anti americanism fashionable

[downquark1]

I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate.

Exactly, we all know Sadam deserved to be removed, but the way it was done wasn't justified.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

From an objective viewpoint, we would have no problems if this was done to the occupying Russian forces in Afghanistan. In this case the British are the occupying force, so they have to expect the same sort of action. I don`t think that justified and correct necessarily equate.

The Warrington bomb didn't kill any soldiers. It killed two young children who were out shopping with their parents and injured a lot of others. Their names were Tim Parry and Jonathan Ball. Did you click the link? Here is is again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2544121.stm

So, again: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

[downquark1]

So, again: In your opinion, is blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

No, but when bombs hit children in Iraq people except it as accidents of war.

Originally Posted by downquark1

No, but when bombs hit children in Iraq people except it as accidents of war.

I don't think planting a bomb in a shopping centre with the sole aim of maiming and killing civilians is quite the same as targeting an armed enemy and accidentally killing bystanders.

However I feel the need at this point to remind you that personally I'm a pacifist and cannot condone killing people ever, for any reason. To that extent, I agree with you.

[downquark1]

We are digressing. No-one deserved September 11 but it wasn't unexpected and we must understand the reasons behind it and why the terriorists thought it was justified

Originally Posted by downquark1

We are digressing. No-one deserved September 11 but it wasn't unexpected and we must understand the reasons behind it and why the terriorists thought it was justified

I agree, the terrorists' own justification for this is interesting, but several pages back Ramrod posted an article from the Times which was roundly condemned by some folks in this thread because of the 'agenda' of the person who wrote it. If it's valid to question an opinion based on the agenda of the one expressing it, then I think the agenda of those expressing opinions in this thread is also a legitimate line of enquiry.

At the moment, I am very disturbed indeed by some of the agendas I believe are being portrayed in some posts in this thread.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

I agree, the terrorists' own justification for this is interesting, but several pages back Ramrod posted an article from the Times which was roundly condemned by some folks in this thread because of the 'agenda' of the person who wrote it. If it's valid to question an opinion based on the agenda of the one expressing it, then I think the agenda of those expressing opinions in this thread is also a legitimate line of enquiry.

At the moment, I am very disturbed indeed by some of the agendas I believe are being portrayed in some posts in this thread.

My agenda:

I liked America in democratic rule
when George Bush was elected I said to myself 'a disaster is going to happen and he's going to handle it badly'
Sept 11th happened, I was obviously furious at the terriorists and sympathetic for america. But again I said to myself 'oh god what are they going to do'
I accepted the war against Aufghanistan since Alqueda was based there. I became outraged when George Bush started to say things like it is the policy of his government to remove sadam. How can your policy be to overthrow a foreign leader? Then the Iraq thing started when Iraq hasn't done anything since the last time we bombed them. They have found no WMD, the war had no reason to it now that could have been applied before sept 11th.

The patriot act is taking away civil liberities and the prisoners in thingy bay are just terrible contradictions to what americans are suppose to believe in

Here's mine (I kind of mentioned this when the thread started anyway):

I like America. I like the American people. Their optimism for the future and their national pride are something I wish there was more of in this country.
I am a Christian. My understanding of the New Testament absolutely forbids me to take part in, or condone, death and violence of any kind; I am a man of peace, just as my Lord is.
I recognise that the New Testament comments widely on secular politics - starting with Jesus' own words, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword.'
The whole business of conflict sickens me. But as the people engaged in it have chosen that path, I offer an opinion upon it, attempting to gauge 'right' and 'wrong' from within that world view.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

As Towny mentioned the main thing about america and the western world is it's economic wealth, the world trade centre is the symbolic link to that. The pentagon was the symbolic link to the military and the white house was the link to the international polictical bias. These people can't attack military targets because they are well defended and secret.

Remember these people are religiously fueled - they prefer symbolisum over practicallity.

The question still stands, no-one has answered it. Just avoided it!
Here it is again:

I ask you again, what do you call the attacks on the twin towers?

[Jerrek]

I theink the reason the US is hated as much as it is, especially from within Europe is that the US insists that THEY won the second world war. Hey can I just point out to all the Americans that read this, there were a couple of other countries fighting too you know? When did the second world war start? hey 1939?? bloody hell a few years before the US entered heh. What happend specifically between 10th July and 31st October 1940?

Europe was getting a royal spanking by Germany and Italy before the United States came in, and Winston Churchill said that. Yes, the other nations helped, but it was by large American forces that were responsible for putting order back into Europe.

Just like today, it is Americans that keep the peace in Europe.

And again there were more countries than the US fighting there.

All of two people. (ignoring the British military though, they did contribute quite a bit.)

Then we approach the Irish Americans, the people that convinced the "most powerful country in the world" to support the IRA.

I wasn't aware my government supported the IRA. Mind providing some sources?

This 'attitude' I speak of is the one which makes america feel it isn't bound by international law

Russ, North Korea isn't bound by "international law." And neither is Iraq. Or Libya. Or countless other countries. We are a sovereign nation. Respect that. If you don't, well, *shrug.*

If Iraq doesn't have any WMD as the evidence now suggests.

Oh please. I don't believe that, and I certainly didn't believe it back then. And, the United Nations certainly didn't believe it either, because in ruling 1441 they declared that Iraq had WMD and that they were to show IMMEDIATELY proof of it being dismanteled, which they failed to do.

Then the USA invaded a country and removed it's government simply because it thought it was threat and had the resources to do it.

Damn right. And I support them in that.

they then gain money from the rebuilding contracts

Meanwhile the war costs $1 billion a week, and we just gave Iraq $87 billion. Yep, so profitable.

If I think the US is a threat to international security can I try to overthrow Bush?

Oh I see. Bush is a worse guy than Saddam right?

does that give them the right to invade the USA?

By all means. If you can't solve your situations diplomatically, war usually follows. I will resepct their right to declare war on the United States. Just keep in mind we won't send troops over to support them in that.

Sorry to be picky, but a Sovereign state is ruled by a Monarch. Last time I checked, Canada and America did not have a royal family. You are a republic.

scastle, you're being very dumb. Two points.

Sovereign means, as Webster's put it, c : enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT <sovereign state>. It has nothing to do with royalty.

Second, Canada has a queen. So please. The United States is a sovereign republic, and Canada is a sovereign constitutional monarchy.

Military action does not allow for deliberate strikes against civilian targets, targeting civilians only.

And I couldn't agree more. The United States does not go out there targetting civilians on purpose. Sure, accidents happen, and that is tragic. But I am quite a firm believer that our soldiers are rather honorable compared to the rest of the people. When was the last time you heard American soldiers rape their PoWs?

Israel is the same. They don't target civilians. They target militants. It just so happens that the Palestians, demonstrating the bravity, find it useful to hide among civilians and put their ammunition factories among schools and hospitals.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by towny

Here's mine (I kind of mentioned this when the thread started anyway):

I like America. I like the American people. Their optimism for the future and their national pride are something I wish there was more of in this country.
I am a Christian. My understanding of the New Testament absolutely forbids me to take part in, or condone, death and violence of any kind; I am a man of peace, just as my Lord is.
I recognise that the New Testament comments widely on secular politics - starting with Jesus' own words, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword.'
The whole business of conflict sickens me. But as the people engaged in it have chosen that path, I offer an opinion upon it, attempting to gauge 'right' and 'wrong' from within that world view.

Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

And I respect your view.

(and will pray for you in order to try to prevent you getting your @ss blown off).

BTW, completely forgot to pick up a point Timewarrior made earlier - the USA did not oppose the Falklands War. It was caught in the middle because it favoured Gen. Galtieri as a leader of Argentina as opposed to any of the Communist wannabe dictators waiting in the wings, and saw that a British victory over him would weaken his position. HOWEVER, and this is the crucial point, when it came to a fight, Ronald Reagan chose to back his ally Great Britain, and send supplies to the task force which frankly, kept the British Army in food and ammunition until it was safely in Port Stanley. It is doubtful things would have gone so smoothly without this US help, which remained secret (although widely suspected) until recently.

So, Britain marching in to Iraq with the USA is not all one-way 'poodling'. Foreign power invades British territory; Britain goes to war, USA helps us sort it out. Foreign power threatens world (and USA) security; USA goes to war, Britain helps them sort it out.

Like it or not, UK and USA are extraordinarily close allies and have been since WW2. Both countries are immeasurably better off because of this.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Thank you. I'm with you all the way except on the violence part... Heh. I can't wait to enlist and serve. I don't want to fight in a war, but if my country needs me, I'll be there. BEFORE a draft. Out of my own free will.

Good for you!

Originally Posted by towny

So, again: In your opinion, is deliberately blowing up children the correct way to achieve a united Ireland?

I`m sure this will provoke your ire, but it wasn`t a deliberate attempt to blow up children per se, these two deaths are just used by the media to put an emotive spin on the issue. Otherwise why make such a big deal about the two children getting killed in comparison to the other victims who suffered? Hence your question is flawed to begin with.