Amsterdam Coffeeshop Directory Forums

Stanky Danky wrote:
I love calling you a Yankist? I haven't said one word about you being anti-American in this thread. All I really wanted to know was how you felt about a theoretical situation in the UK, you're the one bringing in all this geo-political BS. I never asked about enforcing democracy. I asked how you felt about taking action against a group that was terrorizing your country. Apparently you think the best solution to a problem like this is for everyone to hold hands so their collective joy can defeat the problem.

your feelings about the US into the picture.

You were the one who brought it up man. I was going to para-phase the quote but you'd call mis-quote on it.

Geo-political bullshit? Maybe if the American people and the American leadership recognized Geo-political 'bullshit' then they would question the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and not follow it blindly calling anyone who dosn't weak, while classing any other solution as idealistic. This might be hard to accept, but you need to recognise Geo-political aspects to wars America goes into. Because, the world is bigger than America. It's not the case of America is waving the flag of good and decency while the rest of the world is Satanic and in need of an American style democracy and social values. War's are complicated, there is a background and other issues involed that come before America getting involed in the war. What you call bullshit gives an important context to the war. However, this context goes against your point of view so i can see why you wave it off as bullshit. It however is not, just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Apparently you think the best solution to a problem like this is for everyone to hold hands so their collective joy can defeat the problem

Where did i say that? What you are showing here is you don't attempt to understand any point of view other than yours, because you don't read it properly and then mis quote it completely to make it sound idiotic.

What i said, for the like fifth time now ( if you could not twist this to turn it into something else, actually read it and use some cognitive abilty to attempt to understand it.) Democracy cannot be forced on people from the top down, it does not work, ever. Democracy requires empowered people. By putting it from the top down your not empowering the people, your empowering the people you put in charge. You need to allow humans and human society to develop and come about to democracy. You cannot enforce a liberal democracy, that's not hard to understand. Thats why you need to not invade and get involed in torture and detaining people with trial, because this does not inspire an oppressed people to follow your example. The way America has behaved in the War on Terror, would not inspire people to accept any political ideology it tries to force on countries. Same goes for the UK on the basis of the torture allegations recently. Far from do noting, you covertly go about showing people the positives of a liberal democracy, look at Iran for examples of this.

The alternative, as you suggest, is go to war, fail in catching your main man who you turn into the personification of evil. Half get control of a country, hold an election, fuck democracy in the process and put the person who's most sympathetic to the West in even though it's well know it was a corrupt election and he didn't deserve to be voted in at all. But yea, thats a much better way of putting in democracy than to allow the people to develop their society so as that they want to create democracy, not get it forced on them.

Stanky Danky wrote:

cantona7 wrote:war is just wrong.

"when the rich wage war its the poor who die"

That might be over simplifying it a bit. Don't get me wrong I hate to see people die needlessly in war, but there are times when something needs to be done. WWII is a perfect example of this. If countries wouldn't have stood up and fought who knows how far Hitler would have gone. In a perfect utopian society there would be no need for war, but I am a realist who knows evil exists and sometimes needs to be dealt with.

Who were the ones who went to War in the World Wars. Which class of people did they come from? Who were the ones who suffered the Blitz the most?

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:

cantona7 wrote:war is just wrong.

"when the rich wage war its the poor who die"

That might be over simplifying it a bit. Don't get me wrong I hate to see people die needlessly in war, but there are times when something needs to be done. WWII is a perfect example of this. If countries wouldn't have stood up and fought who knows how far Hitler would have gone. In a perfect utopian society there would be no need for war, but I am a realist who knows evil exists and sometimes needs to be dealt with.

Who were the ones who went to War in the World Wars. Which class of people did they come from? Who were the ones who suffered the Blitz the most?

They came from all classes. Especially in WWII, the US soldier was the citizen soldier from all walks of life.

Sorry Marco, speaking from the UK perspective. Those that suffered in the Blitz were working class. Those that went over the top were working class. The ones mile or so back giving the orders were most defiantly not working class.

my nana lived in kettering and didn't get bombed alot, byt she did take in some evacuee children. my aunt doris on the other hand got bombed back into the stoneage , she lived in london.

my nana always told me stories about seeing lancaster and b17 bombers flying very town missing half a wing,no verticle stabilizer,etc. my grandpa also had some stories as he was based at kimbolton afb with the us army aircore. glad i didn't have to live through that.

cantona7 wrote:my nana lived in kettering and didn't get bombed alot, byt she did take in some evacuee children. my aunt doris on the other hand got bombed back into the stoneage , she lived in london.

London, the East End in particular, took a huge amount of damage. In fact it's often said one of the positive aspects of the war was it destroyed the slums of the East End at the time.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

cantona7 wrote:my nana lived in kettering and didn't get bombed alot, byt she did take in some evacuee children. my aunt doris on the other hand got bombed back into the stoneage , she lived in london.

London, the East End in particular, took a huge amount of damage. In fact it's often said one of the positive aspects of the war was it destroyed the slums of the East End at the time.

my parents educated me on war from an early age. i was aware of the holacaust by age 7 or so. my dad always took me to visit the imperial war museum in lodon. seen thousands of pics, london was in ruins. the germans didn't go easy on coventry either.

i had a crazy amt of respect for vetrans, esp of ww2. my gramps didn't like talking about it much. i know my uncle george was in africa with the royal army. several of my family members including my nana worked in the factories.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

Stanky Danky wrote:
I love calling you a Yankist? I haven't said one word about you being anti-American in this thread. All I really wanted to know was how you felt about a theoretical situation in the UK, you're the one bringing in all this geo-political BS. I never asked about enforcing democracy. I asked how you felt about taking action against a group that was terrorizing your country. Apparently you think the best solution to a problem like this is for everyone to hold hands so their collective joy can defeat the problem.

your feelings about the US into the picture.

You were the one who brought it up man. I was going to para-phase the quote but you'd call mis-quote on it.

Geo-political bullshit? Maybe if the American people and the American leadership recognized Geo-political 'bullshit' then they would question the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and not follow it blindly calling anyone who dosn't weak, while classing any other solution as idealistic. This might be hard to accept, but you need to recognise Geo-political aspects to wars America goes into. Because, the world is bigger than America. It's not the case of America is waving the flag of good and decency while the rest of the world is Satanic and in need of an American style democracy and social values. War's are complicated, there is a background and other issues involed that come before America getting involed in the war. What you call bullshit gives an important context to the war. However, this context goes against your point of view so i can see why you wave it off as bullshit. It however is not, just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Apparently you think the best solution to a problem like this is for everyone to hold hands so their collective joy can defeat the problem

Where did i say that? What you are showing here is you don't attempt to understand any point of view other than yours, because you don't read it properly and then mis quote it completely to make it sound idiotic.

What i said, for the like fifth time now ( if you could not twist this to turn it into something else, actually read it and use some cognitive abilty to attempt to understand it.) Democracy cannot be forced on people from the top down, it does not work, ever. Democracy requires empowered people. By putting it from the top down your not empowering the people, your empowering the people you put in charge. You need to allow humans and human society to develop and come about to democracy. You cannot enforce a liberal democracy, that's not hard to understand. Thats why you need to not invade and get involed in torture and detaining people with trial, because this does not inspire an oppressed people to follow your example. The way America has behaved in the War on Terror, would not inspire people to accept any political ideology it tries to force on countries. Same goes for the UK on the basis of the torture allegations recently. Far from do noting, you covertly go about showing people the positives of a liberal democracy, look at Iran for examples of this.

The alternative, as you suggest, is go to war, fail in catching your main man who you turn into the personification of evil. Half get control of a country, hold an election, fuck democracy in the process and put the person who's most sympathetic to the West in even though it's well know it was a corrupt election and he didn't deserve to be voted in at all. But yea, thats a much better way of putting in democracy than to allow the people to develop their society so as that they want to create democracy, not get it forced on them.

What part of I never asked you about enforcing democracy don't you understand. Your entire rant has nothing to do with the hypothetical question I asked you. And yes cutting off part of that sentence completely changed the meaning of what I said and was a mis-quote. The correct qoute should be "without bringing your feelings about the US into the picture". It seems you find it impossible to give a straight foward answer without going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the hypothetical question I'm asking.

Geo-political bullshit? Maybe if the American people and the American leadership recognized Geo-political 'bullshit' then they would question the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and not follow it blindly calling anyone who dosn't weak, while classing any other solution as idealistic.

You do realize that the UK (and its people, no more or less than the American people) followed the USA into both wars.

So either you are a) just like America, b) weak sheep that blindly follow the US, c) or a combination of both.

Stanky Danky wrote:[
What part of I never asked you about enforcing democracy don't you understand. Your entire rant has nothing to do with the hypothetical question I asked you. And yes cutting off part of that sentence completely changed the meaning of what I said and was a mis-quote. The correct qoute should be "without bringing your feelings about the US into the picture". It seems you find it impossible to give a straight foward answer without going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the hypothetical question I'm asking.

You asked if i would want the help of America to rid a Taliban like force, a force which if like the Taliban has the same aspects, therefore is anti-democratic.

don't you understand

So cutting of the sentance changes the meaning. How about, dont say silly things if you dont want it quoted back to you?

I havent answered you?

As i said i do not want the interfernce from any forgien force.

Clearly i never answered, thats not an answer to your question at all?

Oh and just because i actually think people should justify their answers, heres a novel thing to you, some justification.

If that was the UK, i would not want American assistence. Firstly, you bring up points like Human Sheilds, would there be a need for sheilds if they werent fighting an invading force?

Secondly, regime change is illegal by international law. So i would not want America to interfene, as they have no right to so by international law.

Thirdly, if a group such as the Taliban were to be in control given by the majority of the population. Then No again. Because this is demorcacy, it is a downside to demorcacy, but the alternatives are worse.

Fourth, fair rule is something that can be only bulit from the bottham up. I wouldn't want America to come in as by imposing their will from the top down, there would not be change in the long term. I would want America to leave my country so that the people can develop and make change for themselves.

Fifth, if we take the real world example of America in Afghanistan of America putting in a leader who is equally corrupt as the Taliban i would not want them to come in to make the country just as bad as it was but with a war to get there.

Which was my actual first reply to your bullshit hypothetical situation which twisted the Afghanistan situation and completely forget any talk about american involement in the Taliban before the war.

But like you said, its all bullshit Geo-poltics.

My posts are long winded, because i put thought into them. I justify what i say and challenge you. It's alot more long winded than...

Yea but, what if this hypothetical situation happened?

But it hasn't happened and it dosn't reflect the real life situation because it forgets and context.

Yea but you dont answer.

But i have?

Role play. Its a bit of a hobby of mine. Guess who's me and who's you?

War is a complex issue, the reason nationalism and this follow the troops no matter what happens is popular is because its simple. Requires fuck all thought and is extremely easy to explain. Which is why people follow it, without thinking about other issues, such as bullshit Geo-politics.

Isn't it funny how you answer none of my points, but abuse me for not answering yours? ( which i did!)

Marco wrote:

Geo-political bullshit? Maybe if the American people and the American leadership recognized Geo-political 'bullshit' then they would question the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and not follow it blindly calling anyone who dosn't weak, while classing any other solution as idealistic.

You do realize that the UK (and its people, no more or less than the American people) followed the USA into both wars.

So either you are a) just like America, b) weak sheep that blindly follow the US, c) or a combination of both.

I think instead of the word 'you' you should replace with the word leadership. I think the leadership, mainly top level Labour, were (c) But also i think that Blair wanted some type of legacy, he thought this was it. It back fired. Please dont think the leadership on that issue represents the people. You cant accuse the people, because there was not a nation wide refendum. If there was and it was votes yes, i could agree with your premise. However like in the states we have the right wing who support the troops no matter what.

Edit: Also Britains failure to handle not being a world power anymore is a factor. Something which America are likely to experience soon.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:

Marco wrote:

Geo-political bullshit? Maybe if the American people and the American leadership recognized Geo-political 'bullshit' then they would question the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and not follow it blindly calling anyone who dosn't weak, while classing any other solution as idealistic.

You do realize that the UK (and its people, no more or less than the American people) followed the USA into both wars.

So either you are a) just like America, b) weak sheep that blindly follow the US, c) or a combination of both.

I think instead of the word 'you' you should replace with the word leadership. I think the leadership, mainly top level Labour, were (c) But also i think that Blair wanted some type of legacy, he thought this was it. It back fired. Please dont think the leadership on that issue represents the people. You cant accuse the people, because there was not a nation wide refendum. If there was and it was votes yes, i could agree with your premise. However like in the states we have the right wing who support the troops no matter what.

Edit: Also Britains failure to handle not being a world power anymore is a factor. Something which America are likely to experience soon.

Very true your last point, and another interesting topic.

Lets replace the word you with leadership, but don't forget to do it when you are talking about the US.

Fair point Marco.

Please dont read that all Americans are the subject when i say America. When i say America, i mean the politicians in charge at the time.

Just a note, there was an English party which was against the war not just a select group of people. The Liberal Democrats.

I'm done debating someone who mis-quotes me and twists my words and uses them out of context. I never said it's all bullshit geo-politics. I said you keep bringing in all this geo-political BS. I never asked for the history of the taliban and America's involvement in Afghanistan. Again I posed a hypothetical question about a group like the Taliban, not the Taliban. Your lengthy rants might have been relevant to a debate about Americas involvement in Afghanistan, but they have nothing to with the hypothetical group that I was asking about.

This thread is getting a bit like...........



Marco i apologize for my aphorism in advance.........