Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: magatsu1 on January 09, 2004, 04:50:20 pm
-
I was reading an article in a uk newspaper where fans were chanting at Wayne Rooney during a recent football game.
They were apparantly chanting "You fat b*****d" but police were involved 'cos they were mistaken for "you black b****d" aimed at another player (I forget his name)
So is a racist insult worse than another ? Is it okay to call Wayne Rooney so long asit isn't racist ?
And are UK police scared ****less and obcessed with racisim after Stephen Laurence ?
-
Racism is everywhere there are still some who hate blacks. For goodness sakes we were all created in the same image!
-
Heh, we had a program run by the Anti-Defamation League at school. Called "Names Can Really Hurt Us."
They'd probably tell you no, one insult is just as bad as another. Whether you call someone retard, stupid, fat, gay, kike, wasp, etc.
I'm inclined to agree with them, they seemed like smart people... and honestly. What's the difference?
-
That's what I thought. An insult is an insult. I also thought the police were showing double standards.
-
I think the difference is the fact that a fat person can always slim down while a black person will always be black.
Besides when people get stabbed just for being fat then I suppose it would start to be considered in the same league.
Besides you honestly think that locking up the sort of moron who would chant that sort of thing would be any loss to society?
-
no, but, what about the people chanting at Wayne Rooney ?
The Police were, apparantley, not too bothered about them.
I don't question their moving against poss.racists,but don't you think it sends conflicting messages ?
-
People do heckle at games all the time... it's called freedom of speech ;)
But I do understand what you're trying to say.
-
I get your point but the police can't do anything against people calling someone fat but they can bring a charge of inciting racial hatred against anyone making racist comments.
Oh and as someone who lived on Well Hall Road until about a year before the Stephen Laurence murder I'd far rather see the police taking on racism with an iron fist than the shameful state of affairs they let go on after the murder.
-
I'd rather it was a more balanced approach.
Edit: Discuss this one kids - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3383589.stm
-
Derek Zoolander said it best:
Zoolander: "Originally, I wanted Will Smith for the role (of Zoolander)."
Stiller: "But he's black."
Zoolander: "You have a problem with that?"
:lol:
-
Wait. Derek Zoolander is a real person???
I never saw that movie... heard it was really funny though.
-
It was brilliant, Corsair. It made fun of everything and did it pretty intelligently, all while pretending to be a stupid movie.
-
[color=66ff00]Hate in any form is still hate, pity those who have it in their heart for it takes our humanity from us.
[/color]
-
In that case... I'll put it on my list of movies to see.
By the way, was Independence Day any good? Cuz that's on my list too right now...
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Hate in any form is still hate, pity those who have it in their heart for it takes our humanity from us.
[/color]
you said it mag.
here in sweden the racisim is not so big problem beacuse we don't have many colored humans. but the nacisim is a growing problem in whole scandinavia.
-
Originally posted by Falcon
Racism is everywhere there are still some who hate blacks. For goodness sakes we were all created in the same image!
Where I'm from you don't have to be white to be racist. But I have learned to deal with it. It's sad around here, and I'm guessing everywhere else, but I don't know how many fights I've gotten into, for a white guy being racist to a black guy and black guys to whites guys. I hate it, its stupid, and In my mind IT DOESN'T EXIST!! And I'll do whatever I can to make sure it doesn't.
-
so you can get arrested in the UK for saying the word 'nigger'? now those who use such language are tards yes, but it seems... wrong to be arrested for simply useing racaly insinsitive launguage.
but it's your country. I supose it's better than the alternitave were you have these people throughing big loud rallies
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Where I'm from you don't have to be white to be racist.
where i'm from you do.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you can get arrested in the UK for saying the word 'nigger'? now those who use such language are tards yes, but it seems... wrong to be arrested for simply useing racaly insinsitive launguage.
but it's your country. I supose it's better than the alternitave were you have these people throughing big loud rallies
No you can't get arrested for that as far as I know, unless it's accompanied with more threatening behaviour (which tends to be the case at some football grounds), in fact I've heard people hurl far worse abuse at the police themselves and they can't really do anything.
Plus nigger is just a word, I don't see it as racially charged until it's used by the ****ing morons at football matches with I.Q's in the sub 80 levels, the "Sun, Daily Star and Daily Sport" reading, page three gawping, numb ****s that probably need to be reminded to breathe every morning because they're so ****ing thick they forget.
Though it works both ways, I get pissed off with black people that slag off whites then believe that only white people can be racist. I don't even ****ing see the colour that's what makes me sad, I see and respect cultural difference, not something as petty as natures way of protecting people originally from warmer climes from the sun.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Hate in any form is still hate, pity those who have it in their heart for it takes our humanity from us.
[/color]
I disagree.
Hate is humanity.
It's a mechanism whereby, as mutations and changes occur, there is an immediate opposition to them. This weeds out the shaky, weak and 'questionable' views, opinions and....ahem...races so that humanity as a whole is generally free from crap.
But, much as AIDS works, things like love and compassion have duped this process by playing to the selfish side of human nature which is based in self-preservation and the whole "Do unto others" mentality.
-
Of course the biggest travesty of all to come from these 'evil isms' is the concept of the hate crime, whereby a murder is somehow more evil if the murderer killed a guy simply because he was black over all other motives.
-
..........It is.
You can either have it so all murders are wrong and include manslaughter as being flat-out murder. Or you can give allowances for motive, in which case killing someone for raping your wife would be less evil than killing someone because they were black.
And 'evil' is subjective to begin with..........
-
Couldn't have put it better myself an0n.
-
And for the record: I'm all for being racist.....and nationalist and ageist and sexist. And being evil generally. I just like people to pick a side and stick to it, or FOAD.
-
Originally posted by an0n
..........It is.
You can either have it so all murders are wrong and include manslaughter as being flat-out murder. Or you can give allowances for motive, in which case killing someone for raping your wife would be less evil than killing someone because they were black.
And 'evil' is subjective to begin with..........
No it isn't. If you hate gays or blacks or transsexuals then you might be a bigot, but are not guilty of anything but having an opinion. If you hate gays or blacks or transsexuals and kill gays or blacks or transsexuals then you're a murderer and a 'hate criminal'. Justice should be about punishing criminal acts, not punishing unpopular opinions.
-
Yes. Punish the criminals.
But if you're going to make distinctions between "He killed him because he raped his wife" (former) and "He killed him because he was black" (latter), whereby the former is more acceptable than "He killed him because he was pissing him off" (b'twixt) and seen to be worthy of a lesser sentence ('Diminished Responsibility'), then by the same token the latter is worse than b'twixt and should be more harshly punished.
-
Originally posted by Carl
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Where I'm from you don't have to be white to be racist.
where i'm from you do. [/B]
Come live in my town for a few weeks. Once you've lost count of the number of times you hear "White C**t" shot off at cops, pedestrians and you, your opinions will change.
-
That's why God made crack.
-
But how is killing someone because they're black any different from killing someone because they're fat or killing someone because they only have 7 fingers or some other arbitrary reason? Why don't these 'minorities' get the same unique protection? This is why I'm against them.
-
I wasn't saying it's worse because blacks are a minority. I'm saying it's worse because it's more arbitrary than "Because he pissed me off".
-
I didn't say that, only that these other hypothetical minorities aren't protected because they aren't popular ones.
If someone 'pissed me off' and I killed them then there'd be (some) provocation. The problem with hate crimes is they apply because of someone's opinion.
-
The existence of all law and morality is based on someones opinion.
-
ok sid, so fat/gay/deminished digited people arn't covered by your hate crime laws, then maybe your laws should be expanded. the purpose of hate crime laws is to punish worse crimes harsher, killing someone for no reason (ie becase there black, jewish, english) is worse than killing them for some reason, even if it's a realy realy lame reason (he pissed me off, he killed my father, he killed my fragile belefe in the invisable majical man in the sky, the aliens told me to)
I agree with you that someone who kills someone else becase there gay or fat should be given virtualy the same treatment as someone who killed someone becase there black.
and An0n, as much as I agree with the "Hate is humanity." concept I disagree with the idea that love and compasion are somehow non-human concepts that have somehow been imposed on us (by society or whatever). love and compasion (or something similar) are necisary for any socal animal, and to an extent needed for any animal that raises it's young (this would exclude most (but not all) reptiles, fish, and invertabrates (not sure on how socal insects would fit in to this)). humans evolved to live in famely groupes of 10 -100 people, we need love and compasion to help our famlies as much as we need hate to kill off rivals and failed mutations. if you disagree consider the following scenario, two camps of humans one groupe has only hate and selfishnes, the other has also compasion, given relitivly harsh conditions wich of the two would likely have the larger population given several hundred years.
-
[q]That's why God made crack.[/q]
It took the CIA to exploit it.
-
I think you'r thinking of LSD, but they might have done crack too
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Come live in my town for a few weeks. Once you've lost count of the number of times you hear "White C**t" shot off at cops, pedestrians and you, your opinions will change.
you misunderstood what i was trying to say. It's only considered racist if a white person does it. if a black person does the same thing they get off scott free. double standards.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
if you disagree consider the following scenario, two camps of humans one groupe has only hate and selfishnes, the other has also compasion, given relitivly harsh conditions wich of the two would likely have the larger population given several hundred years.
The hate-tribe. Because they'd do what all successful species do and prey on the weak.
So while the fag-tribe was sat around learning how to read and write, the hate-tribe would be encircling their camp and getting ready to rush in, smash open their skulls and feast on their brains.
Love is an utterly stupid concept. It has no worthwhile attributes associated to it and is basically just a perverted form of selfishness.
-
Athens v. Sparta?
The Athenians are eventually defeated because their culturalness just can't cope with the Spartans militaristic nature... you mean kinda like that?
I guess...
In that case though, won't the GTVA eventually be overrun by the Shivans? ;)
-
It already has been.
That's why there's no FS3. It ends with Alpha 1 being killed and Volition just didn't have the heart to release it.
-
Originally posted by an0n
.....Love is an utterly stupid concept. It has no worthwhile attributes associated to it and is basically just a perverted form of selfishness.
..... :blah: .....
I'm speechless....
You still think at that level?
-
:(
And let us have a moment of silence in memory of Alpha 1.
-
I think beyond all human levels of comprehension.
Notice that I said 'beyond' and neither 'above' nor 'below'.
-
I'm not racist, I hate everybody
-
I'm racist. I hate everybody.
A/S/L??!?!1111
-
Well... as long as you treat everyone the same....
Heh. Reminds me of Remember the Titans...
"Now I may be a mean cuss but I am the SAME mean cuss to everyone on this team." - Coach Boone
-
Full Metal Jacket:
"Here, you are all equally worthless"
-
No, Athens won. Don't believe me? Take a look at the white house. Hell, Sparta is so famous because Athens was defeated by them.
And the compassion tribe would have a much higher quality of life with the technology and stuff. These things will be wanted by the hate tribes. It doesn't matter who rules, cultures are the only things that can truly conquer.
-
Which is why America dominates the globe today. Not cos of their stealth bombers and wepaon satellites but because their culture is appeals to most people on the world. Even Saddam enjoyed American TV and whatnot. It's exactly what happened with Rome
-
Well you never hear of someone killing another because they love them, except maybe pull the plug because the person has no brain acitivity which is why love shouldn`t even be in this topic..
If a person says they killed them out of love, well then they are not balanced but mentally sick or mentally unstable...
-
Love is as dangerous as it is wonderful.
-
I never said the love tribe was doevoide of hate, when it comes to each other they are both equaly vitriolic and violent
-
That's impossible.
By having love and compassion they'd be weaker and less likely to fight.
All that matters is how much your intelligence can enhance your sense of self-preservation.
-
Originally posted by Windrunner
you said it mag.
here in sweden the racisim is not so big problem beacuse we don't have many colored humans. but the nacisim is a growing problem in whole scandinavia.
I must say that I disagree on both your statements. I say that we have a problem with racism here today. In Sweden about 1 million are first or secondgeneration immigrants. The swedish integration of immigrants have pretty much been a big failure (as in most western countries). Most immigrants live in suburbs to Stockholm or any of the other big cities. They have alot harder to get a job than the average swede. And we gonna need more immigrants in the future. In about ten years a whole generation of postwar persons will retire.
The problem with racism in Sweden today is not that people dismiss a whole race or a whole nation of people. The problem is the growing "everyday-racism" (svenska: vardagsrasism) which means that though a person who not is a racist still can have some hostile thoughts of immigrants (which makes one more of a xenophobe than a racist).
So the biggest problem we stand before is how the immigrants can adapt to a life in Sweden and how the citizens will deal with the newswedes.
About the growing problem of nazis in scandinavia is atleast for me a minor problem (if you compare to the racism and integrationproblem above). There are about 3000 active nazis today in Sweden and probably about 20000 more who support them but are not active. I agree that it's a problem but as any other politcalgroups they have the right to express their political thoughts. I see the extremeleft as equally big problem as the nazis but the difference between the two groups is that the extremeleft have more people who support them.
-
I don't know how it's in other countries but in Sweden a racistinsult is worse than an insult on for example a fatguy. If I call a black guy "you black motherf****r" I would get a more severe punishment that if a black guy would call me "you white motherf****r", that's because the blacks are a minority group. Doublestandards? Yes!
-
Who gives a ****?
Sooner or later something will come along, be it a race-war, a virus or just genetic degredation that'll wipe out the weaker sub-species. Then there'll be no more hypocrisy and I'll finally get some peace from all these grea-sy thugs.
-
Majority power requires protection of minorities.... i.e. the minority is more vunerable because of it's reduced numbers & influence, and thus extra measure are required.
Fat people, dumb people, etc, don't get attacked in the street or have their houses firebombed. Sadly, ethnic minorities often do.
Incidentally, love is a necessarry part to keep the human species alive. Firstly, it's important for stimulating reproduction. Secondly, it's required to ensure parents take care of their offspring - a human child is too weak to care for itself for the first - probably - 7 or 8 years or even longer. Hatred is negative for humanity, because it destroys the group dynamic required to survive... whilst it may guarantee a degree of short-term survival, eventually it would destroy the species. Humans are simply unable to survive in true isolation.
-
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Catergorically: No.
Kids as young as 1, left to fend for themselves in decaying urban areas have been known to survive. The adapt.
Sure, they can't talk and ****, but they survive.
And as for parental love, the children would be cared for as once they reach maturity they would become a possible source of a mutual-defence kinda deal. And if not that, then the child would become the defender of the parent upon realising that it could benefit from the knowledge of the parent. So it becomes the muscle behind the parents brains. There's no love, just a lust for more abilities which could aid its own survival.
Lately (universally speaking) this has been perverted somewhat by the 'need' that people have to bestow their knowledge on their children so that they will, in some way, live on after death.
And as for the 'isolation' thing, just because you lack love doesn't mean you're doomed to isolation.
People cluster together for protection. They group together under an unspoken deal saying "I'll defend you if you defend me". And this was extended to things like trust and honour, which are fairly good qualities if they're applied properly. But then trust and honour were combined and perverted to form love. Which can be summed up in one sentence: "No greater love hath a man, than that he would lay down his life for his brother".
See, so love destroys.
All it does is serve to make you place the survival of others above your own. Which, by anyones standards, is ****ing stupid.
-
Originally posted by diamondgeezer
[BWhich is why America dominates the globe today. Not cos of their stealth bombers and wepaon satellites but because their culture is appeals to most people on the world. Even Saddam enjoyed American TV and whatnot. It's exactly what happened with Rome[/B]
Freedom appeals to people. American culture is another thing.
I think America dominates 'cos freedom is a natural instinct and
Communisim/USSR collapsed.
Hell, even China is becoming more Capitalist.
-
Like I've been saying for years. No man can have power unless it is given to him freely by the people.
Yes, I am saying all dictators were put there by the people. Yes, I am going to give you the finger if you disagree.
-
and France, Germany, Estonia, Egypt, ****ing Kaplachtotchistan don't have freedom? Right now, the US has probably the least freedom of said countries, because of 9/11.
No, culture (or semi-culture, or culture for dummies, or whatever you call it) is what it's about. Makes sense too, considering that the US is 99% immigrants, from all over the world. They've done an excellent job wiping out the natives, back in the industrial revolution period. So, of course, if a great number people from all around the globe get together, their cultures is mixed, and some half-baked **** forms that appeals to idiots all over the globe.
And then there's the thing that their economic progress was about 4 times as fast as the rest of the world back in the 20th century, which made it possible to spread that culture.
-
Originally posted by an0n
See, so love destroys.
All it does is serve to make you place the survival of others above your own. Which, by anyones standards, is ****ing stupid.
Girlfriend dumped you recently? :p
-
Originally posted by an0n
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Catergorically: No.
Kids as young as 1, left to fend for themselves in decaying urban areas have been known to survive. The adapt.
Sure, they can't talk and ****, but they survive.
And as for parental love, the children would be cared for as once they reach maturity they would become a possible source of a mutual-defence kinda deal. And if not that, then the child would become the defender of the parent upon realising that it could benefit from the knowledge of the parent. So it becomes the muscle behind the parents brains. There's no love, just a lust for more abilities which could aid its own survival.
Lately (universally speaking) this has been perverted somewhat by the 'need' that people have to bestow their knowledge on their children so that they will, in some way, live on after death.
And as for the 'isolation' thing, just because you lack love doesn't mean you're doomed to isolation.
People cluster together for protection. They group together under an unspoken deal saying "I'll defend you if you defend me". And this was extended to things like trust and honour, which are fairly good qualities if they're applied properly. But then trust and honour were combined and perverted to form love. Which can be summed up in one sentence: "No greater love hath a man, than that he would lay down his life for his brother".
See, so love destroys.
All it does is serve to make you place the survival of others above your own. Which, by anyones standards, is ****ing stupid.
Love, honour, trust, etc are the fundamental building blocks of human social relationships. Name one relationship built on hate that actually works to the mutual benefit of both?
By the same context which you say love destroys, love saves. It's just that you're a bitter husk of a man unable to see beyond himself.
-
Love, honour, trust, etc are the fundamental building blocks of human social relationships.
No. Selfishness is. Be it the selfish lust for knowledge or the selfish lust for self-preservation.
Name one relationship built on hate that actually works to the mutual benefit of both?
I cite every last one of Husseins generals as evidence that you need no 'good' emotions in order to form a relationship with other human beings. They all ****ing hated him and he was always one little smart-ass remark from killing them, but they realised that they would all be better off if they just put up with it and focused on mutual-defence.
Girlfriend dumped you recently?
I don't 'do' girlfriends (or boyfriends, before someone gets clever). I view all relationships as stupid, transitory and trivial.
-
so the constant threat of death is mutually beneficial?
Does that include the time & effort required to spy on (in this example) Saddams military commanders to confirm their loyalty, or the complete lack of an organized command structure because Saddam couldn't trust anyone with overall control?
And did their mutual hatred work for the defense of Iraq during the war? No, becuase it failed miserably.
-
...............Don't. Smoke. Crack.
I was going to respond to your comments but the last little sentence was enough to stop me caring.
Go buy a clue, then I'll debate politics and philosophy with you.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
And did their mutual hatred work for the defense of Iraq during the war? No, becuase it failed miserably.
er, i think the defence of Irag failed 'cos Iraq had soliders and the occasional T72, where as the Allies had Troops, APCs, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Bombers, Ships, etc etc.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
er, i think the defence of Irag failed 'cos Iraq had soliders and the occasional T72, where as the Allies had Troops, APCs, Tanks, Fighter Planes, Bombers, Ships, etc etc.
The point being, they never even tried. Yes, they'd have lost regardless. But they could have inflicted far heavier casualties when it came to the US going into Baghdad, for example - everyone knows the one thing that the US feared was a pitched battle from street to street. Not to mention that, if they did have chemical weapons, there was no effective command structure to authorise the firing - and those were one of the few 'advantages' the Iraqis had.
No-one rallied to defend Baghdad, they all buggered off and left. They didn't even try to save Saddams regime, they just ****ed off and left him to fend for himself in a rathole. The only people who gave Saddam any sort of chance were those who genuinely believed he was the dogs bollocks - i.e. those of his tribe. Those that hated him and each other were mostly captured or killed, and eventually - if we are to believe the story - sold him out.
Thus, Saddams survival in a key moment - a crisis - was dependent on who he could trusts. Any relationship based on hatred breaks down the moment pressure is applied. Thus, it is not mutually beneficial and serves no purpose.
Oh, and anon - shut the **** up if you aren't going to respond sensibly. Or would that defeat the point of you being registered here?
-
No-one rallied to defend Baghdad, they all buggered off and left.
Oh and what would 'love' have gotten them?
That's right: KILLED!
Because Saddam was weak and everyone decided that he could no longer hold up his end of the mutual-defence deal.
Thus, survival of the fittest prevails, love is cast aside and all is well for the human race.
-
They're either
a/ dead
b/ in captivity for life
or
c/ in a stinking cell for 5 years then executed by an iraqi trial
Now, consider this (it may be tough).
Saddam Hussein was a benign dictator. He instigated social & economic policies that benefitted the whole population. He remained peaceful, and worked to encourage loyalty and trust.
He would have had no need for WMD, and either Gulf War would have been uneccessary. He may not have even needed to stage elections if he did this right.
Thus, he would be alive, Iraq would be a stable, peaceful & civiliised country.
Instead, Saddam took the power, used opression, violence, etc to maintain control. Thus, his power totally collapsed the instant it was no longer absolute. Had Iraq been a benign dictatorship or - as i bleieve Mexi effectively is - a one party democracy, there would have been no war and - even if there was - it would have been impossible to wage because the civillian populaiton would have posed a massive barrier in terms of open and covert rebellion.
-
yeah but if you were in a platoon with ak47's and the odd RPG and you saw tank colums, fighter jets, tomahawks and mobile infanty, wouldn't you bugger off ?
Everyone talks of fighting to the last man, but only the japs do it
us marine ( i think) Pacific War.
EDIT: The first Gulf War was liberating Kuwait, not WMDs
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
yeah but if you were in a platoon with ak47's and the odd RPG and you saw tank colums, fighter jets, tomahawks and mobile infanty, wouldn't you bugger off ?
Take cover & regroup probably. There are ways to overcome technological and numerical superiority - street fighting being an obvious example.
But if someone was invading Scotland, then no, I wouldn't just bugger off and surrender.
-
Time for some corrective surgery:
Originally posted by aldo_14
They're either
a/ [drifting back into the crowd]
b/ [Living in Iran]
or
c/ [Living it up in the Caribbean using all the money they 'earned' while serving Hussein]
Now, consider this (it may be tough).
Saddam Hussein [was] a benign dictator. He instigated social & economic policies that benefitted the [Hussein-loyal parts of the] population. He remained peaceful, and worked to encourage loyalty and trust [except in Kuwait where the 'royal family' annexed the territory so they could keep all the formerly Iraqi oil for themselves].
He [|] had no need for WMD [until the US started pushing him to invade Iran], and [if they hadn't, n]either Gulf War would have been uneccessary. He may not have even needed to stage elections if he did this right.
Thus, he [still is] alive, Iraq would [not be occupied by hostile troops], [and would be a ]peaceful & civiliised country [like it was getting before America stuck its oar in].
Instead, Saddam took the power, used [American weapons, American tactics and American chem-weapons] to maintain control [until he tried to reclaim what had been wrongfully taken from Iraq and America turned on him]. Thus, his power totally collapsed the instant it was [in flames, the victim of a massive bombing campaign using vastly superior technology and bullying tactics]. Had Iraq been a [pro-America] dictatorship or - as i bleieve Mexi effectively is - a one party [genocidal] democracy [with no oil to steal], there would have been no war and - even [though] there was [mass-genocide going on] - it would have been impossible to wage because the [Americans wouldn't have given a **** and the ]civillian populaiton would have [remained subjected to Husseins will]
Also, you can't wage a guerilla war against an invading army until they're already on your territory and you can't win till they've settled in and start suffering some 'complancency loses'.
-
Said it all an0n, except to point out Hussein built world class hospitals and schools for his people at one time before war and sanctions.
-
I wouldn't mind so much if he'd just been a ****ty leader to start with, but they cut all the money going into his country then use Iraqi's crappy economy, the starvation and ****, as a reason why he should be deposed.
-
Um. Just because he spent his oil revenue on schools and hospitals doesn't mean he wasn't imprisoning and torturing folk on the side you know
-
.........You don't honesty believe that's uncommon, do you?
The Commonwealth and Japan are probably the only people who don't do it.
-
[q]Um. Just because he spent his oil revenue on schools and hospitals doesn't mean he wasn't imprisoning and torturing folk on the side you know[/q]
I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that when our sanctions kill half a million Iraqi children we are hardly in the position to take a moral high-ground. If Bush wanted to take Iraq for strategic reasons he should have had the guts to admit this wasn't about WMD or rights.
EDIT: fixed typo
-
To my knowledge, no one can take moral high ground these days. Not that anyone will own up to that, which is half the problem.
-
Well, maybe the Swedes or something. Yeah, thats about right though. Almost no country can take the moral highground, since they all have something on their hands. However, I think this does not apply to individuals or non-government organizations. Of course, a percentage of each of those have commited such acts as to place them in the same category as government, but not all. Not even all of the "humanitarian" organizations (Amnesty Internation etc) are guilt free. To my knowledge, they have in the past supported efforts by governments to manufacture humanitarian crisies (sp?) and so forth. As well, selective distribution of aid based on nationality, religion etc.
I don't know if that made very much sense to any of you...
-
Originally posted by vyper
I didn't say that, but what I am saying is that when our sanctions kill half a million Iraqi children we are hardly in the position to take a moral high-ground. If Bush wanted to take Iraq for strategic reasons he should have had the guts to admit this wasn't about WMD or rights.
EDIT: fixed typo
Huh, if you believe the loss of trade Saddam incurred by the sanctions against him would have gone to the starving masses you need a lesson in reality mate.
-
It is true that the aid from the oil-for-food programs, as well as the revenues from oil smuggling went straight into Saddams pockets. The failure of the sanctions was that the Iraqi populace didn't blame Saddam for them - he actually used them to build popularity. And by this point, revoking them would have made Saddam the winner..... leaving the UN in a no win situation.
-
[q]Huh, if you believe the loss of trade Saddam incurred by the sanctions against him would have gone to the starving masses you need a lesson in reality mate.[/q]
I don't believe it - i know it, it happened pre-Gulf War!
[q]It is true that the aid from the oil-for-food programs, as well as the revenues from oil smuggling went straight into Saddams pockets.[/q]
It would have been the smuggling and black market that funded his circle. The oil for food programme was a farce - most of it went on reparations to Kuwait, and what little buying power the Iraqis had was blocked at the UN by the UK and US every time. Everything from ambulances (deemed dual use because they had vacuum flasks inside) to wheel barrows (wtf?) were blocked or "put on hold" by our governments.
We helped make Saddam into the tyrant yet we cry foul when he turns on us - well aren't we smart.
-
To quote Ken Follet in Code to Zero, " We are not here to feed starving Iranians and give civil liberties to South American peasants, for Christ's sake. Our job is to promote American interests - And **** democracy!"