• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

scaramanga said:
Or could it simply be that there was a point at which Saddam was the least bad of a really bad bunch? Or that his behaviour changed in a manner that became unacceptable?

If you expect everything and everyone to be put into such simple distinctions as good or bad and expect them to stay there forever then everything is going to sound like some ridiculous conspiracy.

Especially when there's bronze age religion involved - in that case the only thing you can guarantee is people not acting rationally.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps the "Western Media" are acting as propagandists to make the actions of certain Western Governments acceptable when they happen; it's not like Assad, Hussein or Gaddafi are the only "horrible dictators" out there at the given times. Of course corporate interests and the long-term goal of certain political elites to remove Assad because he doesn't say "how high" when they ask him to jump (like perhaps some others) is nothing to do with it.
And why would Gaddafi suddenly became a "great leader" a few years after being demonised enough to justify Thatcher and Reagan dropping bombs on his regime? No doubt his behaviour 'changed' just at the same time that his resources became more valuable.
Should i bring the horrible behaviour of the Saudis into the discussion as well? I guess that's where things could get REALLY uncomfortable eh..

scaramanga said:
There was a clear difference back when we should have acted, now not so much.

ISIS were barely involved when Labour played politics with the lives of Syrians to try and gain a few votes from hippies and students.
Click to expand...

It seems that @the dza has shown up the fallacy of this comment more than i could, so i'll leave it there :D
 
glorygloryeze said:
Or perhaps the "Western Media" are acting as propagandists to make the actions of certain Western Governments acceptable when they happen; it's not like Assad, Hussein or Gaddafi are the only "horrible dictators" out there at the given times. Of course corporate interests and the long-term goal of certain political elites to remove Assad because he doesn't say "how high" when they ask him to jump (like perhaps some others) is nothing to do with it.
And why would Gaddafi suddenly became a "great leader" a few years after being demonised enough to justify Thatcher and Reagan dropping bombs on his regime? No doubt his behaviour 'changed' just at the same time that his resources became more valuable.
Should i bring the horrible behaviour of the Saudis into the discussion as well? I guess that's where things could get REALLY uncomfortable eh..



It seems that @the dza has shown up the fallacy of this comment more than i could, so i'll leave it there :D
Click to expand...
In answer to both of your points, I don't believe we should avoid action that suits us simply because it may benefit an enemy.

It would be a very strange way to act if we decided at a point in time that the is a clear good/evil split and that no matter what people do they are stuck on that side.
 
r-u-s-x said:
we are best buddies with Saudi - We have no issues with dictators unless they go against us directly normally economically.
Click to expand...

And again...

giphy.gif
 
scaramanga said:
In answer to both of your points, I don't believe we should avoid action that suits us simply because it may benefit an enemy.

It would be a very strange way to act if we decided at a point in time that the is a clear good/evil split and that no matter what people do they are stuck on that side.
Click to expand...

It's really about the Public seeing through when an action is being sanctioned, whether it REALLY is "humanitarian reasons" or long-term Economic/Political reasons that may actually not be in the public's interests. It's also about seeing when the 'Moral high-horse' that is often being preached from is simply b0ll0cks
 
glorygloryeze said:
It's really about the Public seeing through when an action is being sanctioned, whether it REALLY is "humanitarian reasons" or long-term Economic/Political reasons that may actually not be in the public's interests. It's also about seeing when the 'Moral high-horse' that is often being preached from is simply b0ll0cks
Click to expand...
Why can't it be both?

Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
So, as a few missiles have been launched, is Trump still an agent of Russia? Or is the news bored of that now he's showed he's a 'Real President'?
 
glorygloryeze said:
Ok, when it is both, which reason in the end would trump (ha!) the other in terms of final decisions to commit the relevant resources?
Click to expand...
I imagine the desire to help would be created by the moral imperative and the feasibility would be defined by the financial implications.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Ok, so where is/was the moral imperative in Saudi Arabia when that Royal Family was propped up/supported?
Click to expand...
Maybe the moral imperative was the opposite but the financial cost made it impossible.

Unless you've managed to borrow Gordon Brown's money tree.
 
scaramanga said:
Maybe the moral imperative was the opposite but the financial cost made it impossible.

Unless you've managed to borrow Gordon Brown's money tree.
Click to expand...

Haha. You are consistent i'll give you that!
However, when you start using "maybes" the way you are i feel you are at least admitting that my point is fair;)
 
glorygloryeze said:
Haha. You are consistent i'll give you that!
However, when you start using "maybes" the way you are i feel you are at least admitting that my point is fair;)
Click to expand...
Given a bottomless pit of money, it's not the choice I'd have made. With an entire nation of taxpayers to answer to I can understand it completely.

I suspect those making those decisions feel the same.
 
scaramanga said:
Given a bottomless pit of money, it's not the choice I'd have made. With an entire nation of taxpayers to answer to I can understand it completely.

I suspect those making those decisions feel the same.
Click to expand...

So it's only right then that those taxpayers can question the inconsistent (on the surface) policies in places like Syria, Iraq etc
 
glorygloryeze said:
So it's only right then that those taxpayers can question the inconsistent (on the surface) policies in places like Syria, Iraq etc
Click to expand...
They can question them all they like. Our government has more important things to deal with than the opinion of a handful of "no war at any cost" types.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back