If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I don't necessarily agree with tactical voting, but I understand why some people do it.
Although when it comes to the 'special relationship' (i.e. shameful subordination) between Britain and the US, I must say I don't see the Tories could get any worse or more subordinate than Labour, since that seems physically impossible.
Unless they say the hell with it and officially apply to become the 51st State.
VOTE GREEN!!!! except they r twats
VOTE SOCIALIST!!!! except thatd put thousands of buisnesses out
vote for me!! cause i am sexy
:rolleyes:
I'm well aware of the shortcomings of my own government.
I mentioned the war on Iraq and that involved both British and Americans but I've also said elsewhere that I don't in any way support the British government and I'm not proud to be British.
Sorry, should have added "British and American" to my previous post. :rolleyes:
:thumb:
Just thought I'd add that...
Get over it? Or cave in? Not in this lifetime!
The US is not the only country to have suffered terrorism. In fact a large amount of funding for the IRA came from the US. You also supported the Contra's etc. The fact is that the US has been supporting terrorism for years and now you whinge when someone retaliates.
Grow up and get over it.
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons.
We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men ? fifteen of them Saudi Arabians ? hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Because terrorism didn't start of finish with those two.
Mypoic vision won't get us anywhere. 9/11 was the trigger to the US response but it's not all about that one event you know...
Meanwhile back home, Ashcroft is busy spending tax dollars on instituting mechanisms for spying on US citizens and generating blacklists (ala the McCarthy Era) rather than truly securing the nation against transnational terrorism. The glaring gap between expenditure levels for foreign campaigns and for that of enhancing response services makes the charade of homeland defense woefully transparent to any who bother scrutinising it.
I disagree. They see a bigger picture than what is being represented here. It isn't they who see the W.O.T as just being revenge for 9/11.
You don't need to tell me about the "homeland security" issue. I'm with you on that one.
It was merely the roll out of the PNAC agenda and its strategic aims of increased geo-political and coroprate control over the mid-Asian region. It's the "manifest destiny" mentality mach II and the neo-imperialism it represents will only generate further violent backlashes as increasing numbers of moderates swing toward the extremist messages in their societies.
Moreover it provides for the establishment of additional "client" states with installed governments tied to Washington who can be armed and coddled in whatever repressions they subsequently perpetrate in the name of "the war on terror" until such future time as they, like those that have preceeded them around the globe, run afoul of the dictats of their taskmasters and provide a fresh source of interventionist options to keep the massive defence budgets rolling.
It's an exercise in the creation of more fuel to feed the MIC machinery.
It has not tackled the countries that harbour most of the terrorists (because conveniently the governments in these countries are "allies"), and more importantly it has not addressed the reasons why so many people are coming forward to join Al Qaida or otherwise "become martyrs" through sympathetic terrorist cells.
As a matter of fact the recruiting for Al Qaida and other Muslim extremist organisations seems to be much higher now than it was before or immediately after 9/11.
And for as long as the US continues its "crusades" (Bush's word not mine) against Muslim countries and its shameful and atrocious double standards regarding Israel's WMDs and human rights issues, you can bet your bottom dollar that Al Qaida and other organisations will continue to count with the full support of legions of people.
We are well and truly losing this so-called 'war on terror', and other than nuking the entire Muslim/Arab world, Bush will never, ever, win it with the current approach.
The bigger picture which they see is one where the "west" sat back and let these group develop into the threat they became. The old premise was that we wouldn't act until attacked.
It is THAT premise which 9/11 changed. If we know that something exists which may threaten us in the future - why wait?
BTW Again you refer to the "roots of 9/11". It isn't just about 9/11, terrorism existed before then you know
Think strategically. They way you are thinking at the moment suggests that the Allies were wrong in invading Italy and France before going to Germany in WW2.
It is bigger than Iraq/Afghanaistan and Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps some of the Islamic leaders could help with that one too???
Based on what information?
Again, based on what information?
Not necessarily as these nations were not merely allies to the NAzis but were occupied by its armies thus to defeat the armies of the Nazis required the movement of forces into the areas where these armies were.
And once again, you presuppose that we "sat back" whereas many (myself included) remain unconvinced by the cover story. The event at the least was forewarned, expected and "allowed" to happen. Much in the same way FDR "allowed" Pearl Harbour to happen to drag our nation out of an isolationist position and into the Atlanticist age of interventionism.
The fact is you can't accept lies as pretext for the engagement of an entire state in unilateralist presumption of what constitutes a threat when the stage upon which that state's "pre-emptive" militancy is waged concerns the stability and wellbeing of the remainder of the globe. The "might makes right paradigm" will only result in whatever power currently rules the roost being one day handed their own taste of the same medicine. Furthermore "threat" as we have already seen can be contrived and justified for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with actual danger to the safety of the state wishing to launch its pre-emptive strikes.
I'll stick to multilateral frameworks and a "rule of law" that holds even the mighty accountable. Something this admin has chosen to disregard whilst pointing the finger at a host of weaker nations.
Whereas the countries in the Middle East, and yes I include nearly all- Israel too, have some links with terrorist organisations. Either as a base for training, financial support or as a bolthole.
Unless you dispute this?
Again with 9/11?
So if we didn't sit back, how did Hamas etc come about. Like I sais, not just 9/11 and not just Al Qaeda.
Diffcult one, I'd say. Certainly I don't think that the Govt of Arabia is the problem but certainly there are too many fanatics there.
Funnily enough I don't see a single source. Rather of collection of Govts who fail to act against terrorist cells. I think that Iraq was as much a warning to them (one which the house of Saud seems to have heard) as it was a direct attack against a suspect regime...
Not at all, because that wasn't the sole reason. There wasn't a sole reason for going to war - just some added benefits. The message to other states was one of them.
BTW Oxford University carried out a survey in Iraq. 3000 people were polled and asked "What is the best thing to have happened to you in the past 12 months?"
42% said the removal of Saddam.
And while I have no idea how that poll was conducted, I can't imagine that the Iraqi people would have been able to glean any other silver lining to the invasion.
I certainly would say that the authoritarian govts of the middle east are a major problem, people have no power or means of expression.
Say he'd been removed and American forces were back in the US you would complain that the US had raided the country, taken useful resources and left it to rotten.
Had the US not interfered at all, you'd have complained that such a large superpower lets the world to ruin itself instaid of interfering and using the power they have for something good.
But as the given situation is today, you complain that the force are still in the country trying to rebuild a country which is rotten to the core.
Seriously, in which situation would you say "I support this"?
If it was a multilateral UN force and the contracts weren't all going to Bush and Rumsfeld's mates, I'd be a lot more inclined to have supported military action.