How it Works5 mins ago
Calm down dear, its just a bunch of extremists
As predicted, Tony stood in front of the cameras denouncing any attempt by anyone to 'give the terrorists an inch' in suggesting the Iraq war provided justification for suicide bombers.
Am I the only one that gets reaaaaally scared by this?
"Of course Iraq will figure in their twisted logic." No s**t, Tony!!!!!!! The entire world is full of people, and every one of them has a mind that is based on logic!!!!! Saying they were evil won't make them go away! If they feel that they are on the other side of the fence, that you are hostile to them, do you think that wandering into one of their countries, with no recognised mandate, on the back of a marauding religious extremist (in their eyes) America will make them more or less likely to send their boys on to our turf to wage war the only way they know how?
Go about it your way, Tony, but at least get the psychology even basically right. We have to work with THIS world, not some idealized version of it.
Thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MargeB. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That was my point exactly earlier on, certain people on here just criticise Blair and Bush for everything they say or do no matter what happens. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't!
Coincidentally (or not) they are also the same people who try to use the Iraq war as some kind of justification for the recent terrorist activities and then use that as an easy excuse to have a go at our politicians.
Like I have said before these people are always very quick to moan about a problem but never actually suggest reasonable ways in which to solve them.
You had an answer Gevs, Blair and Bush need to resign
Clannad I note you've picked your examples and not attempted to justify your countries napalm stained boot marks on South East Asia.
As for WWII America didn't exactly rush to the fray in 1940 when we were scarcely able to defend ourselves!
Will you ever quit trying to make up for being late for the last 2 world wars by trying to start a new one?
This threads getting silly...
No Ned I don't think it was a waste of time but a lot of Africa's problems were the direct fault of the British the French, the Germans and the Belgiums and we ought to acknowlege that and do a damn site more to fix it and that starts with giving them free access to European Markets.
Trouble is that costs jobs in Europe and I don't think think that's quite sunk in with a lot of people yet.
I'm really puzzled by Jake's claims... usually he is fairly, how do you say "spot on"... but sadly, the references used for his anti-American diatribe are the best defenses of American foreign policies. Korea... hmmm... seems they were invaded by the North Koreans and later, when they were near defeat by combined U.S. and allied forces, invaded by the Chinese. Vietnam... hmmm... they were being invaded by the Chinese backed North Vietnamese. Sandinistas in Nicarauga.... hmmm... Ortega was closely allied with Cuba's communists and was soundly defeated in free elections in 1990, 1996 and 2001... Do I see a pattern here?
Jake, Thank you, you have just proved my point entirley!
By calling for Blair and Bush to resign you are just blaming individuals and not actually looking for/providing any reasonable solution to the problems.
If they were to resign and the next leaders to come in have an attitude and approach to this countries political agenda that you disagree with, what then? You'll be moaning about them too and calling for them to resign. Where does it end?
Also, to all those people on here citing the cause of the recent terrorist activity as the war in Iraq. Are you all that naive to think that nothing like this would have happened if it wasn't for our troops being over there or that it would all stop if all our troops pulled out. Do me a favour!
Ok jake I finally agree with you on the free markets issue but drop the debt is a start unfortunately too late for the niger crisis but hopefully it can help to avoid this situation in the years to come. I think that Bush Blair etc should have been given some more credit for it but hey good news doesn't sell! Even geldof and bono were pleased! As for our (UK's) past indiscretions we could go right round the world to every continent and find somewhere where we persecuted somebody wed end up skint! Peace to you all !
Some very valid points early on Clanad. It's a wonder they haven't asked you to explain the Boston tea party yet. My son did a six month tour in Iraq last year. Fortunately the only physical discomfort he suffered was an aching arm from all the Iraqi citizens who wanted to shake his hand and thank him for getting rid of Hussein. It would seem that not all the muslims there want to blow us to bits.
Gevs - Blair needs to resign - He's lead us into a needless war - If you don't question his motives you have to question his judgement.
Robin Cook was foreign secretary at the time and resigned immediatly rather than be associated with what was to come.
Chompu - I'm glad your son had a positive tour of duty - I'm guessing he was in Basra and not Bagdad - but there are an awfull lot of evil regiemes we didn't go to war to help free Iraq - It was because we were told that it was because there was a real and immediate threat of attacks in Britain from Saddam Hussein.
The irony is stunning
One last point Clannad's history is again selective:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/5/newsid_2538000/2538379.stm
What's selective about the full history, jake?...
November 08, 2001
Nicaragua's former Sandinista President Daniel Ortega (1979-1990) lost his third consecutive bid to regain the office. Businessman and former vice president Enrique Bolanos defeated him in the Nov. 4 election by a wide margin. The collapse of the national electoral computer system and charges of fraud have confused and delayed the results of races for seats in the National Assembly, but the governing Partido Liberal Constitucionalista (PLC) is assured of a majority.
Election observers agreed that the polling went well. The abstention rate was estimated at only around 8%, compared with 27% in the 1996 election.
Ortega conceded defeat in the early hours of Nov. 5 shortly after the polls closed. From the first scattered unofficial projections, there was little doubt that Bolanos, running on the PLC ticket, would win. Throughout the campaign, Ortega maintained a slight lead in most polls, but a large block of undecided voters made the outcome
What's selective Clannad is that we were talking about American intervention in other people's countries.
I was referring to the Regan Administration's attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government that it disapproved of. You ignored the election that the Sandinistas won and only quoted those that they had lost.
I mean we could also discuss that nasty piece of work Noriega who was according to CIA director Stansfield Turner on the CIA payroll until 1988 when he turned down $2 million to go into exile and Bush senior authorised the invasion of Panama and his kidnap (you can't "arrest" someone in their own country!)
And we won't even mention the Bay of Pigs!
I mean do you really believe the US doesn't interfere in other countries and that that interfering doesn't make enemies?
Jake, jake... I never intended to state that the U.S. and Britain, for that matter, don't look after their own interests throughout the world. But you make it seem all so ominous whithout referencing the balance. The U.S. could retreat to "Fortress America" and let ya'll just slide down the tubes. In fact, as you well know, that was tried just prior to the First World War. It didn't work then and it won't work now. But... and it's a big but... just compare the colonialism of France, Spain, Portugal and yes... Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much of that was to establish empire. Point to even one empire established by the U.S. in almost 250 years of our existence. That doesn't imply, in the face of realism, that intrigue and intervention aren't used. But, in almost all the examples that you quote, the object was the limiting of communism and securing our future. Communism seen, and quite truthfully correct, as an imbodiment of evil and it's sole intent was world domination. One need look no further than what happened to the people of Cambodia under Pol Pot following Vietnam.
The Monroe Doctine, established in 1823 has been a hallmark of U.S. foreign policy ever since. I would submit, that following the Second World War, Europe, the Far East and much of the rest of the world was unable to counter the Russian and Chinese communist threats. The free world has looked to the U.S. and it's allies for protection and it's been freely given, and that holds true in Afghansitan and Iraq. As you know, Iraq, for the first time in history, is on the cusp of a Constitution and elected government. I see that as a good thing... and in the mean time we are eradicating one source of terrorism... (By the way, we weren't late to the Second World War... Google Lend Lease Act... which has never been repaid...)
Funny you should mention the Monroe doctrine. That's often quoted, less often quoted are the other Presidential Doctrines that followed and modified it:
[Theodore] Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: That the U.S. has the right to intervene in the affairs of Latin American and particularly Caribbean countries
Truman Doctrine: If one nation falls to a Communist takeover, it will logically follow that its surrounding nations are also at risk for a Communist takeover
Eisenhower Doctrine: Non-Communist governments must receive aid and support from the US,
Kennedy Doctrine: The United States will oppose the formation of any Latin American Communist, Soviet-aligned government.
Johnson Doctrine: U.S. will intervene in the Western Hemisphere to prevent a Communist threat to any government.
Nixon Doctrine: When direct U.S. military presence is not possible, the U.S. shall train and assist native anti-Communist rebels in the country of the conflict.
Carter Doctrine: An attempt by any outside forces to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
cont...
...
Reagan Doctrine: Anti-Communist rebels must be supported to combat Soviet influence and promote democracy.
Clinton Doctrine: The best way to maintain stability in large areas that hold U.S. interests is to combat instability in small areas, before the conflicts can intensify and spread.
Bush Doctrine: U.S. will make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them, and that the security of the United States is best maintained through the spread of democracy in the Middle-East.
I particularly like the Regan one!
My point is that an awful lot of Americans seem very surprised how unpopular their country is and do not seem to understand how much the US interferes in other countries.
This is the root cause of 9/11 and all that has followed it
Latest Posts
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News11 mins ago
Good Morning Boxing Day Birds!
ChatterBank19 mins ago
How it Works37 mins ago
Road rules41 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.