Viewing Thread:
"Why don't we attack the world?"

For having nuclear arms?

Oh I forgot... we're the good guys right?

Sadam and Bin Laden are a lot smarter than Bush and Blair

Hypocrites

Erm...did anyone say it was wrong to sell weapons ? It's well known that the whole Israeli nuclear program was jump started by America, and that it was vital to the security of the Middle East that Israel be the first country to hold nuclear weapons. If we don't sell them then someone else will, and I think we'd rather know who has what.

Selling the necessary componenets isn't wrong, as long as they are sold to responsible countries and not tin pot dictators. Yes, the USA and the UK have made massive past mistakes in supplying the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and Saddam in the early 80's. Back then the reasons to do so made it necessary and a worthy risk.

As a rule, I tend not to pay any attention to the BBC since their program on 9/11/2001 where the US ambassador was reduced to tears by the virtual mob the BBC had assembeled in the studio. Since then I don't watch any American themed news style thing the BBC does.

~~Belldandy~~

Watched the New York version of QWuestion Time on BBC World this morning (yes, I lead in an interesting life).

Anyway, the debate was very intelligent and raised some very good points - particularly to do with America, and their own policy on nuclear weapons. One interesting note was the fact that the companies SOLD weapons and equipment that could be used to create nuclear weapon. Two prominent figures on the boards of these companies? Dick Cheney and one George W. Bush.

it seems pretty hypocritcal to me that the same people who are having a go at America for going around being *the policemen of the world* are also the same people who say for example France was being attacked they're looking straight over to America to help out and get involved. It's a case of damned if they do damned if they don't.
People need to pick an opinion and stick to it not just keep changing when it suits them. What if America had decided not to get involved in WW1, or if Pearl Habour hadn't have happened? We'd probably all be speaking German right now with nowhere near as many rights we enjoy and exploit today. For that i am thankful to them and instead of slating them and criticising them in their hour of need we should support them like they did us in our hour of need. But hey that's just my humble opinion

ok there's nothing wrong with pc and i wasnt saying that we shouldnt listen to other peoples' opinions(perish the thought).. however actually saying 'you have your opinions and that's also cool' is kind of a cop out. + there's nothing like a good political argument to angry up the blood!

ps. goatboy and belldandy rule! (why isn't belldandy a notable yet)

Belldandy is a bloke?

But.. but... that's the name of the Goddess in "Oh, My Goddess"

so much for assumption.

Ta Belldandy.

I may not agree with someone, but that doesn't mean they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa.
It's the unwillingness to be able to communicate with someone even though you may not see eye to eye that is the cause of situations like last Sept.

I may not agree with a lot of what Belldandy says, but that does not mean I will not listen to him or engage in a debate, with both parties firmly believing they are correct but with enough respect to listen to each other.

Besides, even if I don't side with him, his posts are a lot more interesting and thought provoking than "I hate Gamecube".
I used to have a fire in my belly about this stuff as well, but lately I seem to veering towards cynicism and a disinterest in global politics.

The IRA.

Scum. No other word for them.

Stu2 wrote:
> O.K. let's all add a few drops of P.C. like so.

Goatboy is one of the few on this forum who are willing to conceed that we can all have our own opinions, rather than resorting to insults and made up facts like so many !

~~Belldandy~~

MoJoJoJo wrote:
>We're not invading Ireland,
> we're not opressing them.
>
> Stupid Americans, they need to realise that

If you're a person opposed to the british being in in Norhtern Ireland, and you see british soldiers patrolling, checkpoints, army bases e.t.c then it's very much like an army of occupation whether the majority consider it to be or not.

Of course this presence is scaled down now, but hardliners still see any british presence as an invasion of Ireland.

The irish problem is not even on the same scale as America's war on terror, many of the british public have made a fuss about the IRA e.t.c not being outlawed completely by America. This totally stinks of hypocrisy.

Ireland has been a problem for nearly a century now, and most people only care when the bombs are going off on the UK mainland. Unlike Al Queda, the irish groups could be destroyed almost instantly if Britain's objective was simply to neutralise them.

We've chosen diplomacy, which is why many of those convicted terrorists we released from prison, men arrested by our own military and who have killed people, have now disappeared and are though to be active again. It's why bombs still go off, people are still executed for their religion....whilst diplomacy stumbles on.

For an American President to completely come down on the irish groups Britain needs to have a much firmer hand with them. Tell me, how could Bush sell the idea of taking down the irish groups when our own government let most of their top commanders out of jail tens of years early in most cases ? We know the irsh groups are still armed, we even know where the weapons are....we do nothing and pay the price.

Besides, last I heard, the irish groups posed no theat to the UK, USA e.t.c. they just want Ireland, not everyone in the USA and UK dead.....

~~Belldandy~~

Goatboy wrote:
> You have your opinions and that's cool, I have my opinions and that's
> also cool.

O.K. let's all add a few drops of P.C. like so.