History

[crom-dubh]

I think what Cube was trying to say was why have the US waited 12 years to do something about Saddam.
9/11 was a terrible thing and you have my deepest sympathies for everyone who suffered, but why have the US stood by and done nothing( and even supported) when other countries have suffered from terrorism. Fine by all means do what you feel is nessecary to protect your own but why try to drag others into your fight? Why feel the need to call other countries "cowards" when they do not support you?
Who is going to clean up and sort out the mess in Iraq after the initial fighting? The US hasnt really got a good track record in seeing things through to the end
Until I see solid proof that this war is absolutly nessecary then I am against it. This doesnt make me a coward or a "rag head" lover. I just dont agree with it.

 

[headrock6]

Originally posted by crom-dubh
I think what Cube was trying to say was why have the US waited 12 years to do something about Saddam.
9/11 was a terrible thing and you have my deepest sympathies for everyone who suffered, but why have the US stood by and done nothing( and even supported) when other countries have suffered from terrorism. Fine by all means do what you feel is nessecary to protect your own but why try to drag others into your fight? Why feel the need to call other countries "cowards" when they do not support you?
Who is going to clean up and sort out the mess in Iraq after the initial fighting? The US hasnt really got a good track record in seeing things through to the end

I understand exactly what he said...But what do you mean why has the US waited 12 years to do something about Saddam??Weve imposed sanctions,no fly zones,17 resolutions and countless other measures to PEACEFULLY disarm Saddam...And its painfully obvious none of them have worked..Why now??Because 9/11 proved were not immune to the hatreds of the world..We sat high on our pedestal for so long thinking we were untouchable...9/11 changed all that...I might have had a different outlook on Iraq if he didnt invade two of his neighbors and gas his own people but id be living in a fantasy world..


And ive never called anyone a coward for not supporting the fight against Iraq...When you clearly have other agendas in mind cleary aimed at the US,then I question the motives behind it..But clearly,the French have huge oil contracts,have supplied Iraq with Military parts up till January of this year,and wants nothing more to flaunt its muscle,while appeasing Saddam,then I cant find a more fitting word than Cowards at the moment..

And I agree with you that we dont clean up things very well..Hopefully the UN will be integral in a post-war Iraq..Rebuilding a nation in such a turbulent region is going to take many nations to see it through..

Originally posted by crom-dubh
Until I see solid proof that this war is absolutly nessecary then I am against it.

When your gasping for breath after you inhale some Sarin,its way to late...Lets hope you never have to see solid proof of why this war is necessary....

-6

 

[crom-dubh]

Threatening someone with war is one sure way of getting him to use his chemical weapons. What proof you you have that he will use them if the was no war imminent? The last time Saddam used chemical weapons, he had the backing of the US because it served their purpose to make sure that Iran's fundamentalism didnt spread. America was also found guilty by a war crimes tribuneral for using chemical weapons in Vietnam. I have a vested interest in this because being in the reserves (Army) there is a chance (OK I admit its a small chance) that I could be dragged into this war on a more personal level. I also know people who will be going out there. And if Afghanistan is anything to go by there wont be that many US troops on the ground (they stay holed up in Bazra and wont go out unless in a huge convoy). As soon as US servicemen start dying in numbers then the war will cease and troops will be pulled out (ie. Somalia) and all that will be achieved is one messed up Middle east.

 

[Cube]

Cube-This Is The One That Could End This Thread Faster Than The Downfall Of Hussiens

Originally posted by headrock6
Cube-I wont indulge in this for very long as Buddha has a trick finger when these get outta hand...-6

and it hasn't already?? all this politics not good for the head

Originally posted by headrock6
Who said I did??Your making assumptions now..And your floating two totally different topics..If you want my true feeling on Sinn Fein and my governments position on it,my emails at the bottom..Try me..Ill answer...-6

I was asking a qustion, and I don't think it's two totally different topics, that US position on the UK in Ireland is similar to the ROW position on the US involvement in Iraq.

Originally posted by headrock6
Maybe you mean the grassroots,and the ignorance of the Irish-American community at the time??-6

Possibly and possibly not, my point remains the same, no matter who and what you say they are. Though I've heard intelligent senior politicians in my time talk of Ireland as if the IRA were a recognised body rather than an illegal terrorist organisation. That doesn't help

Originally posted by headrock6
Im the resident war mongor here...I wouldnt disagree with that assesment at all....-6

TBH I have suggested the use of indiscriminate nuclear testing over there, if only for giving us Guinness. That'd sort out the problem!, (and yes I'm joking though sometimes only a little)

Originally posted by headrock6
You should feel very lucky weve been drawn into this war on terror..And we lost 90% more lives in one day than your country has in 30 years from terrorist attacks..But lets not continue this..terrorism is ungodly,no matter what....And once again,I cant answer for the Irish-American community in regards to funding the IRA...-6

One would say that is a pathetic argument. Sorry and I agree 9/11 was a complete disaster, for the non-US citizens killed therein as well, the UK, French, Arabs etc that were in the WTC. But that was one act of terrorism, out of the blue. How about living for years not knowing if an attack was coming, how about listening to reports of IRA cells active in your area, knowing you walk past key targets, wondering during a campaign if you're going to be next. How about knowing that there was an organisation that wanted to kill you and could target your homeland seemingly at will. Come to us in 30 years after living with that, it might give you a different perspective.

9/11 was terrorism on an unparralled scale, but the scale makes it no more or less important. Look at the panic afterwards, what would have happened if there had been 2,3 ,4 more attacks of different kinds afterwards. That's what the UK has lived through.

and my points were not just about the funding but the US government letting terrorist or terrorist sympathisers into the US to preach their hatred and venom, to sit in bars and make speeches and raise money for "the struggles".

I can't see that being allowed for an extreme muslim group now can you?

But at least we agree that terrorism is abhorrant, perhaps the next time your politicains come over here to "sort out the peace process" they can publically tell Jerry Adams that, rather than patting him on the back.

Originally posted by headrock6
Thats a weak rebuttal and it stinks of anti-americanism..And if your accusing me and my country of supporting the effort to kill British civilians,I must say im quite offended...Try drawing your ire to where it belongs..-6

Not anti-american -6, anything but. I've said repeatedly that we as a country have more in common with the US than our "neighbours" across the channel, recent events only go to prove that. I'd rather be part of the US than part of a Federal Europe.

But there is no denying that the US has been involved in supporting and funding the IRA, sorry but that's undeniable. NORAID exists and most of its fundraising activities are there.

My ire in this case is directed in the right direction, sorry if you think that's unfair but there you go. Terrorism was OK as long as it wasn't on your shores, NO ONE stopped NORAID raising funds for years and years, funds that bought weapons that killed British troops and civilians, I'm offended by that.

Originally posted by headrock6
Hmm..Your starting to sound French now....So by your estimates,12 years is to short a time frame and we need to give him 12 more??-6

French. do you know how big an insult that is to an Englishman!

Actually I'm wondering, (as are many others), if it's such a big deal why it's taken 12 years, why wasn't all this done when the inspectors were first, or second thrown out. There was justification for it then, just no desire and that's a worry.

Originally posted by headrock6
After 9/11,terrorists unknowingly unleashed a fury that hasnt been seen in a long time..For 2 long,Americans had lived in a world unaffected by terrorism...Now your just seeing what the effects are when a lone super power are drawn into battle and I assure you it aint gonna be pretty...-6

See this is the worry, it appears that the war against Iraq is going to be about revenge for 9/11, that's what people are skating around. saddam is the next step in a national purging, where's the absolute link to trrorism from Saddam Hussein? doesn't he persecute and despise religious extremeists in Iraq, where's the link to terrorist organisations? Show us and I'll back it 100% rather than the 80% I do now.

Iraq is supposed to be about weapons in the hands of a dangerous countries leader not about terrorism or terrorists

Can you see the point why people are asking why now, why not 5 years ago? Is 9/11 justification to go to war with a counrty that has no link to the act?

It's confusing the issue to talk about terrorism and Iraq when we should be talking about a despot who wouldn't think twice about using any means to kill people. Including using the weapons that we the "civilised" world sold him

Oh and BTW -6 You're not alone in the sanctions or the no fly zones or anything else, we've been there too all the way.

My only point is can't you see that on one hand the US goes on about international terrorism and how it should be stamped out as a great evil, and on the other tells us, the UK, that we should come to a deal with the terrorist organisations in Ireland, for the greater good and in the search for peace.

You can't have it both ways, I'm sorry.

I await the closure of this thread in the morning as it's now way off any possible topic linked to paintball

 

[Baca Loco]

Baca Baiting?

Originally posted by Hotpoint
1 - Care to elaborate on what you mean by that because I'm not following you

2 - You implicitly asked for examples and got them. They may be fairly cliched ones but that's because they are consistantly the most apt to the point at hand

3 - Was it hell! I know you always assume the worst of me but that's your problem not mine. None of the reasons I gave cited morality in any way. You just read into my posts what you wanted them to say so as to confirm your opinions

4 - You asked for a Neo-Realist interpretation and got one. Where was the backhanded poke and since when have I been "fluffy" in my responces. If I'm going to have a poke at you I'll be direct about it believe me

5 - You asked "and is that a good or a bad thing?" regarding a more globally active China and I answered clearly, for America perhaps no, and for global stability yes. I even my gave my personal opinion into the bargain. How is that not answering your question by any way shape or form?

6 - And you accuse me of back-handed pokes! At least I've never implied drug use or insanity to be the root cause of your opinions... I just think you're misguided (not stoned or nuts)

Beyond that, the point I was making was that in a multi-polar world alliances/allegiances will shift to prevent one party becoming overly powerful. Just because there may be friction between the EU and US does not mean even if they split completely they could never ally again. The Marxist USSR and Capitalist USA were allies against a greater threat in Nazi Germany, your enemies enemy is your friend

7 - I never do anything but play word games? That accusation was beneath you Paul and I'm surprised you'd say it because our discussions are usually more civilised than that

1--sure. I find the academic tendency to spout theory as if it was reality amusing. Even better was citing the aforementioned power theorists. Sorry, I have a peculiar sense of humor.
2--perhaps we need to define "law." Also, does that mean you're equating order with stability 'cause equilibrium doesn't seem to me to be the same thing. In which case, aren't you really making a moral judgement?
3--didn't mean to suggest I thought the poke was aimed at me. I didn't.
4--no, actually you didn't. you juxtaposed the desire of France, Germany, Russia and China for stability versus the monolithic rush to power of the lawless rogue superpower. You further suggested in the case of France and Germany the principle reason for their positions was a response to the democratic will of the people. (While elsewhere in this same thread you argue that de facto the US is not even a democratic state.) And while I won't argue the semantics of democracy/republic with you the implication is pretty plain.
Meanwhile, the Neo-Realist position ought to focus on the projection of state power and the maintenance of security primarily, shouldn't it? Consequently "stability" is a by-product of competing pressures. And possible factors that play into the national interest equation--like domestic political pressure, are, at best, secondary. So, it seemed to me you were picking and choosing less relevant specific items to make another point.
5--I'll concede that one. happy?
6--nothing back-handed about it.
7--not intended to be an accusation but you routinely niggle the details and your arguments usually strike me as trying to "win" points as opposed to actually believing something. But, as you said, that may just be me.

 

[headrock6]

Re: Cube-This Is The One That Could End This Thread Faster Than The Downfall Of Hussiens

Originally posted by Cube
and it hasn't already?? all this politics not good for the head

And paintballs coming at your head at 200 miles an hour from 10 feet away is??Sicko

Originally posted by Cube
Possibly and possibly not, my point remains the same, no matter who and what you say they are. Though I've heard intelligent senior politicians in my time talk of Ireland as if the IRA were a recognised body rather than an illegal terrorist organisation. That doesn't help

And ive heard senior British politicians say the US support of the IRA was more of a nuisance than a help during that time...

Originally posted by Cube
TBH I have suggested the use of indiscriminate nuclear testing over there, if only for giving us Guinness. That'd sort out the problem!, (and yes I'm joking though sometimes only a little)

Now your getting it..Welcome to my life

Originally posted by Cube
How about living for years not knowing if an attack was coming, how about listening to reports of IRA cells active in your area, knowing you walk past key targets, wondering during a campaign if you're going to be next. How about knowing that there was an organisation that wanted to kill you and could target your homeland seemingly at will. Come to us in 30 years after living with that, it might give you a different perspective..

Were living that right now!!!Most of us know Al Qaeda will strike again on US soil..Its not if,but when...We have terror cells all throughout this country just biding thier time..To be honest,im waiting for a terrorist to walk into the middle of a McDonalds and blow us all to ****...and while I dont have 30 years of experience of terrorism,my perspective of things is just fine...

Originally posted by Cube
9/11 was terrorism on an unparralled scale, but the scale makes it no more or less important. Look at the panic afterwards, what would have happened if there had been 2,3 ,4 more attacks of different kinds afterwards. That's what the UK has lived through.

Theres going to be 2,3,and 4 and there isnt a damn thing we can do except wait and pray...Kinda sucks dont it..

Originally posted by Cube
and my points were not just about the funding but the US government letting terrorist or terrorist sympathisers into the US to preach their hatred and venom, to sit in bars and make speeches and raise money for "the struggles".

I can't see that being allowed for an extreme muslim group now can you?

Now theres nothing I can do about our first amendmant(freedom of speech),but I can assure you outta the roughly 1600 Mosques in the US,at least a quarter are breeding grounds for future terrorists and anti-American sentiment..Now thats scary

Originally posted by Cube
But at least we agree that terrorism is abhorrant, perhaps the next time your politicains come over here to "sort out the peace process" they can publically tell Jerry Adams that, rather than patting him on the back.

Blame Clinton for that fiasco...But I remember 7 Presidents before him not granting access to Mr.Adams...

Originally posted by Cube
Not anti-american -6, anything but. I've said repeatedly that we as a country have more in common with the US than our "neighbours" across the channel, recent events only go to prove that. I'd rather be part of the US than part of a Federal Europe.

But there is no denying that the US has been involved in supporting and funding the IRA, sorry but that's undeniable. NORAID exists and most of its fundraising activities are there.

My ire in this case is directed in the right direction, sorry if you think that's unfair but there you go. Terrorism was OK as long as it wasn't on your shores, NO ONE stopped NORAID raising funds for years and years, funds that bought weapons that killed British troops and civilians, I'm offended by that..

Glad to hear...NORAID definately is regarded as scum here and my point was you cant hold accountable a whole nation for the sick and distorted views of some...And look up the Four Horsemen during the IRA bombings..i think youll find that some in our government were clearly on your side...And you would never have had a ceasefire if for not the involvement of the US with Adams..The role of Clinton during the peace process was an integral part of the cease fire...

Originally posted by Cube
French. do you know how big an insult that is to an Englishman!

thats why i wrote it

Originally posted by Cube
Actually I'm wondering, (as are many others), if it's such a big deal why it's taken 12 years, why wasn't all this done when the inspectors were first, or second thrown out. There was justification for it then, just no desire and that's a worry.

Because containment worked well back then..But when a dictator gives up $100 billion dollars in oil revenue,and has no regard for the suffering of his people,something needs to be done..It should have been done in 98 when he threw the inspectors out but Clinton was a P***Y...

Originally posted by Cube
See this is the worry, it appears that the war against Iraq is going to be about revenge for 9/11, that's what people are skating around. saddam is the next step in a national purging, where's the absolute link to trrorism from Saddam Hussein? doesn't he persecute and despise religious extremeists in Iraq, where's the link to terrorist organisations? Show us and I'll back it 100% rather than the 80% I do now.

Iraq is supposed to be about weapons in the hands of a dangerous countries leader not about terrorism or terrorists

Can you see the point why people are asking why now, why not 5 years ago? Is 9/11 justification to go to war with a counrty that has no link to the act?

It's confusing the issue to talk about terrorism and Iraq when we should be talking about a despot who wouldn't think twice about using any means to kill people. Including using the weapons that we the "civilised" world sold him

Whats the difference between terrorism and State Sponsored Terrorism??Absolutely nothing...He sends money to suicide bombers(this isnt a big secret,he publicly announces it),and harbors Al Qaeda operatives...9/11 isnt the justification to go to war..But it shows what lengths terrorists and those that sponsor terror will do to harm the US and its Allies and interests..Did you complain when we bombed the Taliban and changed regimes in Afghanistan..Nope..All they did was harbor Al Qaeda and brutalize their people...Hussien does exactly the same...

Originally posted by Cube
I await the closure of this thread in the morning as it's now way off any possible topic linked to paintball

Now way bro..Baca and Hotpoint havent gone off yet....And ill go and create another thread till i see this one on foriegn policy..iyts just about to get good..And this debate has been fairly quiet...I see no reason why they would close it just yet...And it wasnt paintball related to begin with so its right where it should be...

-All The Best-6

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Baca Baiting?

Originally posted by Baca Loco
1--sure. I find the academic tendency to spout theory as if it was reality amusing. Even better was citing the aforementioned power theorists. Sorry, I have a peculiar sense of humor.
2--perhaps we need to define "law." Also, does that mean you're equating order with stability 'cause equilibrium doesn't seem to me to be the same thing. In which case, aren't you really making a moral judgement?
3--didn't mean to suggest I thought the poke was aimed at me. I didn't.
4--no, actually you didn't. you juxtaposed the desire of France, Germany, Russia and China for stability versus the monolithic rush to power of the lawless rogue superpower. You further suggested in the case of France and Germany the principle reason for their positions was a response to the democratic will of the people. (While elsewhere in this same thread you argue that de facto the US is not even a democratic state.) And while I won't argue the semantics of democracy/republic with you the implication is pretty plain.
Meanwhile, the Neo-Realist position ought to focus on the projection of state power and the maintenance of security primarily, shouldn't it? Consequently "stability" is a by-product of competing pressures. And possible factors that play into the national interest equation--like domestic political pressure, are, at best, secondary. So, it seemed to me you were picking and choosing less relevant specific items to make another point.
5--I'll concede that one. happy?
6--nothing back-handed about it.
7--not intended to be an accusation but you routinely niggle the details and your arguments usually strike me as trying to "win" points as opposed to actually believing something. But, as you said, that may just be me.

1 - No need to apologise for your sense of humour Baca I just didn't follow what you meant. I find quite a few academics funny too to be honest (Marxist Theorists are often comically simplistic with a truely bizarre view on human nature)

2 - I didn't mean order and stability in terms of equillibrium per se, in fact the balance of power in a multipolar or even bipolar situation is constantly shifting its just that when it becomes too offset other players tend to step in or swap sides to restore the balance (for a while)

I kind of think of it as being like what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand" of the Market in that it works without the need for specific intervention to make it work

As for "Law" I include international agreements since they are traditionally supposed to be binding and in most cases they are. Maybe you disagree with as broad a definition as myself but thats your perogative

3 - Okay the Poke wasn't aimed at you... then what was the Poke and who or what was it aimed at? Still in the dark I'm afraid

4 - The Democracy/Republic issue may be semantics to you but its not to me because Political Science is my academic speciality and I take the terminology seriously. Maybe its just my cross to bare that others don't... ho hum

I think you should reread my original post. My second point was to say that it was in the national intersts of each power to limit American influence not just for stability (first point) but also so that their own influence could be more widely felt and they could therefore "steer events in its own favour"

What I was saying with this second point was that the dominance of the US is limited the ability of other states to project their own will/power/influence. Surely this is in keeping with Neo-Realist thought by your own admission that "the Neo-Realist position ought to focus on the projection of state power..."?

As for how you perceive Neo-Realist thought as being primarily concerned with Security if you mean by that defence issues that would be more true of old-style Realist thinking IMHO. Security issues are certainly a major part of it but economics is of major import too. I wouldn't therefore disagree with the idea that French, German & Russian views are clouded by Oil Contracts which is why I also said later "It is a happy coincidence that the peoples will here coincides with the percieved interests of the governments of the three powers"

5 - Ah the sweet smell of victory...

6 - ... and the bitter taste of insult (backhanded or otherwise)

7 - If I niggle the points trust me its more down the fact I'm so damn anal than what you may see as points scoring. I can be a monumental pain in the neck when it comes to detail... probably to the point of pure pedantry to tell the truth

As for not believing in things... nah I'm quite opinionated and faithful to my ideals

 

[Hotpoint]

Re: Cube-This Is The One That Could End This Thread Faster Than The Downfall Of Hussiens

Originally posted by Cube
and it hasn't already?? all this politics not good for the head

I heartily disagree with that Cube

Originally posted by headrock6
No way bro..Baca and Hotpoint havent gone off yet....

I've said it before Baca... we're just a bleeding spectator sport

 

[Stee-vo]

Game over

Well folks looks like its going to be war. By the weekend large parts of Iraq will be smoking ruins and all the political debate will end and it will be down to tough, well trained guys with guns to finish the argument. Lets hope they find the weapons of mass destruction we have been told the Iraqies are hiding, the s**t will really hit the fan if there is nothing there. If the regime collapses quickly and we find the "smoking guns" then this will all be hailed as a bold move in the face of appeasment by the USA and the UK who stuck to there principles to make the world a safer place.
The role of the French in this is a curious one but I think was best sumised by Churchill when he refered to them as "armed to the teeth but pacifist to the core". Are they the liberal appeasers who wring their hands, are indecisive, look the other way and will do anything for peace or were they the far sighted statesmen who were the voice of reason calling for debate and diplomacy in the face of an agressive USA. Debate is really over and we will all know in the next fortnight, lets hope the UK and USA were right, I mean, can you imagine the French being more arrogant and smug than they all ready are It does not bear thinking about.

 

[headrock6]

Re: Re: Cube-This Is The One That Could End This Thread Faster Than The Downfall Of Hussiens

Originally posted by Hotpoint



I've said it before Baca... we're just a bleeding spectator sport

Cmon,I even got out the dictionary for this one...