Food & Drink1 min ago
Can the US be trusted?
In view of the fact the there is increasing evidence that Iraq is little more than a money-making exercise, should Britain ever side with the Americans again?
They don't listen to us, they don't respect us (and they certainly don't respect the Iraqis - the people they were apparently supposed to be helping) and they don't care.
We are just as much to blame, I suppose but should we not distance ourselves from a culture or rabid and unchecked greed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,196224 5,00.html
They don't listen to us, they don't respect us (and they certainly don't respect the Iraqis - the people they were apparently supposed to be helping) and they don't care.
We are just as much to blame, I suppose but should we not distance ourselves from a culture or rabid and unchecked greed?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,196224 5,00.html
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bigmalc. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't know that it was really about money, though doubtless they hoped to get access to cheap oil out of it. And the corruption seems to be chiefly Iraqi, though US companies like Halliburton haven't exactly done badly out of reconstruction.
But yes, that's a fair point. Blair has dreams that he is exerting some sort of moral/geopolitical influence over Bush. This is pathetic nonsense. He has zero influence in Washington; the most you can say is that UK enthusiasm for invading Iraq made it look as though it wasn't just a US venture.
All the same, I'm in no rush to distance myself from American culture, and neither is anyone who's ever watched Lost or Friends or The Simpsons. I can't stand most Hollywood movies; but individual Americans I've met (and I've visited the country many times) are among the kindest, most generous people on Earth.
But yes, that's a fair point. Blair has dreams that he is exerting some sort of moral/geopolitical influence over Bush. This is pathetic nonsense. He has zero influence in Washington; the most you can say is that UK enthusiasm for invading Iraq made it look as though it wasn't just a US venture.
All the same, I'm in no rush to distance myself from American culture, and neither is anyone who's ever watched Lost or Friends or The Simpsons. I can't stand most Hollywood movies; but individual Americans I've met (and I've visited the country many times) are among the kindest, most generous people on Earth.
Incidentally, a bit of history... when Britain got involved in its dishonourable action against Egypt in the 1950s, Eisenhower refused to have anything to do with it. That seemed to me the action of a genuine friend: being brave enough to tell a friend he's screwing up. And in return Harold Wilson kept Britain out of Vietnam. So Downing St hasn't always been the White House's poodle the way it is now; I think that started with Thatcher, on whom Blair models himself so much.
That's true actually, the majority of the Americans I have met have also been some of the most generous and polite people one would hope to meet. However, the fact still remains that it is a certain type of American citizen that chooses to travel.
The truth is that well over 70% of Americans never leave their shores in their lifetimes and this helps contribute to the ill-educated and selfish foreign policies that are passed with with great frequency by the US government.
You're right, perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Should we distance ourselves from a political system that encourages greed rather than the culture in it's entirety.
The truth is that well over 70% of Americans never leave their shores in their lifetimes and this helps contribute to the ill-educated and selfish foreign policies that are passed with with great frequency by the US government.
You're right, perhaps I should have phrased it differently. Should we distance ourselves from a political system that encourages greed rather than the culture in it's entirety.
I meant the Americans I'd met in America, bigmalc. I won't clutter up the thread by listing the random acts of kindness and courtesy towards a stranger (me) I've seen, but there have been plenty.
As for their political system, it's certainly built on huge corporate contributions that come pretty close to buying politicians; but the British system is heading that way too. (Bernie Ecclestone... peerages for cash.)
But I can't think of a foolproof alternative. When these open donations are banned, they're usually just transformed into illegal, under-the-counter handouts - same thing, only less transparency; and I'm not sure this is an improvement. I think that's a problem in many countries, not just America. When I think of a solution, I hope to get unimaginably rich by licensing it everywhere...
As for their political system, it's certainly built on huge corporate contributions that come pretty close to buying politicians; but the British system is heading that way too. (Bernie Ecclestone... peerages for cash.)
But I can't think of a foolproof alternative. When these open donations are banned, they're usually just transformed into illegal, under-the-counter handouts - same thing, only less transparency; and I'm not sure this is an improvement. I think that's a problem in many countries, not just America. When I think of a solution, I hope to get unimaginably rich by licensing it everywhere...
I don't mean that it's a money-making execise for the nation states, I mean in terms of private business interests.
Halliburton is, by far, the biggest culprit. Not to mentionthe fact that it is one of the biggest donors to the Republican Party and the former business interest of the Vice-President!
If such companies actually cared about anything other than their profit margin and were as patriotic as they would have us believe, then surely they would not rip off their own military to the tune of $60m whilst they are involved in a conflict?!
Halliburton is, by far, the biggest culprit. Not to mentionthe fact that it is one of the biggest donors to the Republican Party and the former business interest of the Vice-President!
If such companies actually cared about anything other than their profit margin and were as patriotic as they would have us believe, then surely they would not rip off their own military to the tune of $60m whilst they are involved in a conflict?!
Yes , jno, I can see the point that the British political system (in terms of cash for peerages etc.) is, in some ways, becoming like the American model. However, it's that kind of thing that I'm suggesting we distance ourselves from.
I think the problem extends from the fact that the government here has had such a large majority and exerts so much influence, that no effective opposition or counterbalance has been put in place to ensure that political party's donations are monitored.
If we had an elected second chamber and a decent voting system that might alter things radically.
I think the problem extends from the fact that the government here has had such a large majority and exerts so much influence, that no effective opposition or counterbalance has been put in place to ensure that political party's donations are monitored.
If we had an elected second chamber and a decent voting system that might alter things radically.
NH swooping in on the debate like a Stuka from a darkened sky...
The main motivation for Iraq may have been slightly financial, but mainly ideological, really; much of US neoconservative policy is that the US should prove itself to the world as a "force for freedom". Hence the issue with the Cold War; both sides had ideological exportation as a fundamental tenet of their policy.
It was aimed at proving the US is not as vulnerable and unprepared as 9/11 suggested- and it subsequently went horribly wrong.
Why Bush, a conservative, sides with Blair, who is supposed to be a socialist, is beyond me.
The right thing to do in the "War on Terror" was not to take sides; this wasn't our fight. Notice how Al-Qaeda attacks have occurred in New York, Riyadh, Madrid and London- either US cities or cities in countries affiliated with the US. There's no fear of suicide bombers in Paris or Berlin is there?
Case closed.
The main motivation for Iraq may have been slightly financial, but mainly ideological, really; much of US neoconservative policy is that the US should prove itself to the world as a "force for freedom". Hence the issue with the Cold War; both sides had ideological exportation as a fundamental tenet of their policy.
It was aimed at proving the US is not as vulnerable and unprepared as 9/11 suggested- and it subsequently went horribly wrong.
Why Bush, a conservative, sides with Blair, who is supposed to be a socialist, is beyond me.
The right thing to do in the "War on Terror" was not to take sides; this wasn't our fight. Notice how Al-Qaeda attacks have occurred in New York, Riyadh, Madrid and London- either US cities or cities in countries affiliated with the US. There's no fear of suicide bombers in Paris or Berlin is there?
Case closed.
For me it is very simple, the USA is our natural ally and friend. They got us out of big trouble in 2 World Wars (indeed they did) and remain the bastion of Western life and freedoms. It is currently very fashionable to bash Bush and Blair, but how about we send troops to fight alongside Syria and Iran when trouble brews ? Fanciful.
Even if we did go into Iraq primarily for oil, I am still fine with that. I would rather see the world stage directed by the USA than by other ghastly alternatives.
Even if we did go into Iraq primarily for oil, I am still fine with that. I would rather see the world stage directed by the USA than by other ghastly alternatives.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Food & Drink6 mins ago
