I bet Nu Liebour do jack s**t about this...

[the kippax wall]

No to all forms of extremism. These pricks are no better than the BNP and should be smashed.

 

[hackneyslim]

lol. two problems with this post. firstly of course neither of those countries invited us to invade them. second lol at the idea that the current afghani government is in any way democratic.

lol, first we invaded to overthrow regimes that were not democratically elected, ones that murdered their own people by the thousands, a fact recognised by the UN that also sanctioned the invasions. The results, corrupt and murderous regimes have been overthrown, legitimate democratic elections have taken place, albeit under sever intimidation from the people overthrown.

Is it a perfect democracy? No. Is it better than what they had? Yes. Is it something worth fighting for or do we allow the terrorists to win under a ridiculous and unfounded belief that they will be happy with that and will stop blowing people up?

So this foreigner goes to another country and says hey, I know a better way to live than you do, and kills loads of people trying to impose it. Oh, and he steals all their resources, too. Oh, and he represents elements that have disrupted the area for as long as anyone cares to remember. Because he's been stealing their resources for the same length of time. How fair.

Look at the recent past and see if you think democracy has the slightest thing to do with the situation. Iraq and Iran were not even created democratically, thanks to BP and the Shah. Democracy wasn't 'restored' in Kuwait in GWI because it wasn't there in the first place. Both Iraq and the local forces in Afghanistan were supported in recent conflicts by the West, and both countries have subsequently undergone violent regime change imposed from without by their previous allies.

You can't just install a government and claim legitimacy in the next elections. You can't simply decide that your idea is 'better' and wade in. That's called a crusade, and they tend not to work out., practically or morally. Where do you find the right or whatever it is to decide things for another nation, another people? Isn't that undemocratic? I'm afraid, as much as I appreciate your intent as honest and well-meaning, I would have to say that it is founded on shifting ground. Cast the first stone and all that. Corruption and murder are unfortunately not unfamiliar in democracies, too: Guantanamo, Belgrano, Watergate, Israel, yadda yadda.

There are no good guys, nobody tells the truth, and there is no ideology in the West any longer, if there ever was. The spectre of terrorism is overplayed yet successfully deployed, as usual with these construct-ogres. Permanent fear for permanent war for permanent power for those telling you to be scared. Why is this not clear? It's not a new idea.

 

[blueinsa]

lol, first we invaded to overthrow regimes that were not democratically elected, ones that murdered their own people by the thousands, a fact recognised by the UN that also sanctioned the invasions. The results, corrupt and murderous regimes have been overthrown, legitimate democratic elections have taken place, albeit under sever intimidation from the people overthrown.

Is it a perfect democracy? No. Is it better than what they had? Yes. Is it something worth fighting for or do we allow the terrorists to win under a ridiculous and unfounded belief that they will be happy with that and will stop blowing people up?

So this foreigner goes to another country and says hey, I know a better way to live than you do, and kills loads of people trying to impose it. Oh, and he steals all their resources, too. Oh, and he represents elements that have disrupted the area for as long as anyone cares to remember. Because he's been stealing their resources for the same length of time. How fair.

Look at the recent past and see if you think democracy has the slightest thing to do with the situation. Iraq and Iran were not even created democratically, thanks to BP and the Shah. Democracy wasn't 'restored' in Kuwait in GWI because it wasn't there in the first place. Both Iraq and the local forces in Afghanistan were supported in recent conflicts by the West, and both countries have subsequently undergone violent regime change imposed from without by their previous allies.

You can't just install a government and claim legitimacy in the next elections. You can't simply decide that your idea is 'better' and wade in. That's called a crusade, and they tend not to work out., practically or morally. Where do you find the right or whatever it is to decide things for another nation, another people? Isn't that undemocratic? I'm afraid, as much as I appreciate your intent as honest and well-meaning, I would have to say that it is founded on shifting ground. Cast the first stone and all that. Corruption and murder are unfortunately not unfamiliar in democracies, too: Guantanamo, Belgrano, Watergate, Israel, yadda yadda.

There are no good guys, nobody tells the truth, and there is no ideology in the West any longer, if there ever was. The spectre of terrorism is overplayed yet successfully deployed, as usual with these construct-ogres. Permanent fear for permanent war for permanent power for those telling you to be scared. Why is this not clear? It's not a new idea.

Fair points mate and im not stupid, of course there was a huge amount of self interest involved in the decision to invade, ive already said that. What i do stand by though is the fact that the people of these countries had no life under the previous regimes. They were bullied, murdered and had no choice at all in what happened. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan now have the right to choose their leaders, the way they live, unforunately the extremists that have so much to lose by this new found democracy are busy doing all they can to derail the process. You say we murdered and i disagree, we fought an enemy that has now decided to hide amongst the population, using them as shields when it suits and as targets for their own murderous suicide bombs.

As for terrorism being overplayed, im not sure i can agree mate, 9/11, 7/7, madrid and other very near misses says to me that the threat from these people is very real and that we need to gaurd against it constantly. We are not dealing with people you can reason with, we are dealing with people that totally disagree with the way we live our lives, one that they are very open in saying, they want to change. They want a muslim world, muslim states, sharia law, the abolition of democracy as we know it and they are adamant that the fight, Jihad or whatever else you want to call it, will go on until their aims are met. The so called call to withdraw from muslim lands and the terrorism will end is nothing but hollow words im afraid.

Have we made huge mistakes in foreign policy and dealing with these people? Yes. Are we in a position to give in, give them what they want and hope this all goes away? No.

 

[hackneyslim]

Forgive me for implying you were stupid, not my point at all, I should have read further back; and I certainly agree with your condemnation of acts of murder. And yes, the attacks are serious and unconscionable, but it's not exactly the blitz, and there are historical precedents for government manipulating populations through fear of an enemy in very similar ways.

I think we fundamentally disagree on something, though: while your description of the previous regimes is correct, it still cannot provide a reason for invasion. And if it could, it cannot explain why, for example, similar regimes are not overthrown. We have to look elsewhere for an answer. US (etc) foreign policy is simply not designed to make less fortunate peoples' lives better. I wish it was.

Allow me to quote you again: "We are not dealing with people you can reason with, we are dealing with people that totally disagree with the way we live our lives, one that they are very open in saying, they want to change." Are they not allowed to disagree? Could OBLaden not say the same thing about his enemies?

I don't have a solution or the courage to put one forward like you. The liberal is crippled by his obligations to ideas his opponents wish to deny him, so, ok, I'm no liberal for this reason; I'm also no supporter of extremism or violence aimed at civilians. But I am very uncomfortable with the self-appropriated 'superiority' of the West and it's colonial arrogance and the consequences of allowing creatures like Bush, Cheney, Blair and Rumsfeld to represent, exploit and abuse what a lot of decent people believe is quite a good idea, democracy.

Did someone mention beans? I'm full of hot air as it is...

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

Hackney and USA are both making very sensible and reasoned points (makes a change on this type of subject!) however, regardless of the politics of the situation, there has to be some sort of minimum standards we should expect of protests in this Country and I think what is proposed goes beyond the bounds of decency and should be banned

 

[PistonBlue]

Hackney and USA are both making very sensible and reasoned points (makes a change on this type of subject!) however, regardless of the politics of the situation, there has to be some sort of minimum standards we should expect of protests in this Country and I think what is proposed goes beyond the bounds of decency and should be banned

Absolutely.


ps. it's SA, not USA. Ssshhh.

 

[blueinsa]

Forgive me for implying you were stupid, not my point at all, I should have read further back; and I certainly agree with your condemnation of acts of murder. And yes, the attacks are serious and unconscionable, but it's not exactly the blitz, and there are historical precedents for government manipulating populations through fear of an enemy in very similar ways.

I think we fundamentally disagree on something, though: while your description of the previous regimes is correct, it still cannot provide a reason for invasion. And if it could, it cannot explain why, for example, similar regimes are not overthrown. We have to look elsewhere for an answer. US (etc) foreign policy is simply not designed to make less fortunate peoples' lives better. I wish it was.

Allow me to quote you again: "We are not dealing with people you can reason with, we are dealing with people that totally disagree with the way we live our lives, one that they are very open in saying, they want to change." Are they not allowed to disagree? Could OBLaden not say the same thing about his enemies?

I don't have a solution or the courage to put one forward like you. The liberal is crippled by his obligations to ideas his opponents wish to deny him, so, ok, I'm no liberal for this reason; I'm also no supporter of extremism or violence aimed at civilians. But I am very uncomfortable with the self-appropriated 'superiority' of the West and it's colonial arrogance and the consequences of allowing creatures like Bush, Cheney, Blair and Rumsfeld to represent, exploit and abuse what a lot of decent people believe is quite a good idea, democracy.

Did someone mention beans? I'm full of hot air as it is...

Good post with points well made. No doubt about it, we have jumped into bed with the US and yes, they have used us to assist in pushing through their dubious foreign policies, one's that are definately formed with a huge self interest involved (oil) and whether we like it or not, an issue that we too want a controlling stake in as well.

To be honest mate, i dont think we are a million miles apart, i respect your opinions and i can certainly see why you hold the views you do. One thing for certain is this and it is a little off topic, but until the US and the rest of the world for that matter, deals with Isreal and the Palestinian problem, the chances of ever getting a real peace are none.

Before anyone accuses me of being anti Isreal, im not, i would say though that the blind eye given to them by everyone when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians is a disgrace and has a very large effect on the way that the US in particular and the west is viewed by the muslim and arab world.

Im led to believe that those beans are magic? ;-)

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

Hackney and USA are both making very sensible and reasoned points (makes a change on this type of subject!) however, regardless of the politics of the situation, there has to be some sort of minimum standards we should expect of protests in this Country and I think what is proposed goes beyond the bounds of decency and should be banned

Absolutely.


ps. it's SA, not USA. Ssshhh.

oh yeah!! Doh!! too many Jamesons - still they're all colonials anyway lol

 

[blueinsa]

Hackney and USA are both making very sensible and reasoned points (makes a change on this type of subject!) however, regardless of the politics of the situation, there has to be some sort of minimum standards we should expect of protests in this Country and I think what is proposed goes beyond the bounds of decency and should be banned

Spot on fella and i point ive made earlier on in the thread.

No matter what your politics are, this march in this town is morally repugnant and i defy anyone to say otherwise.

 

[hackneyslim]

"Until the US, and the rest of the world for that matter, deals with Israel and the Palestinian problem, the chances of ever getting a real peace are none."

Well, you said it, mate.