A people's Revolution

[Team Brian GB]

Western interventionism didn't start with the last Labour government. In fact your beloved Thatcher and her partner in crime Reagan were great allies and supporters of the autocratic leaders of the middle east including Mubarak, and to add to it they did their bit in crushing populist movements in South America and implementing puppet dictators.

The conservative/neoliberal policy has always been to support autocratic dictators to tame the volatile population so that the big corporations could have free access to exploit any potential resources and markets.

Thatcher and Reagan did what they did not for economic reasons but for geopolitical ones and their efforts won the Cold War - we are all better off for that than if they hadn't.

It was pertinent to western security then, and heads of government have a responsibility to ensure the security and safety of their countries but now you cannot make such a claim with regards to Egypt - Iran perhaps but nobody else really.

 

[Sultan]

Notice the Emir of Yemen has asked Al Jazeera to stop broadcasting the Egyptian protests as it's apparently helping Zionism!

 

[Neutral]

Just saw the funeral procession walk through the crowd, and the massive surge in rage and raw emotion as it passed.

Really am stumped trying to figure out what the Army is up to...they're out in the streets, but definitely not enforcing the curfew, then again, they aren't going along with this people power tidal wave either.

 

[Plechazunga]

Sorry I meant the president of Yemen has asked the Emir of Qatar... but yeah, typical of the way 'Zionism' is an all-purpose, any-scenario accusation.

 

[Sultan]

as yasminhamidi tweeted,

"Mubarak: To prove I am not a dictator, I will personally name a new government!"

 

[Commadus]

Thatcher and Reagan did what they did not for economic reasons but for geopolitical ones and their efforts won the Cold War - we are all better off for that than if they hadn't.

It was pertinent to western security then, and heads of government have a responsibility to ensure the security and safety of their countries but now you cannot make such a claim with regards to Egypt - Iran perhaps but nobody else really.

They are linked. Geopolitical is a meaningless term thrown about by everyone and sundry.

 

[Kaos]

Thatcher and Reagan did what they did not for economic reasons but for geopolitical ones and their efforts won the Cold War - we are all better off for that than if they hadn't.

It was pertinent to western security then, and heads of government have a responsibility to ensure the security and safety of their countries but now you cannot make such a claim with regards to Egypt - Iran perhaps but nobody else really.

'Geopolitical reasons' is just an excuse to sugarcoat the real economic incentive behind Reagan/Thatcher terrorism in South America. And while the corporations are better off following the brutal proxy campaigns in the region, the people of South America are worse off. They put a lot of countries like Chile into severe economic depression with their implemented IMF and world bank regulations, while wiping out the public sector.

Egypt posed no threat to the people of western nations but they did to their hegemony in the region. Egypt had essentially spearheaded the pan-Arab nationalist agenda in the region which was a threat to the West's control of resources in the ME, so supporting an autocratic dictator like Mubarak was no biggie so long as he was loyal to the likes of Washington despite his tyranny. A democratic Egypt in the region may pose a risk to the hegemonic aspirations of the west since naturally people are going to want to use their own resources for themselves, and not for others.

 

[RedSky]

People still cling to the romantic notion of nation states but the real power lies in the supra national organisations like the IMF, World Bank and MNC.

That is the ultimate issue and why change won't ever happen when these guys are controlling the worlds governments. As you said, the gap between the poor and rich is widening every year that passes. Not just in the UK, but globally.

 

[Silva]

Anyway, how did it end in Tunisia? I had an exam and couldn't pay too much attention to the news and now it seems to have disappeared from everywhere. Was the ruling party totally booted out?

 

[Team Brian GB]

They are linked. Geopolitical is a meaningless term thrown about by everyone and sundry.

When the Americans and Soviets were combatting each other's influence around the world it wasn't.

 

[Mockney]

Brian, would you agree with anything...anything, if it was done by Thatcher... or anyone representing a conservative party.

You don't sound like an actual person with some kind of a set of values at all, as much you do a PR machine for a political party. I've never understood this kind of politics.

But then again I've never understood right wing politics at all. It's weird. You do realise you're the bad guys right?

 

[Kaos]

When the Americans and Soviets were combatting each other's influence around the world it wasn't.

The Reagan campaign in South America had nothing to do with the Soviets, heck even the Cuban embargo wasn't related to the Soviet 'threat'. It was a continuation and expansion of the Monroe Doctrine that had been put into effect a century ago.

 

[Neutral]

Saudi King...I mean Puppet,

"Protesters are infiltrators"

I hope the world continues to despise Muslims. We deserve nothing better, if we continue to tolerate bastards like him. No one hands you freedom, you have to earn it, and yes that means, sacrifices.

For fecks sake...people wanting a better life are being called infiltrators.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Brian, would you agree with anything...anything, if it was done by Thatcher... or anyone representing a conservative party.

You don't sound like an actual person with some kind of a set of values at all. Just a PR machine for a political party. I've never understood this kind of politics.

As far as fundamental values go I believe in self determination worldwide and at home constitutionalism, the rule of law, individual and civic liberty, small government that ring fences essential services, the Monarchy and the British Constitution.

In terms of policy I believe in state funded services, the state to safeguard said services but for them to be run at a lower level away from Whitehall. The Government to withdraw from large swathes of social spending - £23 Billion a year on housing benefits for instance only serves to inflate the whole market. I would raise the lower threshold of when income tax is payable, eliminate the fifty percent band and continually raise the fourty percent band beyond the rate of fiscal drag - my ultimate aim would be to get public spending to between 35 and 40% of GDP.

The one area that I feel needs government spending more than anywhere else is transport - Thatcher initiated a £25 Billion programme to expand our roads which in the space of ten years built 40% or so of our current stock of motorways, dual carriageways and city bypasses. Without that our roads would be completely screwed, and we will be in the future if we don't go on another major expansion. I would allow the expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and instead of committing to the London-Birmingham high speed line I would spend the allocated money on ironing out the long list of creases in the railway network.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Your beliefs can be handily summarised in three words Brian, 'feck the poor'.

 

[Twisted_Woody]

That guy's a legend.

That was epic.

 

[Mockney]

As far as fundamental values go I believe in self determination worldwide and at home constitutionalism, the rule of law, individual and civic liberty, small government that ring fences essential services, the Monarchy and the British Constitution.

In terms of policy I believe in state funded services, the state to safeguard said services but for them to be run at a lower level away from Whitehall. The Government to withdraw from large swathes of social spending - £23 Billion a year on housing benefits for instance only serves to inflate the whole market. I would raise the lower threshold of when income tax is payable, eliminate the fifty percent band and continually raise the fourty percent band beyond the rate of fiscal drag - my ultimate aim would be to get public spending to between 35 and 40% of GDP.

The one area that I feel needs government spending more than anywhere else is transport - Thatcher initiated a £25 Billion programme to expand our roads which in the space of ten years built 40% or so of our current stock of motorways, dual carriageways and city bypasses. Without that our roads would be completely screwed, and we will be in the future if we don't go on another major expansion. I would allow the expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and instead of committing to the London-Birmingham high speed line I would spend the allocated money on ironing out the long list of creases in the railway network.

Yeah but, like, you realise you're the bad guys right?

 

[Kaos]

Saudi King...I mean Puppet,

"Protesters are infiltrators"

I hope the world continues to despise Muslims. We deserve nothing better, if we continue to tolerate bastards like him. No one hands you freedom, you have to earn it, and yes that means, sacrifices.

For fecks sake...people wanting a better life are being called infiltrators.

Don't get too wound up about it.

Its like my old man said - The Saudi Royal family is the cancer that plagues the middle east, and the world for that matter. Not only have they vilified the holiest Muslim lands, but to add further insult they've set themselves up as a retirement haven for deposed tyrants. Makes me wonder - where will the Saudi family themselves escape to if the fire of revolution spreads to their front door?

 

[Team Brian GB]

Your beliefs can be handily summarised in three words Brian, 'feck the poor'.

Living standards would increase, the economy would boom and individuals would have more room for movement to better themselves. I believe the point of government is to provide an environment for that to happen - not to engage in social engineering on an almighty-scale.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Yeah but, like, you realise you're the bad guys right?

Says you. If you want social welfare to continue costing the best part of £200 billion then pay for it yourself.

 

[Mockney]

Says you. If you want social welfare to continue costing the best part of £200 billion then pay for it yourself.

Well I'm willing to (contributively of course) because I'm with the good guys. Seriously, the whole right wing attitude is "No, it's not our job to help anyone, we don't want to" and the left wing one is "sharing is nice"....Can you not see who the panto baddies are in this equation? Hence why I've never understood why anyone would actually want to be right wing. It's dirty. You're dirty Brian. You're a dirty boy.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Well I'm willing to (contributively of course) because I'm with the good guys. Seriously, the whole right wing attitude is "No, it's not our job to help anyone, we don't want to" and the left wing one is "sharing is nice"....Can you not see who the panto baddies are in this equation? Hence why I've never understood why anyone would actually want to be right wing. It's dirty. You're dirty Brian. You're a dirty boy.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Well I'm willing to (contributively of course) because I'm with the good guys. Seriously, the whole right wing attitude is "No, it's not our job to help anyone, we don't want to" and the left wing one is "sharing is nice"....Can you not see who the panto baddies are in this equation? Hence why I've never understood why anyone would actually want to be right wing. It's dirty. You're dirty Brian. You're a dirty boy.

If you create too extensive social services then people are going to depend upon them rather than themselves - I see Canada as the benchmark in balancing public services and free enterprise (i.e. two thirds the way from continental Europe toward the Americans), they come far ahead of Britain in just about every statistic and survey of living standards compiled.

 

[nimic]

I put self determination at the top of the list of most cherished political values - therefore I think it is entirely up to the Egyptians and no one else how their country is run.

Thatcher and Reagan did what they did not for economic reasons but for geopolitical ones and their efforts won the Cold War - we are all better off for that than if they hadn't.

It was pertinent to western security then, and heads of government have a responsibility to ensure the security and safety of their countries but now you cannot make such a claim with regards to Egypt - Iran perhaps but nobody else really.

In other words, you're totally for self determination, except when you're not for self determination.

Hey, remember when this thread was about the current events in Egypt? Everyone were paying close attention, and most supported the demonstrators. At that point I thought "I wonder how long it will take for Brian to take over the thread".

 

[Team Brian GB]

In other words, you're totally for self determination, except when you're not for self determination.

Hey, remember when this thread was about the current events in Egypt? Everyone were paying close attention, and most supported the demonstrators. At that point I thought "I wonder how long it will take for Brian to take over the thread".

I was asked a question by Mr Mockney and I responded, it is quite stupid to make a non-Egyptian assertion and then criticise me for not talking about Egypt wouldn't you say?

And for the record I believe in the westphalian state, though due to the anarchic world in which we live it becomes necessary from time in the needs of national security to get involved in another part of the world whether it be clandestine or conflict. Only if Britain was in or facing a crisis of emergency would I condone it, Cold War era spheres of influence in that regard should remain part of that era and not of this one, only if another country or elements within it was or were a direct threat would it qualify.

 

[Kaos]

And for the record I believe in the westphalian state, though due to the anarchic world in which we live it becomes necessary from time in the needs of national security to get involved in another part of the world whether it be clandestine or conflict. Only if Britain was in or facing a crisis of emergency would I condone it, Cold War era spheres of influence in that regard should remain part of that era and not of this one, only if another country or elements within it was or were a direct threat would it qualify.

You're missing the point again. Britain is not in threat nor has it ever been threatened by any nation in the last few decades, the same thing applies to the US. You keep mentioning 'national security' but all these silly imperialistic interventions have done is compromise national security ironically enough. If Britain and the US really do care about the security of their civilians then they would do well to keep their talons out of regions where they have built up a vilified reputation, its quite simple really.

Imperialism is soooo 19th century, by all means nations should trade and mutually harmonize with one another but for crying out loud leave people to shape their own governments, countries and ultimately - destinies. If you want to forcefully implement certain values then do so within your own borders. Intervention is fine so long as its genuinely humanitarian, and I don't mean the Reagan-Cheney-Rumsfield-Wolfowitz-Bush definition of 'humanitarian intervention'

 

[Team Brian GB]

You're missing the point again. Britain is not in threat nor has it ever been threatened by any nation in the last few decades, the same thing applies to the US. You keep mentioning 'national security' but all these silly imperialistic interventions have done is compromise national security ironically enough. If Britain and the US really do care about the security of their civilians then they would do well to keep their talons out of regions where they have built up a vilified reputation, its quite simple really.

Imperialism is soooo 19th century, by all means nations should trade and mutually harmonize with one another but for crying out loud leave people to shape their own governments, countries and ultimately - destinies. If you want to forcefully implement certain values then do so within your own borders. Intervention is fine so long as its genuinely humanitarian, and I don't mean the Reagan-Cheney-Rumsfield-Wolfowitz-Bush definition of 'humanitarian intervention'

Hence I said that Cold War era spheres of influence should remain in the cold war as we have no need for them, and not to mention their dubious legal and moral position.

 

[Kaos]

Hence I said that Cold War era spheres of influence should remain in the cold war as we have no need for them, and not to mention their dubious legal and moral position.

What about recent interventions? They wouldn't be categorised as being within this so-called 'cold war era sphere'.

 

[Team Brian GB]

What about recent interventions? They wouldn't be categorised as being within this so-called 'cold war era sphere'.

Iraq is let us say 'dubious' though Saddam can hardly say he wasn't pushing it (especially so as he is dead).

Intervention in Afghanistan on the otherhand was wholly justified, the Taliban giving save haven to Al Qaeda to launch attacks against the west without any let or hindrance at all was simply unacceptable. I do recall the United States gave the Taliban a couple of ultimatums to do something which the US respected and when it was clear the Taliban were not prepared to do anything at all then that gave leave for the US to get physical.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Brian, I don't know who you're trying to fool, you love a war. Half your posts on the caf are about hypothetical war scenarios or military equipment. Though I agree with you about Afghanistan.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Brian, I don't know who you're trying to fool, you love a war. Half your posts on the caf are about hypothetical war scenarios or military equipment. Though I agree with you about Afghanistan.

And half your posts are talking about me talking about hypothetical war scenarios, you do half exaggerate.

And that is the second time in two days you have agreed with me, must be a record.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

But you do love a war.

 

[Team Brian GB]

But you do love a war.

I don't think you should go out of your way to avoid it when it is quite clearly necessary, but in answering your question no I don't - I'd much rather the 10,000 British personnel in Afghanistan need not be there at all.

 

[Kaos]

I do recall the United States gave the Taliban a couple of ultimatums to do something which the US respected and when it was clear the Taliban were not prepared to do anything at all then that gave leave for the US to get physical.

Actually you're slightly wrong there.

The Taliban asked for evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks to allow extradition of Bin Laden, but the US refused and deemed it necessary to completely level the country instead.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Actually you're slightly wrong there.

The Taliban asked for evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks to allow extradition of Bin Laden, but the US refused and deemed it necessary to completely level the country instead.

The exact particulars are a bit fuzzy to me but it would seem that both were being pedantic.

And there wasn't really much to level in Afghanistan following soviet occupation, civil war and Taliban rule stretching back 25 years at the time or so. The fact there was only token western landforces involved with most infantry support coming from the Northern Alliance spells out how shaky the Taliban regime was.

 

[Tibs]

Actually you're slightly wrong there.

The Taliban asked for evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks to allow extradition of Bin Laden, but the US refused and deemed it necessary to completely level the country instead.

This

 

[Team Brian GB]

Reading into the War in Afghanistan, there was a joint US - Iranian operation to liberate a city in November 2001.

How times change.

 

[Sir Matt]

The US wanted extradition of Bin Laden over the 1998 Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, not just 9/11. It was well-known that Bin Laden was involved in both of those. That would be grounds enough for extradition. There were discussions amongst officials before 9/11 about using force against Afghanistan in order to have bin Laden extradited.

Then 9/11 happened, the US gave the ultimatums before finally attacking.

 

[Kaos]

The exact particulars are a bit fuzzy to me but it would seem that both were being pedantic.

And there wasn't really much to level in Afghanistan following soviet occupation, civil war and Taliban rule stretching back 25 years at the time or so. The fact there was only token western landforces involved with most infantry support coming from the Northern Alliance spells out how shaky the Taliban regime was.

Justifying a full scale bombing on a country on the grounds that the country has already been devastated is a tad bit sadistic don't you think? But what I was trying to get at was that the bombings had driven away humanitarian aid workers of which some 5.5 million Afghans relied upon to survive, so really the bombings had irresponsibly put 5.5 million Afghans at risk of starvation:

Temporal Vertigo - NYTimes.com

Aid agencies plead for pause in raids | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Team Brian GB]

Justifying a full scale bombing on a country on the grounds that the country has already been devastated is a tad bit sadistic don't you think? But what I was trying to get at was that the bombings had driven away humanitarian aid workers of which some 5.5 million Afghans relied upon to survive, so really the bombings had irresponsibly put 5.5 million Afghans at risk of starvation:

Temporal Vertigo - NYTimes.com

Aid agencies plead for pause in raids | UK news | The Guardian

I wasn't justifying it, I was putting your point down as Afghanistan is/was so underdeveloped and military targets so weak, it didn't take alot to destroy them, compared to Iraq in 1991 for instance.

Plus it is a very poor argument to use aid agencies as a reason against the air raids, because of those raids that went on a few weeks, Afghanistan was ridded of one of the most extreme regimes in the world that had allow the country to become a mess. The money pumped into the country for humanitarian and economic development purposes has been absolutely huge. The International Community has done far more for the people of Afghanistan than the Taliban ever did.