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.
Options
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
How about any feeling?
Does this mean that after 4,000+ posts, that I can call MoK a "troll"?
Me thinks we need to fluff up our post count a bit... which forum shall we besiege?
Can we make a list?
Well, I presumed that this was a debate, rather than a "conversation"-
de·bate Pronunciation Key (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.
You haven't countered the argument in question, I think i can safely assume that you don't want a debate, you want to call people names and pretend your big and clever on the net.
Saddam Hussein deliver a nuclear strike on Britain in 1990?
Strange....what I wonder would be the motive for that?
We had been friendly with him, and sold him arms, up until that point. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooohhh, unless you are being anachronistic, and thinking that in 1990 he might have the same (accused) aims as he is supposed to now, i.e. terrorism/force toward Britain....well, I was under the impression that that was because she supported America in the Gulf War, and the subsequent sanctions against Iraq.
As a minor point, Saddam Hussein would have almost certainly had the finance needed in 1990 to purchase weapons systems/nuclear warheads, but they simply were not available. Are you suggesting that Hussein invaded Kuwait to raise finance to nuke Britain?
Might stay around for one more post to see if you seriously want to discuss something, rather than try and act condescending and insulting.
Well... I seem to recall that PussyKatty has invited me to "dabble" in the sex forums, but can envision all sort of lewd and lascivious behavior, there, and I am rather not still the kidlet... :eek:
Doubt I would make such a hit in the drugs forum... :rolleyes:
Hmm...
...I was under the impression that "shooting down faulty arguments" is supposed to be done by defeating them logically and with relevant evidence/argumnets, not calling them and "ignorant moron" period.
The US arms anyone and everyone. As do most countries.
The British and the French sold the Argentinians the missiles they used.
Aside from the fact that the Kosovo campiagn was completely disasterous, and failed in its aims, we aren't discussing that, we arediscussing the supposed benefits to the British people of our close relationship with America.
I don't know you, and you don't know me. That's fine. Let's say this. Crossing swords on pedantics with people on here will not do you much good. Most of them are certainly practiced in arguing, and often better equipped to do so. I say that as someone who quite thought that I could debate, and had my head handed to me here more than once.
Debates will not run according to dictionary terms, and rarely stay precisely focused on the subject. You just have to accept it, and roll with the arguments as they develop throughout the thread. Cut through the rhetoric, and find the argument. Ignore the rest.
The US and Britain have a special relationship. This is true. Both have fought common wars, share a common language (though US English - I ask you?!) and share a philanthropic outlook on foreign policy underwritten by capitalist mores and rationales. The UK population has more in common with that of the US in many things, despite physical proximity. And both countries know this, and that it is an historical inevitability.
Now. Where's your argument?
Now, that would really be a priviege for the rest of us, would it not, to be graced even further by your presence? :rolleyes:
Ever learn to play chess? Even familiar with the game?
It involves observing the opponents traits, tendencies, and anticipating his movements, strategies...
Hussein is just another wannabe Hitler. Nothing more, but certainly less. If you want to play footsie with him, then I guess Chamberlain rather wrote the play book for you, didn't he? :rolleyes: A "charismatic" speaker with the ability to delude a nation, or enslave them through their ignorance to his agenda, and overpower any resistence.
ANYTHING is available, if you have sufficient power/influence/capital. With the fall of the Soviet Union, there is ALOT of nuclear weaponry floating around, awaiting being snatched up by them with sufficient capital. Does not take all that much intellect nor powers of discernment to comprehend the reasons why Hussein went into Kuwait with the intent of plundering that country, as the opening act to his road show. Need a replay of Hitler's Blitzkrieg to refresh your memory? You rape and pillage one nation to finance the taking of the next. After Kuwait would have come Saudi Arabia. Eventually, all of Europe would have fallen. Including your little island.
bin Laden is Hitler's Hirohito, but the real opening gambit kinda didn't cause the cowardly giant US to fall to its knees, trembling. Major fuck-up, rather like Pearl Harbor. Oops...
If you cannot comprehend that, best confine yourself to the drugs forum... :rolleyes:
btw... I AM archaic, out of place and time, a throwback to a period when boys were not neutered at birth, and thus became men, not simpering little ignorant morons. You will find that there are a few others who post here, and their intellect has not been stunted by testosterone deprivation.
Now that you have returned from the peanut gallery, exactly which question has not been sufficiently explained to your inept satisfaction? :rolleyes:
Agreed.
That not only does our close relationship with America do us more harm than good, put us at threat from terrorism, and make us hated across the world, but that in many cases it is morally reprehensible.
Although obviously co-operating with America as closely as possible in the fight to prevent terrorism, we should take a step back from the wars which we are obliged to support. If we must remain so close, we must try as much as possible to restrain the more bellicose aspects of current US policy, and actively seek to solve the world problems that cause/result in the terrorism which we are at risk from.
Well I was still waiting to hear some detail on Bin laden's hatred of Britain because of her democracy, but that seems to have gone by the wayside to a very noble rhetorical rant about how Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to attain enough capital to buy nuclear weapons, which, apparently, are available.
Not that this is the issue at hand, but I'd be interested to see the pricings on these nukes in 1990, and specifically how much money Hussein needed to gain to be able to afford them.
I'd love to take your word for all this, I really would, but the rhetoric of an angry American citizen, which he seems to have recycled straight from GWB's speeches, is not quite enough guarantee for me, since my brother will be fighting in these far away places, my tax will be paying for it, and my home at risk if and when a terrorist cell decides they want to break up the coalition against terror by striking London.
The reason for striking Pearl Harbour to get America to fall to her knees, trembling?
Maybe I don't have a gfreat grasp of histoircal knowledge or something, but I was under the impression that it was an attempt to destroy US naval power in the Pacific so that Japanese strategic oil interests could be protected.
Also a questionable analysis on OBL's intentions for Sept 11th. A tactician would probably say that it was fairly obvious that Bin Laden didn't expect America to "fall to her knees," but to polarize the population of the world, particulary between Islamic and non-Islamic peoples, in an attempt to escalate Jihad.
p.s. I'd also be interested to know why since Hussein is just a wannabe Hitler, the US supported and sold arms to him during the 1980s?
Okay. You would, I imagine, accept that in economic terms, the US is the world leader? Surely, having a close relationship with the economic leader of the world is a good thing? Economically, I don't think that it can be argued any other way. We are not quite fully integrated in to Europe, neither are we an American puppet. We retain sufficent control to avoid the pitfalls of either, and yet, reap most of the benefits. That is all well and good.
Diplomatically, I think that we find ourselves benefitting from ties with the US. Our memberships of the UN, NATO et al. are certainly not hindrances to this status, and nor are they hindered by our relationship.
Well, on to your point of terrorism. To some extent, I can agree with your point. When there's a guy shooting, you don't voluntarily stick your head up. It seems that this is what the UK foreign policy is doing, and certainly, I think that full compliance with US policies are negatively going to affect the UK.
However, much as I agree with that, I don't think we have fully complied, and I think that the UK often acts as an arbiter between a hot headed and previously untested US Administration and the reasonable force of the rest of the world. The strikes were not lauched immediately, the whole of the region was not carpet bombed with nuclear weapons, and such moderation was in part, I would suspect, due to calming influences, amongst them, ours. As a moderator and perhaps influence on the world's strongest power, we expect considerable reward, and economically, diplomatically and sometimes in terms of power relations, we get it.
Both our countries are founded on principles of honour, of freedom and of justice. In the UK, the Constitution is unwritten, whereas the US one is a codified and legislative piece. We both take on a role as international peacekeepers, as those who provide support, aid and help to those who need it. Do we do it for reward? No. Do we do it because it benefits us? No. Do we do it because it's right? Yes. If being right subjects us to attack, then so be it. Far better to stand for principles than to accede to something we don't believe in.
If they're shooting at us; that's when we know we're doing it right.
Yes, its true that a close economic bond with the Hyperpower of the world economy is beneficial. However, to what extent would America "cut off" economic ties with Britain if she decided to take a 'step back' diplomatically? I severly doubt that the US would place any kind of economic sanction nor would she economically collapse if we were not allied...
The fact that the US is now taking steps to disband NATO would contradict this point. Its plain that NATO is a 'relic of the cold war,' as the cliche goes, whether it could find a place in the New World Order was somewhat questioned by the success of the Kosovan crisis. Do we gain any real benefit now from NATO? Yes, I agree, we may have gained at the height of the Cold War, but now it is highly questionable.
As for the UN, I am a firm beliver in its good influence. America is not, that is plain. Repeated violations of UN law, for instance during the Kosovo crisis (to stick with a single example), and disregard for UN resolutions time after time show that the US, and possibly the UK (which isn't to say other countries don't) see the UN as a hinderance, only useful in the cases where it doesn't get in the way.
Possibly.
However it is doubtful how much of a real influence the UK has on US policy. When it comes to the crunhc, the US has shown that it can and will act unilaterally, without hesitation. GWB says so even now, unprecedented in diplomacy.
Principles?
Did you not just say before that US and UK policy is simply capitalistic in nature?
The pithy aid we give to the third world is a face saving gesture. Granted, we intervene in some interbnational disputes out of principle, but the fact that we pick and choose which we will and will not intevene in leavce questions as to the motives of these escapades...
If we were getting it right "they" wouldn't be shooting at us, or if they were we would be able to destroy them quicjkly and easily because they would have no support.
So is your contention that rather than help defend the "freedoms" of the world, we should just avoid making ourselves targets for terrorism. That each time a terrorist raises his ugly head, we should shy away from conflict?
Is it "morally reprehensible" that the Kosovan Albanians no longer fear Milosevic, that they are not just another in a long list of people he (and his "army") removed from the face of the earth with a bullet in the head before burying them in an unmakred grave?
You're right you don't have a great grasp of history. Firstly you miss the fact that wars do bring benefits for us all (and yes I do know that the cost is high, but I believe that Thanatos is in a bteer position to judge that cost than either you or I), then you miss the fact that the Japanese were on a imperialist march. The reason they decided to try and negate US forces was because they percieved them as a threat to their proposed expanision. If they were only interested in Oil, why did they procede to invade most of SE Asia? Have you ever heard of the Northern and Southern Resource Zones - better known to us as Russia and Australia?
and I'm still waiting for his first direct attack on this country. Yet we still go out to ensure that this doesn't happen. Would you rather that we waited for an attack here, before reacting?
and then you wonder why I suggest that you are ignorant :rolleyes:
At that time the US saw Iran as a bigger threat - ever heard of the US Embassy Hostages? - consequently they percieved Hussein as an enemy of their enemy and worth supporting. Hindsight, the kind used by the left-wing, claims that this was a mistake. I disagree, at the time it was the right thing.
You also seem to miss the fact that Hussein executed a member of the British Press - Farzar Bazoft - before his invasion of Kuwait. In fact this was a couple of years before. He claimed that Farzar was a member of MI5, and was on a spying mission. A claim denied by everyone who knew him.
As for nuclear weaponry, have you not listened to what the UN inspectorate found? Are you aware that Israel bombed a nuclear weaponry facility years before the Kuwait invasion?
Which I did, in addition to pointing out why I believed it to be ignorant and moronic.
Feel free to report me to the moderators, if you think that is the way forward. But don't expect us to take you seriously if you hide behind your mother's apron everytime we say something you don't agree with.
Do you notice a connection here? You would rather hide than face up to terrorism, you would even rather hide than face up to a rather low intensity insult. I thought that my countrymen had more balls than that. Obviously I am mistaken.
The UK should be glad that you and your ilk do not control the policies of the UK.
History is useful as a tool to learn from. Maybe we should call you "Neville".
Me thinks that be MUCH too far over his head...:D
Seems we agree, again... :rolleyes:
Although don't knock the Europeans too much, as our advantage is that we have our relationships with them aswell. The US doesn't really have a close relationship with any other European nation except us, so I think they value our ties with the EU.
If you think about it, the UK, has a unique position in the world, where we are able to exert alot of influence, probably greater than our geographical & economic situation actually dictates.
We are a member of the EU.
We are head of the Commonwealth nations.
We have a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations.
We are a member of NATO.
We have our close & Special Relationship with the USA.
The English language is probably the most widely spoken around the world, even though not a native one in most countries.
So lets not knock our ties with any of these parties, & use our unfluences & friendships wisely !
Have you had therapy for that?