Politics Are you worried Bush will invade more countries?
EvilDictatorOfTheWorld
Cadet
am i worried that he'll invade more countries? hell yes i am, especially when i have two people i love in Iraq right now because of his lies.
Moonlite Star
Cadet
only time will tell...-_-
G$f3arl3ssG$
Cadet
Well, not all American media is pro-Bush, but most of America IS conservative. I take it the sarcasm is just to poke fun.noggi16 said:
What I'm saying is that you have no idea how clueless Americans are about their own government and the things that go on every day. Hell, people in a different country know more about America than America knows about itself. Everything worth anything is strictly censored, which raises an interesting question of why America has the most problems within its society when it's the most censored.
People want to choose the safe route and they think Bush will deliver that. Hah! Boy, are they in for a rude awakening.
So, are you saying it was an act of rebellion?
Duly noted.
No, you don't. But when said person has powers that expand to international affairs and can, consequently, affect the security of the world, you have to open your eyes and ears. The world may not have a say on how America votes, but when a large group of people unanimously see something wrong in this particular individual, you have to wonder why the people of that nation don't see it too.
Bush is not Thatcher, okay? And Bush's beliefs were anything but honest. They may have been firm, yes. Hell, we all witnessed his firm demands to invade Iraq. But it doesn't make them sound and just. And he hasn't followed through on anything. Where is Osama? All I see now is a country completely ruined by him and a lot of dead soldiers and civilians. Face it. He can't wipe out terrorism in just two terms. And if he wanted to, his plan of approach has not proved to be quite so successful.
Most of all countries are conservative in the sense they like things the way they are. Labour party in Britain didn't get in till it moved way to the right.
I wouldn't necessarily agree that America has the most problems in its society. And the generalisation that most Americans know little about it is just wrong, if they don't know or don't care why were people queuing for hours to vote.
No, I'm saying if you're country had been attacked so viciously on 9/11 and then people everywhere started saying you were stupid then it makes people that may not normally consider it, vote a certain way because it scares them, they become locked in almost.
Well I'm sure the Argentines didn't like Thatcher but you didn't see us not electing her. A lot of people think that Putin is a dictator in the making but the Russians elected him. A large number of them do see it, the election was almost split in terms of votes. And of those who voted, there is probably some that agree with some of his policies but not others.
Damn right hes not. Thatcher wouldn't have just been talking about privatising pensions or invading Iran, she have done it by now.
No but one of the reasons the IRA has not been able to re-start its bombing campagin despite the fact they want to is the anti-terrorism legislation brought in post 9-11 so its been good for Britain.
G$f3arl3ssG$
Cadet
Apparently, you aren't aware that barely even half the country votes. The highest voter percentage was during the late 19th century, but now it's steadily declined. It is the fact that many people neglect what's going on in their country or they just don't care anymore, and they let those who vote for the wrong things to spearhead the way.noggi16 said:
America was not the only country attacked during 9/11. There were many other representatives from different countries inside the WORLD Trade tower who died as well. Americans are stupid in a sense, and they confirmed it even more when they reelected an idiot to lead them. What you're saying is that, influenced by outside remarks, America voted this way. I'm not sure what that proves.
So what? Americans voted blindly for Bush even when his tax cuts only benefitted the rich. He's having the middle class pay out of their ears.
See, that's the thing I don't want. Why is he invading other countries at a time when he needs to reshape his own country first?
Ever consider that a bombing campaign is probably not such a bright idea? Terrorism is spread all over the world, and many of these groups share either a similar or different belief. You can't target them all. Even Timothy McVeigh proved that it could be within one's own nation as well.
Apparantly your not aware that
1) No voting is a rational response to an irrantional system, if people don't feel there is someone who represents there views they won't vote.
2) I cannot think of one democracy except for maybe some of the countries like the Eastern Bloc or African nations where voter numbers are going up. Certainly in most European Countries, GB, France, Germany, numbers are reducing.
3) You can't measure the amount people care in votes. Its the amount of activism or just people talking about politics is just as important. In Britain, voter numbers have been falling for years, with turnout in the general election barely reaching 50%. But in the last year the amount of people in the political process has shot up with 3 massive and we're talking 500,000 protest marchs on fox hunting, the war in Iraq and top up fees.
So base interest in politics may not be declining.
Despite the representation of people from outside America, this was not an attack on the world. If you wanted to kill a lot of nationalities and really attack on a world scale, you'd attack the UN or the European Parliament. This was an American target, an attack on Americanised and Western vaules that was aimed at causing as much death and descrution as possible.
Americans aren't stupid. You just cannot say that. If I said all French people smell then that would be offensive and untrue, saying Americans are stupid is the same. And again only half the voters voted for him. I'm not saying this is the only reason for Bush's win, I'm sure there are others but it did not help, everybody saying how stupid Bush was and how he should not win.
No he has a range of policies. He obviously appeals to something in people. Maybe its a religious stance or maybe its to do with his trade policies. I don't know by people voted for him.
See, now what I don't want is to go back to a time when America just looked after its own affairs ,did not bother with the rest of the world, and took an isolationist stance. As fair as I see, its agreed the League of Nations failed partly because there was no American involvment. Do you not think Britain had internal problems in 1939 when we declared war on Germany? If the Americans had joined in the war then, it may not hav lasted till 1945. Or if they had joined in the first world war at the beginning, there may not be a million men British men in French fields.
Well seen as without the bombing campagin, Sinn Fein (because of its links to the IRA and the Provos.) would not be allowed in the power sharing executive because they would have very little hold over the British Government.
And would the Palestine problem be in the news if there were no suicide bombings. No it would just pass us by. I have no doubt that given the chance, the paramilitaries would start again.
I know damn well that terrorism comes from within. The PIRA blew up Manchester City Centre. All that was left standing was a post box. And that was on my birthday. Nobody has ever been convicted.
But you cannot compare that; which while wrong was for a cause. The IRA was a protest movement which expressed itself in violence with the actions of someone like McVeigh who as far as I can tell had no reason to do what he did.
I've had this arguement before. Violence on occasion is a necessary political tool. I'm not saying it right I'm saying its the way it is.
mexico city
Cadet
ask syria and iran
they just made a pact
to protect against it
mc
they just made a pact
to protect against it
mc
I know I'm double posting, but this is my thread, and just had some more info to add. 
feel free to yell at me
courtesy of the Daily Mail :
'The new head of the CIA has admitted that the invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists who, having developed their expertise, would be ready to target other countries.'
so was it a good idea mr bush??
feel free to yell at mecourtesy of the Daily Mail
:'The new head of the CIA has admitted that the invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists who, having developed their expertise, would be ready to target other countries.'
so was it a good idea mr bush??
G$f3arl3ssG$
Cadet
Sorry, the quote tags aren't working.
1) No voting is a rational response to an irrantional system, if people don't feel there is someone who represents there views they won't vote.
What system are you talking about?
2) I cannot think of one democracy except for maybe some of the countries like the Eastern Bloc or African nations where voter numbers are going up. Certainly in most European Countries, GB, France, Germany, numbers are reducing.
That's because as people become aware of what goes on in the world and how their leaders are handling it, they become disillusioned. And again, I was talking about America. You're bringing in other countries and unnecessarily broadening things.
3) You can't measure the amount people care in votes. Its the amount of activism or just people talking about politics is just as important.
Activisim (i.e. protesting) does not get your point across as strongly as voting. By voting you are directly choosing what YOU want. And yes, you can measure the amount of people's interest (or lack thereof) in votes. If they cared, they would make sure that what they wanted would be achieved.
Despite the representation of people from outside America, this was not an attack on the world.
It was not a direct attack on the world, but it did, in some ways, affect the world.
Americans aren't stupid. You just cannot say that. If I said all French people smell then that would be offensive and untrue, saying Americans are stupid is the same.
It's a matter of opinion.
See, now what I don't want is to go back to a time when America just looked after its own affairs ,did not bother with the rest of the world, and took an isolationist stance.
The war on Iraq doesn't seem like a world effort, but more like an American effort. Bush feels there's something to gain from it. WWII was a different situation where the entire world was at risk. But concerning Iraq, it's just an unnecessary, fruitless campaign for selfish intentions.
Well seen as without the bombing campagin, Sinn Fein (because of its links to the IRA and the Provos.) would not be allowed in the power sharing executive because they would have very little hold over the British Government.
There is a time when a certain route of action may work well in a certain situation, but one single, narrow-minded method will not always work for every single situation. Just remember WWI and the futile trench warfare.
And would the Palestine problem be in the news if there were no suicide bombings. No it would just pass us by. I have no doubt that given the chance, the paramilitaries would start again.
What's your point?
I know damn well that terrorism comes from within. The PIRA blew up Manchester City Centre. All that was left standing was a post box. And that was on my birthday. Nobody has ever been convicted.
Okay, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks for repeating it.
But you cannot compare that; which while wrong was for a cause. The IRA was a protest movement which expressed itself in violence with the actions of someone like McVeigh who as far as I can tell had no reason to do what he did.
You can't justify the mind of a terrorist. In their belief, everything they do is for a cause, no matter how insane or bewildering it may seem to you. And you cannot validate one action of terrorism over the other. Cause or not, it's STILL terrorism.
I've had this arguement before. Violence on occasion is a necessary political tool. I'm not saying it right I'm saying its the way it is.
Then maybe it's time to deviate from the status-quo and find another more successful method that will be less costly. All it takes is a sound decision and patience.
1) No voting is a rational response to an irrantional system, if people don't feel there is someone who represents there views they won't vote.
What system are you talking about?
2) I cannot think of one democracy except for maybe some of the countries like the Eastern Bloc or African nations where voter numbers are going up. Certainly in most European Countries, GB, France, Germany, numbers are reducing.
That's because as people become aware of what goes on in the world and how their leaders are handling it, they become disillusioned. And again, I was talking about America. You're bringing in other countries and unnecessarily broadening things.
3) You can't measure the amount people care in votes. Its the amount of activism or just people talking about politics is just as important.
Activisim (i.e. protesting) does not get your point across as strongly as voting. By voting you are directly choosing what YOU want. And yes, you can measure the amount of people's interest (or lack thereof) in votes. If they cared, they would make sure that what they wanted would be achieved.
Despite the representation of people from outside America, this was not an attack on the world.
It was not a direct attack on the world, but it did, in some ways, affect the world.
Americans aren't stupid. You just cannot say that. If I said all French people smell then that would be offensive and untrue, saying Americans are stupid is the same.
It's a matter of opinion.
See, now what I don't want is to go back to a time when America just looked after its own affairs ,did not bother with the rest of the world, and took an isolationist stance.
The war on Iraq doesn't seem like a world effort, but more like an American effort. Bush feels there's something to gain from it. WWII was a different situation where the entire world was at risk. But concerning Iraq, it's just an unnecessary, fruitless campaign for selfish intentions.
Well seen as without the bombing campagin, Sinn Fein (because of its links to the IRA and the Provos.) would not be allowed in the power sharing executive because they would have very little hold over the British Government.
There is a time when a certain route of action may work well in a certain situation, but one single, narrow-minded method will not always work for every single situation. Just remember WWI and the futile trench warfare.
And would the Palestine problem be in the news if there were no suicide bombings. No it would just pass us by. I have no doubt that given the chance, the paramilitaries would start again.
What's your point?
I know damn well that terrorism comes from within. The PIRA blew up Manchester City Centre. All that was left standing was a post box. And that was on my birthday. Nobody has ever been convicted.
Okay, that's what I was trying to say. Thanks for repeating it.
But you cannot compare that; which while wrong was for a cause. The IRA was a protest movement which expressed itself in violence with the actions of someone like McVeigh who as far as I can tell had no reason to do what he did.
You can't justify the mind of a terrorist. In their belief, everything they do is for a cause, no matter how insane or bewildering it may seem to you. And you cannot validate one action of terrorism over the other. Cause or not, it's STILL terrorism.
I've had this arguement before. Violence on occasion is a necessary political tool. I'm not saying it right I'm saying its the way it is.
Then maybe it's time to deviate from the status-quo and find another more successful method that will be less costly. All it takes is a sound decision and patience.
any centralised, democratic system. You say that people become disillusioned. Not voting is people's rational response to a system where an individual vote doesn't appear to count because there are so many more. The right not to vote and express your disillusionment is as important as the right to vote.
It is not an unnecessary broadening. You said that only half of America votes. Well I am simply demonstrating, this is not an "american" problem most countries in the world have problems with voter turnout. Not just America. You imply that as only half of America votes, they don't care, well then neither does half of Britain, France (normally, last election was different because there was a chance Jean-Marie Le Pen would be elected.) Germany. There are hundreds of examples.
No because again, there may be no political outlet for your opinion. Say I think the welfare state should be totally abolished, there is no political party which corresponds with my view. So do i vote for a party i don't believe in or not vote and protest? You cannot say people interest and care is only demonstrated in votes. We only get that chance every four years, lobbying and activism are just as important.
No it the kind of generalisation, its offensive and its wrong. Its essentially racism. and I find it particulary abhorent to generalise in this way.
There are 48 countries in the coallition in Iraq. The entire world was not at risk. Britain wasn't. Atleast until we dived in there protecting Poland. I've seen plenty of historians who think that Britain was a safe because it was an Island and its empire was not based in Europe. Hitler wanted to conquer at first continental europe.
No it won't but its amazing how many groups have used it. At least to start a campagin. Mandela knew that violence gets people's attention and for a while it is a legitimate political tool. The point is states say "we don't negogiate with terrorists." but like the IRA and British Army eventually you will gain concessions because attrition does nobody any favours. In this way you get a compramise that will be more mutally satisfing.
Well you can validate the cations of the French resistance? And essentially that was terrorist activty agaisnt a state government. So you can validate the actions of one terrorist group over another. It may not be right but theres a reason for it.
Less costly to who exactly? To you?
Try telling a 17 year old Catholic lad from Belfast who's never had a job because employers won't employ him because he's catholic and who's called Fianen scum when he goes out and his best friends been shot that he should take a sound decison.
or a 20 year old palestian boy whos lived his whole life in a refugee camp and his family's lands been split in two by an illegal wall, that the Isreali's refuse to take down who's spent his whole life dodging Isreali bullets when his house gets bulldozed to be patient.
These people don't have all the time in the world to wait for change. When you are that desperate violence could be your only recourse.
We know killing is wrong. Nearly always but if you have never been in a situation where the only way out is violence. Where there is no alternative then how do you know you wouldn't do it. But at the same time as we accept this fact. Then we must accept a states right to defend its citizens.
theres a reason, but you cant validate it, Well in my opinion you cant, you can put false reasons out there. Like you can for the war in Iraq, but do they validate the reasons for it... no.
nothing validates the death of innocents.
No we must not, we dotn have to accept anything. Yes people are put in terrible situations where they need self defense. But there is always another way, yes you might say that the only other way out is violence, but you can use violence as a means of a way out, just to fight your opponent back before you can run away or u can misuse violence by killing your opponent. You should stabilise, not ostracise.
violence is a wide term, some can be useful, most is disastrous
i know the definition of a terrorist :angry:
I'm just saying there methods were more apt and they dont totally class as a terrorist, a bit of a mixture.
back to my topic
Are we likely to invade syria anytime soon?? Bush doesnt seem to be backing down, he warning syria off, and blair is backing bush. Conferences are flying, so unfortunately i say yes
I'm just saying there methods were more apt and they dont totally class as a terrorist, a bit of a mixture.
back to my topic
Are we likely to invade syria anytime soon?? Bush doesnt seem to be backing down, he warning syria off, and blair is backing bush. Conferences are flying, so unfortunately i say yes
