in other words. No disrespect intended. quite the contrary.

Stubborn, I forgot stubborn.

If in fact Im mistaken and you do actually have a solution for the worlds problems I would encourage you to establish them post haste.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:01 pm

spot;1159436 wrote: If anyone ever asks me why the Americans are singing the world's death-song I'll quote that to them. I never thought I'd see anything so unconcerned about suffering, I'd always put it down until now to ignorance.

Nobody was ever so well placed to do it right. Nobody ever screwed up so mightily, so many times, so consistently, instead of succeeding.

Yippers we (America) did it ALL............... We are the Buffoons of the world and the "Sky she is a fallin" and it's ALL Americas fault....... Right spot?

Nobody rode on their (our) coat-tails and got a piece-o-de-pie.... that was there for years.

It was ALL nasty ol AMERICAS fault...

Soooo....... Now we are all doomed cuzz of the Capitalist America....Right?

Butttt...... for years you were tied to our dollar and lapping it up......Right?

Now you kick us like a dog gone rabid.........

We shall not forget!!!

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:21 am

BTS;1159739 wrote: Yippers we (America) did it ALL............... We are the Buffoons of the world and the "Sky she is a fallin" and it's ALL Americas fault....... Right spot?

Nobody rode on their (our) coat-tails and got a piece-o-de-pie.... that was there for years.

It was ALL nasty ol AMERICAS fault...

Soooo....... Now we are all doomed cuzz of the Capitalist America....Right?

Butttt...... for years you were tied to our dollar and lapping it up......Right?

Now you kick us like a dog gone rabid.........

We shall not forget!!!

I'm glad we finally see eye to eye over it.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:39 am

posted by nomad

Ring a bell ?

India, Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez 1956, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq.

Hey I'm impressed. none of those countries are in the states:sneaky:

posted by spot

All of it harks back to that plaque in Pudding Lane. The British were bigots then, they remained bigots until 1815, they never stopped being bigots through the 19th century and only bigoted anti-German sentiment caused us to lose our heads in 1905 and side with the hated French. It's been downhill ever since.

Arguing against our foreign deployment, and in favour of mass legal immigration with citizenship, is my personal attempt to right the bigotry. It's gone on for too long.

What's silly is that the consequences of that First World War, the destruction of the social order, the forging of socialism in Britain between 1918 and 1945, the abandonment of the Empire, would never have happened had we not sided with the French. And none of it was desired, none of it intentional, none of it foreseen. Just as with the US arming the irregular militias in Afghanistan under Reagan. You're reaping the whirlwind.

You know you do come out with some daft arguments. Hatred of catholics was perfectly understandable in a nation that had just fought a civil war against a king that believed in his divine right to rule and everybody should be catholic followed on by a Christian fundamentalist military dictatorship so awful it made bringing back a king seem like a good idea.

If we were bigots so is everybody else although you might be ready to argue the ottoman empire was a shining example of tolerance and understanding fending off the grasping europeans. Just think the british and germans together could dominate the world-Hitler thought that was sensible as well.

Simplistic tosh might be the best way to describe it. We were well on our way to creating liberal democracy (the levellers manifesto had an interesting echo echo way ahead in 1776). and the industrial revolution that also has helped shape the modern world. europeans won out in the technology and political organisation stakes, which personally I am grateful for.

About the only thing I would agree with is that the US started playing the great game as well, be interesting to see how things turn out as the game i not yet over.

Incidentally what really brought the US in to world war one was finding out the germans were trying to persuade mexico to invade the United States. Happily the mexicans didn't fall for it otherwise hitory might have taken a different turn.

On a factual point in 1666 the british as a united nation was still to come the scots not yet having been sold down the river by our own so called leaders.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:52 am

gmc;1159781 wrote: You know you do come out with some daft arguments. Hatred of catholics was perfectly understandable in a nation that had just fought a civil war against a king that believed in his divine right to rule and everybody should be catholicNever in a million years could you find the slightest justification for saying that. Charles the First was a Roman Catholic either in life or even as a convert the day he was executed. He lived and died Head of the Church of England. His wife was a Roman Catholic which definitely caused friction but he certainly wasn't, he was High church. He's listed as one of the Church of England's saints. High Anglicanism may smell Popish to an extreme Calvinist but it's nothing of the sort. He hadn't the slightest intention of handing England back to Catholicism and his behaviour in Spain when he was Prince of Wales shows it:the Spanish demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism and remain in Spain for a year after the wedding as a sort of hostage to ensure England's compliance with all the terms of the treaty. Charles was outraged, and upon their return in October, he and Buckingham demanded that King James declare war on Spain.

Charles I of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gmc;1159781 wrote: If we were bigots so is everybody else although you might be ready to argue the ottoman empire was a shining example of tolerance and understanding fending off the grasping europeans. Just think the british and germans together could dominate the world-Hitler thought that was sensible as well.Had we stuck to our natural alliance in 1905, National Socialism would never have become a power in Germany and Hitler wouldn't even be a name. Germany wouldn't have been defeated in World War 1. Britain wouldn't have fought anyone at all, we'd just have ended up annexing places like Algeria in the wake of the French collapse. Where's the down side?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:57 am

posted by spot

Never in a million years could you find the slightest justification for saying that. Charles the First was a Roman Catholic either in life or even as a convert the day he was executed. He lived and died Head of the Church of England. His wife was a Roman Catholic which definitely caused friction but he certainly wasn't, he was High church. He's listed as one of the Church of England's saints. High Anglicanism may smell Popish to an extreme Calvinist but it's nothing of the sort. He hadn't the slightest intention of handing England back to Catholicism and his behaviour in Spain when he was Prince of Wales shows it:

the Spanish demanded that Charles convert to Roman Catholicism and remain in Spain for a year after the wedding as a sort of hostage to ensure England's compliance with all the terms of the treaty. Charles was outraged, and upon their return in October, he and Buckingham demanded that King James declare war on Spain.

from wikipedia

Religious conflicts permeated Charles's reign. He married a Catholic princess, Henrietta Maria of France, over the objections of Parliament and public opinion.[4][5] He further allied himself with controversial religious figures, including the ecclesiastic Richard Montagu and William Laud, whom Charles appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism. Charles's later attempts to force religious reforms upon Scotland led to the Bishops' Wars that weakened England's government and helped precipitate his downfall.

The difference was rather moot to his subjects and it was his behaviour at home that mattered. His insistence that everybody follow the approved forms of worship helped bring about his downfall. as did his belief in the divine right of kings.

Charles wished to move the Church of England away from Calvinism in a more traditional and sacramental direction.[19] This goal was shared by his main political adviser, Archbishop William Laud. Laud was appointed by Charles as the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633,[20][21] and started a series of unpopular reforms in an attempt to impose order and authority on the church. Laud attempted to ensure religious uniformity by dismissing non-conformist clergymen and closing Puritan organizations. This was actively hostile to the Reformed tendencies of many of his king's English and Scottish subjects. His policy was obnoxious to Calvinist theology, and insisted that the Church of England's liturgy be celebrated using the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer. Laud was also an advocate of Arminian theology, a view whose emphasis on the ability to reject salvation was viewed as heretical and virtually "Catholic" by strict Calvinists.

To punish those who refused to accept his reforms, Laud used the two most feared and most arbitrary courts in the land, the Court of High Commission and the Court of Star Chamber. The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.

The lawlessness of the Court of Star Chamber under Charles far exceeded that under any of his predecessors. Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture.

Not to mention ruling like a tyrant.

Had we stuck to our natural alliance in 1905, National Socialism would never have become a power in Germany and Hitler wouldn't even be a name. Germany wouldn't have been defeated in World War 1. Britain wouldn't have fought anyone at all, we'd just have ended up annexing places like Algeria in the wake of the French collapse. Where's the down side?

Daft argument-We would probably would have ended up at war with germany for the same reason we did anyway-rival empires, france was a useful ally against them. Quite likely we would have ended up at war with the Americans for the same reason imperial rivalry, maybe with the Japanese as allies who knows. Without having had the benefit of being our allies and our giving them access to all the technology we developed they would have lost the carrier battles against Japan since we would have given them the technology instead We'd probably have developed the nuclear bomb and balistic missiles before the US and the states would be a smoking ruin by now but as a third world country would we have bothered gong to war against them? Interesting alternate timeline sci fi story.

You might as well argue that things would have been different if the British had joined in on the side of the south in the American civil war -at one point we dispatched troops to canada just in case.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/europeandcivilwar.htm

This is a bit far from bush getting a shoe thrown at him. the connection is tenuous at best and your grasp of history interestingly eccentric.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:25 am

gmc;1159806 wrote: Daft argument-We would probably would have ended up at war with germany for the same reason we did anyway-rival empires, france was a useful ally against them.

Come on, be reasonable. France in 1905-1914 had far greater colonial holdings than Germany did, if it's a question of whom we competed with in that sense. I don't see that balance changing in Germany's favour, not at the expense of the British Empire at least. What I did mention, which you ignore, is that we'd stayed out of European conflicts by then since 1815. That's the 99 years I mentioned. That stance hadn't damaged our Empire one jot. Continuing that way, it seems fair to assume, would have had similar results.

I agree speculation is idle. The post you picked up on though wasn't speculative, it was descriptive. It showed the consequences of each British foreign deployment. There were a lot of them. Every one of them was a mistake, I argued. You might like to focus there rather than on the what-ifs we've wandered into subsequently, before you accuse me of eccentricity. Walking me down the garden path and then describing my final location as off-topic is unkind.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:57 am

spot;1159811 wrote: Come on, be reasonable. France in 1905-1914 had far greater colonial holdings than Germany did, if it's a question of whom we competed with in that sense. I don't see that balance changing in Germany's favour, not at the expense of the British Empire at least. What I did mention, which you ignore, is that we'd stayed out of European conflicts by then since 1815. That's the 99 years I mentioned. That stance hadn't damaged our Empire one jot. Continuing that way, it seems fair to assume, would have had similar results.

I agree speculation is idle. The post you picked up on though wasn't speculative, it was descriptive. It showed the consequences of each British foreign deployment. There were a lot of them. Every one of them was a mistake, I argued. You might like to focus there rather than on the what-ifs we've wandered into subsequently, before you accuse me of eccentricity. Walking me down the garden path and then describing my final location as off-topic is unkind.

Germany became a united nation in 1871. I think it's fair to say France had a head start. We weren't involved in Europe as we were busy building up our empire with very little real competition as being an island nation the necessity for a large army to fend off invading neighbours was replaced by the ability to concentrate al our resources on the navy. Industry and empire go together most all our interest in the middle east was centred round the control of resources just like everybody else's. All wars centre round resources one way or another.

You can view the history of the last century as a continuation of the struggle for empire and the wars as the result of cynical manipulation to get people to support them. Russia too was an empire and stalin's Russia was every bit an empire as any in the past. While there is much hypocrisy in the west about preserving freedom while at the same time flattening those who dared to object to their resources being taken things do change and the populations of the country's concerned are increasingly reluctant to go to war and see their leaders foreign policy for what it is. But then possibility of war with Russia was very real- whether that is still the case is a moot point. America never really faced up to the right wing of their political spectrum. they morphed and hung around to totally screw things up in the later years of the 20th century. The US in recent times had become a fascist state in all but name, now it's changing.

The only way we will leave the middle east alone is when we no longer need their oil. That is the motive behind all the interventions america got involved for much the same reasons. That some of the policies pursued have been counter-productive is a given imo. based on a world view that belongs in the past (I take it you have read some of the stuff in pnac) those behind it have just burned their credibility in a financial bonfire of epic proportions. Warfare always is the end of empire and bankrupts them all eventually as those whop do the fighting get pissed off. WW1 had universal support from all sides at the beginning, ww2 was the end of empire for many european countries and it's hard to imagine another european war. On the other hand we now heed russian oil and gas so who knows what will happen next. Another european war would leave us devastated far more than the last one did. It would be naive to think it couldn't happen again.

posted by spot

Come on, be reasonable. France in 1905-1914 had far greater colonial holdings than Germany did, if it's a question of whom we competed with in that sense. I don't see that balance changing in Germany's favour, not at the expense of the British Empire at least. What I did mention, which you ignore, is that we'd stayed out of European conflicts by then since 1815. That's the 99 years I mentioned. That stance hadn't damaged our Empire one jot. Continuing that way, it seems fair to assume, would have had similar results.

I was being reasonable. Your argument is flawed imo and ignores why the hostility to germany was starting to build up. Britain and germany were like two simians squaring up to each other with neither going to back down first. Have you been reading alan clarke or something?

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:31 am

Jackie Fisher's biography actually. The man who lit the touchpaper on World War One but not the one who invented the entente cordiale. That, God help him, might even have been that rather sordid King we had at the time. So much for the monarchy not intervening in politics.

We didn't have a large army to defend the border, we only built up the army when we had a foreign war to fight. Chiefly against Napoleon.

We'd been rulers of the seas worldwide since 1760.

As for no competition, the Spanish had a huge empire from starting around 1520 and the Portuguese from around the same time. Yes we'd done well but it wasn't completely one-sided as you suggest. Even the Dutch and Belgians were raking it in.

As for stabilizing Europe I'd happily restructure NATO and the EU to include Russia ten years from now. It would involve letting the US go its own way but I can't see them minding much.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:56 am

I think I'd argue that the EU (and predecessors) has done a wonderful job of stabilising Europe. I think that the time since WW2 is the longest period of peace Western Europe has ever had. Lot of credit to France and Germany, who despite loathing eachother started it going with the coal and steel agreement (I think -haven't checked).

I'm not sure anyone has satisfactorily explained why WW1 started. It really does seem that it was largely down to the Kaiser's jealousy of the British.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:42 pm

spot;1159915 wrote: Jackie Fisher's biography actually. The man who lit the touchpaper on World War One but not the one who invented the entente cordiale. That, God help him, might even have been that rather sordid King we had at the time. So much for the monarchy not intervening in politics.

We didn't have a large army to defend the border, we only built up the army when we had a foreign war to fight. Chiefly against Napoleon.

We'd been rulers of the seas worldwide since 1760.

As for no competition, the Spanish had a huge empire from starting around 1520 and the Portuguese from around the same time. Yes we'd done well but it wasn't completely one-sided as you suggest. Even the Dutch and Belgians were raking it in.

As for stabilizing Europe I'd happily restructure NATO and the EU to include Russia ten years from now. It would involve letting the US go its own way but I can't see them minding much.

I think blaming jackie fisher for ww1 is stretching things a bit. Might as well blame the designers of the dreadnought for being too clever.

I didn't say we had no competition as such but rather our position as an island nation meant we had no need to keep a large standing army and build land defences so all our resources could go in to the navy. I did put it rather badly I will concede. We had a major advantage in that our resources were not spread as thin as they might have been and we could concentrate on the technology of naval warfare better cannon, gunpowder all mass produced in a country free from the fear of havimng a foreign army kicking in the door-they had to get past th navy first. We needed an army that could fight colonial wars rather than maintain one to take on another European army. Mind you when we did take on continental Europe we tended to do rather well.

The Spanish empire bankrupted itself trying to invade England and fend off english pirates that kept attacking the treasure ships. Both the Dutch and the Portuguese lost out in the naval war with Britain as did the French come to that. Who said the british don't appreciate good food-we went to war over the spice island didn't we- and picked a fight with china to get at the tea trade.

posted by clodhopper

I think I'd argue that the EU (and predecessors) has done a wonderful job of stabilising Europe. I think that the time since WW2 is the longest period of peace Western Europe has ever had. Lot of credit to France and Germany, who despite loathing eachother started it going with the coal and steel agreement (I think -haven't checked).

The will of the people sick of warfare was very much behind it as well. It was coal and steel-we could have been in right at the outset but no our leaders still thought of themselves as an imperial power despite being bankrupt

Post by **spot** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:26 am

BBC News - Former Iraqi FM Tariq Aziz sentenced to death

A risky path for the Quisling regime to pursue, you'd think. Or maybe they think they all have their personal exit strategies under control, and enough cash to live happily ever after.

It's not really about show throwing, that newsflash, but how's the shoe thrower getting along these days? And the war criminal he threw the shoes at?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 26, 2010 12:33 pm

it was quite funny the other night on TV John Howard after answering questions about the Iraq invasion had a shoe thrown at him from the audience.

YouTube - Q & A PM John Howard Shoe Throwing Incident (Original)

It was a stunt of course and not the right forum for this but it was funny in the end.

What I don't understand is that no one booed the Iraqie guy who threw a shoe at Bush but now there are boos for the person who threw a shoe at a man who held the same policiies, beliefs and indeed sanctioned and agreed with holding members of different nations in incarceration without charge.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:14 am

A relevant comment from Mark Seddon in an Al Jazeera column...I even remember seeing pictures of Donald Rumsfeld watching Iraqi rockets being fired on the Fawr Peninsula – rockets he had been very keen to sell them. Perhaps Aziz, who could tell the whole story of Western involvement in Iraq, before, during and after the war, is simply too embarrassing and potentially compromising a figure to be allowed to live out his days in prison.

Tariq Aziz: villain or victim? - Opinion - Al Jazeera English