|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 14, 2005 17:08:28 GMT -5
This is why when u bartend u never discuss politics man,,,peoples views are so diverse it can cost u tips if u say something others disagree with, so any future bartenders out there remember this thread before discussing politics  that's a real good point, not just for bartending. You get on really well with everyone, then you start to discuss politics.....look what happens..... subject best avoided in a lot of situations...... |
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Apr 14, 2005 17:10:22 GMT -5
even though i have seen his picture i still think pizzy is that john lennon in his picture, random but true
|
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 14, 2005 17:11:41 GMT -5
Not to get off topic, but if the US had a "duty" to stop terrorists it's a damn shame so much American money was pumped into the IRA over the last 30 years. They were bombing and murdering in this part of the world for decades! ............and if Catholics where treated as equals thirty years ago there wouldn't have been so much either, and if the british army didn't murder those people on bloody sunday.... and if the british government didn't didn't fund loyalist terrorists |
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 14, 2005 17:12:38 GMT -5
even though i have seen his picture i still think pizzy is that john lennon in his picture, random but true i was thinking that about your old noel pic..lol... but then u changed it..... |
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 17:18:55 GMT -5
that's a real good point, not just for bartending. You get on really well with everyone, then you start to discuss politics.....look what happens..... subject best avoided in a lot of situations...... well, its never resorted to childish insults or ppl swearing at each other which it easily could do a frank exchange of opinions is always good - its like taking ur mind for the mental equivalent of a good session down the gym. |
|
|
|
Post by daysleeper on Apr 14, 2005 17:23:56 GMT -5
for me, all the major countries are pulling in different directions - it isnt just the US and UK. whether you're talking politics, war or economics - everyone is looking after themselves first and foremost. its just impossible for a body such as the UN to be all-powerful when its members want different things
it will be very interesting to see the development of China as a super power - in particular this current dispute over Taiwan could prove to be another stern test of the UN's credentials....
btw i do agree that building towards international unity and a proper system of international law and security is the right way forward in the long term. i just think that ideal is a long long way off and that the current system is vastly flawed
kalas did make a great point about bartending! i learnt that myself...
but politics is not a subject best avoided. its just unfortunate that there are 3 types of people who take part in political discussions:
1. those whose sole contribution is 'politics sucks'
2. those who cant handle someone criticising and arguing with them and resort to personal insults and talking bullshit
3. the few of us who can actually talk about it without getting our panties in a twist...
;D
its good to see this thread hasnt turned to bollox. there's nothing wrong with debate! as long as people are calm and actually listen to and think about other people's view points then there is no reason to avoid these subjects
|
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Apr 14, 2005 17:29:05 GMT -5
i was thinking that about your old noel pic..lol... but then u changed it..... you no what i might just bring the noel pic back outta retirement soon, after the Lyla buzz has died down, by the way has the song grown on you at all? |
|
|
|
Post by globe on Apr 14, 2005 17:31:01 GMT -5
but politics is not a subject best avoided. its just unfortunate that there are 3 types of people who take part in political discussions: 1. those whose sole contribution is 'politics sucks' 2. those who cant handle someone criticising and arguing with them and resort to personal insults and talking bullshit 3. the few of us who can actually talk about it without getting our panties in a twist... Depressing thing is, the first one of those types is the most common in th UK these days. Apathy is rife. Maybe understandable as 99% of polititions, regardless of what party the represent are so bland these days. |
|
|
|
Post by pizzy on Apr 14, 2005 17:39:24 GMT -5
you no what i might just bring the noel pic back outta retirement soon, after the Lyla buzz has died down, by the way has the song grown on you at all? slightly... once the album comes out i'll probably never listen to it at all....  |
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 17:51:11 GMT -5
"it's good to see this thread hasnt turned to bollox. there's nothing wrong with debate! as long as people are calm and actually listen to and think about other people's view points then there is no reason to avoid these subjects"
sorry to anyone if I got over-emotional at all - I try not to = it's usually easiest when you don't have entrenched opinions - it hought this went fairly well and branched off into many different topics - i see where the "realists" are coing from I just don't like realism at all maybe idealism tempered with realism - the thing is it's all made up/ constructed it's a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of and I'd rather have idealism be self-fulfilled than realism b/c yeah i nthe long-term, one day it's not oging to be the US on top - it's going to be China or someone else and I'd rather that they don't think it's ok to just do whatever the fuck they feel like - it's worked in toehr areas - like treating POWs properly (which seems absurd from a realist perspective) and I can see it working in others too
one point that hasn't been mentioned ist hat terrorism is by definition an international problem almost - it requires an international and not unilateral solution - the US DOES need soft power in addition to its hard powers - at the end I think the US attacked Iraq b/c it was relatively easy and a war (while it's still going on) always boosts your ratings - only after it has ended do your rtaings go down (churchill kicked out, johnson kicked out, bush sr. kicked out)
is terrorism defeatable - well it's an ism so i'd be inclined to say no - but just as piracy and slavery have been greatly reduced I think it can be too - but I think one of the best ways is - as per with piracy - through NORMS of taht's not cool guys - that way people stop = and of course through sanction s and if necesesary hard power but it must be seen as legitimate
finally, I'd just to reinforce the point that our police CANNOT enforce the law! Is it therefore useless and does not apply? no b/c we've accepted these norms and the few who are pricks are dealt with, but we shouldn't be pricks ourselves, not primarily b/c we might get caught - often we won't - but b/c the system would fall apart - sure the international system is fabricated but so is the domestic system
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Apr 14, 2005 18:14:12 GMT -5
Saddam Hussein WAS a bad man. Fact.
Many Iraqi's did die, and it was horrible. Fact
But Bush doesn't give a shit about the Iraqi people. How do I know this?
BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE GONE IN IF WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WERE WEAPONS
Bush doesn't care about the Iraqi people. What Bush cares about, as far as I'm concerned is oil. If he really thought there were weapons, he wouldn't have gone in. Why not, you ask? Same reason we don't go in Korea, it'd start a huge world conflict that could possibly be nuclear.
I think it's great that the Iraqi people are being liberated, I really do. However GEORGE BUSH IS A HUGE HYPOCRITE. There are MANY nations that are in similar situations to Iraq. The Sudan is in more awful condition than Iraq. But I don't think Bush wants to help out all those nations. No oil. There is the Bush family grudge against Saddam.
There are and have been bigger threats to the world than Iraq. Again, it's GREAT that the people won't be under a Brutal Dictator-- but the way this unfair world works, we need to think about ourselves first. We're not fighting the war on terror with Iraq. Iran is more important. North Korea is more important. Bush fucked up a big chance to find Osama, giving him tons of time to hide after September 11th.
Remember when Iraq first came on the picture? Everybody was so confused. Slowly everybody realized "Wait how did we get from Bin Laden to Iraq??" The war is iffy. It's just like Vietnam. We're not doing anything to fight terrorist. The fact is, though, we're not going to get rid of terrorism. Contrary to what the president thinks, terrorism has been around long before September 11th. We have to do the best to protect the US, but there is no way we're going to eliminate all terrorists.
Bush does not give a shit about the Iraqi people. The fact is, the US needs to think about itself before spending so much money on a war to help another country. I'd love to help all the countries that need it, but unless a global effort comes together to help ALL the countries in need, it isn't going to happen.
George Bush, again, does not care about the Iraqi people. I think he did it for oil. However, if you think we went in there for WMD, he wouldn't have even gone in if he didn't think they had them., as the huge text says.
That's why I don't like Bush.
Another reason for war is personal grudge. And he wants to be remembered as a great war president.
He doesn't care about the poor people who are fighting for the rich man's war. It's so great how that works. The poor people get the least, but they are dying for the US government out in Iraq right now. The government doesn't do much to help them but take advantage of their situation so they join the military.
George Bush, as far as I'm concered though is a puppet of his capitalist pig friends and father.
And he broke international law.
I'm very liberal on most issues, as you probably infered. And please, I've seen some name calling-- stop fucking making fun of people for disagreeing with your view point. If you do this you are a vagina, you're not a vagina for having liberal / conservative views or having a different opinion of George Bush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 18:22:15 GMT -5
we knew Iraq had no WMDs - it was a fallacy, a smokescreen to distract ppl
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Apr 14, 2005 18:27:18 GMT -5
That's what I think too. But we shouldn't say that as fact, as we simply do not know. There is one big question that still remains--
Why would Bush say there was WMD without thinking there was? I mean, it did come back to hit him in the face. He probably thought we would find nuclear material at first. But it ended up that we didn't.
The whole war is iffy. John Kerry was really no better.
In the United States, any democrat that is elgible for president is generally a fake. They say they are for the working man, but that's a big lie. They have to kiss business' ass in order to be president. America is no longer democratic, as the businesses control the politics. They get the ultimate say-- they control the media, the canidates, and the campaigns. I still side with democratics for their liberal stances on many issues, but truth be told no presidential canidate-- well I shouldnt say none-- not many from now forward will truly favor the working man over business.
|
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 18:36:06 GMT -5
well I mean it's not quite as simple as business vs. working man - i mean 'the working man' is employed by business and ...anyway I see what you're saying
did they know Iraq had WMDs well they knew that the inspectors ahdn't found any and the inspectors also said that the uranium from africa story was based on "well I don't want to call it fraudulent evidence but..." I read that in an article by the guy, I'll look for it if you like - so I mean they didn't KNOW for CERTain that there were none 0 mianly because you can't prove a negative but their case taht there were wasn't exactly very strong
|
|
|
|
Post by Noel's Barmy Army on Apr 14, 2005 18:44:06 GMT -5
many ppl in the know viz. UN weapons inspectors from before they were pulled out in 1999 eg Scott Ritter said there was no way Iraq had any WMDs and Hans Blix said there was basically no chance iraq had any WMDs and they just needed a couple more months to confirm it
|
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 14, 2005 18:46:47 GMT -5
and that's what they did confirm - after they were allowed to finish their job - after the war was over
|
|
wash25
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 335
|
Post by wash25 on Apr 14, 2005 19:56:23 GMT -5
Um...that's wrong. I'm not for the war or against the war-- but it's wrong to think that we wouldn't have into Iraq if there were no WMDs.
The Bush Administration was determined to go into Iraq post-911.
Now, you can speculate and allege whatever you want as to the WHY, and make value judgements about that, but there was no IF. The Bush Administration was going to remove Saddam.
The only question was HOW, or on what basis. WMDs was a convenient HOW. They were sure Iraq had them, and after 911, they thought it would be an easy sale (it didn't turn out to be so easy, at least partially because of the lack of evidence).
But if WMDs weren't an issue, than the Bush Administration would have gone in on Human Rights, and if that wasn't an issue, they would have gone in on the basis of the more complicated argument for spreading liberty in the region (and of course the argument goes, rightly or wrongly: spread freedom = free nations do not war with another = end of state-sponsored middle eastern terror).
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Apr 14, 2005 20:13:40 GMT -5
You're right. They were going to go in no matter what. Did I say otherwise? I guess I might have-- but what I meant was, that their original basis to go into Iraq was Weapons of Mass Destruction. At that time they gave no other reasons. Therefore, they wanted you at that time to assume that was the SOLE Cause and they wouldn't have gone in if it weren't for that.
But then there were none, so now it's Spread liberty. That does prove what you said-- they were going to go in no matter what. Maybe to remove Saddam because of personal grudge. Maybe because they need a friendly nation with lots of oil.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 14, 2005 20:17:54 GMT -5
I delieve the WMD's are buried in the desert between Syria and Lebanon. There was much activity involving many trucks going back and forth from Iraq to this area weeks bf america and its allies launched its campaign. There is much evidence to support this theory.
And I don't know where all you responders are from but there was intelligence from many countries that supported evidence of these weapons. So to say NONE exist or existed is ignorant.
|
|
wash25
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 335
|
Post by wash25 on Apr 14, 2005 20:23:02 GMT -5
Well that's just inaccurate. How many times did we hear George W. Bush say:
"Uh...um...Saddam...you know, he's uh...a bad guy..."
"Um...we want the Iraqi people to uh, um...errr...free be, to be free...uh..."
"Freedom isn't America's gift to the world...uh...uh...America uh...freedom is God's gift to every human being."
The only place you could justifiably say that the Bush Administration came in with only one reason (and that being WMDs) was at the U.N. But that was an entirely political calculation.
I can expand on that if it's necessary, but I think it's pretty obvious. I mean, they wanted a unanimous Security Council vote. Obviously, they didn't want add on human rights or dictatorship to the resulution because it would then make it more difficult to secure the votes of countries like Syria, China, etc.
Well the first part of your statement is inaccurate, making a response to this unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clint on Apr 14, 2005 20:43:10 GMT -5
Well originally, what he kept saying as the reason we should go in there was to get rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn't really talk the freedom game until he became pretty clear that there were none.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionsden® on Apr 14, 2005 20:47:11 GMT -5
Well originally, what he kept saying as the reason we should go in there was to get rid of all Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn't really talk the freedom game until he became pretty clear that there were none. I'll friendly disagree with that cos had 4 main points for going in Finding WMD's getting rid of an evil dictator freeing the iraqi people and providing democracy disrupt terrorism |
|
wash25
Oasis Roadie
Posts: 335
|
Post by wash25 on Apr 14, 2005 20:53:45 GMT -5
Well that is just inaccurate.
First of all, it wasn't "pretty clear that there were none" until U.S. troops were walking on Iraqi soil.
And on many occassions prior to that, George W. Bush said the following, including in the State of the Union speech prior to official start of military operations:
"Uh...um...Saddam...you know, he's uh...a bad guy..."
"Um...we want the Iraqi people to uh, um...errr...free be, to be free...uh..."
"Freedom isn't America's gift to the world...uh...uh...America uh...freedom is God's gift to every human being."
|
|
|
|
Post by albertzz on Apr 15, 2005 0:32:43 GMT -5
As for WMDs in the desert I mean I suppose - it is generally thought that they'd either been destroyed by 98 or subsequently shipped off to syria but in the desert? I suppose, they managed to find one dude in a hole in a ground so I think it might be harder to hide wmds
As for your order for reasons to go in - if you read either state of unions or addresses to Un I think the reason is essentially:
"Saddam is the brutal dictator of a rogue nation who possesses WMDs and must be stopped" Terror must be stopped."
"Saddam hates freedom and the Iraqi people want to be freed"
|
|
|
|
Post by Moorish on Apr 15, 2005 4:02:10 GMT -5
That Bush went into Iraq because he wanted to "spread Democracy" is pure bollocks. He went there for the oil. If Iraq had been friendly to the US interests, it wouldn't matter how oppressive the regime was, the US Govt. wouldn't have given two shits (hello Saudi Arabia!)
|
|
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5