The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[Beanz]

My thinking is quite rational, it is just that it will not fit your world view. You listed some countries there, but I don't think I compared the UK to any of those countries. I chose Iran and Iran because the UK and US in particular are going after it with sanctions. Now forgive me if I am wrong, but Israel is the only nation in the region that invades others regularly, has the bomb, and illegally steals land. Now why are we not going after Israel? It is because, like Brockton says, we are a hypocritical bunch of gits. It is glaring, it is obvious and it is outrageous and yet we are all expected to go along with it and not batter an eyelid.

See in some respects we are much worse than somewhere like Iran. We do full on ignore the UN and murder tens of thousands of people. Seemingly the Queen as head of state agreed to the bloodshed too. Did most of us agree with the war? No. Did a million protest? Yes. Did the power brokers listen? No. Iran is nothing compared to us and what we do to others. As a regime they are deplorable, but in many respects so are we and you can compare these things.

You say I am in the minority concerning the monarchy, but is that surprising considering that the press is sycophantic in its coverage of the Royals? A free and open debate on the subject has only ever really been avoided or marginalised. The only reason the monarchy toned down its powers was because it was out otherwise. We should have done what the French did because on a moral level inherited power and status is an abhorrent concept.

It is what the North Koreans of this world are into and would we say that is any good? Just because the British Royal family presents itself with a cuddly image doesn't mean we should be fooled. If they should have private education then we all should. If they have butlers then we all should. Otherwise, they are just abusing their positions of inherited status. If you represent the people then you should be one of the people.

It doesn't matter how much she or I works. I worked my way for everything I have, I had no silver spoons and I will need to always work just to make sure I don't need to jump off a cliff when poverty eats away my earnings. She doesn't need to make that struggle, a struggle most of us have to make and more and more so these days. A monarchy makes a mockery of the grit that people have to go through, the sacrifices that have to be made. Prince William and Prince Harry for instance, these gits wouldn't know the meaning of a part time vegetable store job or a paper round, of living in a tough estate, of anything that the rest of us have known and been through. There is no moral justification for them having it easier than we do and on the basis of birth alone.

I hate the Royal family and there is nothing despotic in thinking so. They are against everything I stand for. Every nation of forward thinkers eradicates their Royal family.

Miles,you are awesome. So true and spot on with people calling you irrational because your views do not fit their world view. I would argue that they're truly the ones incapable of rational thinking. We are fooled into thinking we have a "democracy" and "freedom" which is the worst part.

At least the other countries most of our population has such disdain for don't make any qualms about their position. In a country where 90p out of every £1 you earn goes to tax it's laughable that so many can smugly find fault in the practices of some of the infamous, so-called, 3rd world countries. I guess it makes us feel better.

Wars that we jump into to "liberate" the people and save their "human rights"? Yet if we were such benevolent souls, wouldn't we save millions more people by providing simple food and water to people that are starving in the world? Would be a heck of a lot cheaper than war, no? Less deaths too? Ah but I guess that's not as profitable as war.

Oh, but when another country wants to save their people from certain genocide (the Cyprus problem), it is branded an "illegal invasion"? Get the fuck outta here..It offends me every time I see my family's home, North Cyprus, not recognised as a country basically telling me that my mother should not exist right now and that Turkey should have let her be killed as part of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on in Cyprus at the time. That was apparently perfectly "legal".

There really isn't enough space to list the U.K and U.S. hypocrisy and I commend those of you who have managed to put aside their allegiances to swallow the bitter but quite obvious truth.

This is all very nice and la dee dah but bears no resemblance to reality. You can not so easily dismiss the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people and the countless lives saved by actions taken in places like Iraq, and the Balkans, by then trying to infer that these Wars are somehow profitable. Ethnic cleansing is reprehensible and should be challenged anywhere. And yes there really is enough space to list the U.K and U.S hypocrisy right here in this thread, so why not delineate it and enlighten us, or is it just a fuzzy feeling that you share with Miles? Propoganda and poppycock. That is the sum of much of Miles so called facts.

You do not have to be a Royalist to see the absurdity of Miles bemoaning Harry and William being gits because of not having done a part time vegetable store job or paper round. Never mind the fact that despite losing their mother in horrific circumstances* the Duke is a RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and Harry is a serving member of the armed forces recently undergoing active service in Afghanistan. While Miles teaches for a few hours a week. So who is making the bigger sacrifice?

Should Britain and the U.S have averted their eyes after Saddams Stalinist secret police lead away and killed 200 000 people? Should we have ignored him killing 5000 Kurds in one chemical attack? Or should we have just listened to the misinformed marchers and said sorry people of Iraq and Kuwait but we dare not intervene for fear of being seen as profiteers? Or does that not fit your world view ?


* Do not for one minute think that I am in any way part of the weird Diana cult that seemed to spring up after her death but the fact remains the accident of the Princes birth would have made there loss even more strange and bewildering for them, happening as it did under a huge spotlight.

[Kirkland Laing]

My thinking is quite rational, it is just that it will not fit your world view. You listed some countries there, but I don't think I compared the UK to any of those countries. I chose Iran and Iran because the UK and US in particular are going after it with sanctions. Now forgive me if I am wrong, but Israel is the only nation in the region that invades others regularly, has the bomb, and illegally steals land. Now why are we not going after Israel? It is because, like Brockton says, we are a hypocritical bunch of gits. It is glaring, it is obvious and it is outrageous and yet we are all expected to go along with it and not batter an eyelid.

See in some respects we are much worse than somewhere like Iran. We do full on ignore the UN and murder tens of thousands of people. Seemingly the Queen as head of state agreed to the bloodshed too. Did most of us agree with the war? No. Did a million protest? Yes. Did the power brokers listen? No. Iran is nothing compared to us and what we do to others. As a regime they are deplorable, but in many respects so are we and you can compare these things.

You say I am in the minority concerning the monarchy, but is that surprising considering that the press is sycophantic in its coverage of the Royals? A free and open debate on the subject has only ever really been avoided or marginalised. The only reason the monarchy toned down its powers was because it was out otherwise. We should have done what the French did because on a moral level inherited power and status is an abhorrent concept.

It is what the North Koreans of this world are into and would we say that is any good? Just because the British Royal family presents itself with a cuddly image doesn't mean we should be fooled. If they should have private education then we all should. If they have butlers then we all should. Otherwise, they are just abusing their positions of inherited status. If you represent the people then you should be one of the people.

It doesn't matter how much she or I works. I worked my way for everything I have, I had no silver spoons and I will need to always work just to make sure I don't need to jump off a cliff when poverty eats away my earnings. She doesn't need to make that struggle, a struggle most of us have to make and more and more so these days. A monarchy makes a mockery of the grit that people have to go through, the sacrifices that have to be made. Prince William and Prince Harry for instance, these gits wouldn't know the meaning of a part time vegetable store job or a paper round, of living in a tough estate, of anything that the rest of us have known and been through. There is no moral justification for them having it easier than we do and on the basis of birth alone.

I hate the Royal family and there is nothing despotic in thinking so. They are against everything I stand for. Every nation of forward thinkers eradicates their Royal family.

Miles,you are awesome. So true and spot on with people calling you irrational because your views do not fit their world view. I would argue that they're truly the ones incapable of rational thinking. We are fooled into thinking we have a "democracy" and "freedom" which is the worst part.

At least the other countries most of our population has such disdain for don't make any qualms about their position. In a country where 90p out of every £1 you earn goes to tax it's laughable that so many can smugly find fault in the practices of some of the infamous, so-called, 3rd world countries. I guess it makes us feel better.

Wars that we jump into to "liberate" the people and save their "human rights"? Yet if we were such benevolent souls, wouldn't we save millions more people by providing simple food and water to people that are starving in the world? Would be a heck of a lot cheaper than war, no? Less deaths too? Ah but I guess that's not as profitable as war.

Oh, but when another country wants to save their people from certain genocide (the Cyprus problem), it is branded an "illegal invasion"? Get the fuck outta here..It offends me every time I see my family's home, North Cyprus, not recognised as a country basically telling me that my mother should not exist right now and that Turkey should have let her be killed as part of the "ethnic cleansing" that was going on in Cyprus at the time. That was apparently perfectly "legal".

There really isn't enough space to list the U.K and U.S. hypocrisy and I commend those of you who have managed to put aside their allegiances to swallow the bitter but quite obvious truth.

This is all very nice and la dee dah but bears no resemblance to reality. You can not so easily dismiss the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people and the countless lives saved by actions taken in places like Iraq, and the Balkans, by then trying to infer that these Wars are somehow profitable. Ethnic cleansing is reprehensible and should be challenged anywhere. And yes there really is enough space to list the U.K and U.S hypocrisy right here in this thread, so why not delineate it and enlighten us, or is it just a fuzzy feeling that you share with Miles? Propoganda and poppycock. That is the sum of much of Miles so called facts.

You do not have to be a Royalist to see the absurdity of Miles bemoaning Harry and William being gits because of not having done a part time vegetable store job or paper round. Never mind the fact that despite losing their mother in horrific circumstances* the Duke is a RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and Harry is a serving member of the armed forces recently undergoing active service in Afghanistan. While Miles teaches for a few hours a week. So who is making the bigger sacrifice?

Should Britain and the U.S have averted their eyes after Saddams Stalinist secret police lead away and killed 200 000 people? Should we have ignored him killing 5000 Kurds in one chemical attack? Or should we have just listened to the misinformed marchers and said sorry people of Iraq and Kuwait but we dare not intervene for fear of being seen as profiteers? Or does that not fit your world view ?


* Do not for one minute think that I am in any way part of the weird Diana cult that seemed to spring up after her death but the fact remains the accident of the Princes birth would have made there loss even more strange and bewildering for them, happening as it did under a huge spotlight.

Britain and America supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds and supported him right up until he upset another dictator client of ours. Over the next decade we the n proceeded to enforce crippling sanctions on Iraq which killed a million people, most of them children. We then invaded Iraq and killed a hundred thousand more people. And we wondered why the Arab world were disgusted with us and called us genocidal mass murderers after we'd done all this humanitarian intervention for them.

[El Kabong]

Britain and America supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds and supported him right up until he upset another dictator client of ours. Over the next decade we the n proceeded to enforce crippling sanctions on Iraq which killed a million people, most of them children. We then invaded Iraq and killed a hundred thousand more people. And we wondered why the Arab world were disgusted with us and called us genocidal mass murderers after we'd done all this humanitarian intervention for them.

.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.


I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through

[Kirkland Laing]

Britain and America supported Saddam when he gassed the Kurds and supported him right up until he upset another dictator client of ours. Over the next decade we the n proceeded to enforce crippling sanctions on Iraq which killed a million people, most of them children. We then invaded Iraq and killed a hundred thousand more people. And we wondered why the Arab world were disgusted with us and called us genocidal mass murderers after we'd done all this humanitarian intervention for them.

.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.


I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through

I think people in the Middle East are generally pissed off with America because America has propped up basically every dictator and tyrant in the region for decades. If you were living under Saudi rule for instance you may be so angry with America that you fly a plane into a building.

[El Kabong]

I think people in the Middle East are generally pissed off with America because America has propped up basically every dictator and tyrant in the region for decades. If you were living under Saudi rule for instance you may be so angry with America that you fly a plane into a building.

They're still pissed off about the fucking crusades there too Kirkland. It's not America's fault that people we are friends with abuse their power, I mean what's the solution to that problem? We throw out people who will at least not bomb us because they abuse their power and what are we left with? A population where 100% of the people hate America.....don't be simple Kirkland.


Also if the Middle Easterners REALLY wanted to be pissed off at a country they should be pissed off at England....you guys have been fucking about in that part of the world for waaaaay longer than the US has, infact you guys INVITED the United States to help put the Shah back in power in Iran....thanks England, that worked well.....twats

[brocktonblockbust]

Lyle stop blındly defendıng America -- we know you are American

[Kirkland Laing]

I think people in the Middle East are generally pissed off with America because America has propped up basically every dictator and tyrant in the region for decades. If you were living under Saudi rule for instance you may be so angry with America that you fly a plane into a building.

They're still pissed off about the fucking crusades there too Kirkland. It's not America's fault that people we are friends with abuse their power, I mean what's the solution to that problem? We throw out people who will at least not bomb us because they abuse their power and what are we left with? A population where 100% of the people hate America.....don't be simple Kirkland.


Also if the Middle Easterners REALLY wanted to be pissed off at a country they should be pissed off at England....you guys have been fucking about in that part of the world for waaaaay longer than the US has, infact you guys INVITED the United States to help put the Shah back in power in Iran....thanks England, that worked well.....twats

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

Middle East people are pissed off at England too. We get terrorist attacks over here as well. They're just not as pissed off with us as they are with you because in the living memory of the people who live there America is 99% responsible for hundreds of millions of them living under tyrannical regimes. And are you trying to introduce moral relativism into the argument here?

[El Kabong]

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

Middle East people are pissed off at England too. We get terrorist attacks over here as well. They're just not as pissed off with us as they are with you because in the living memory of the people who live there America is 99% responsible for hundreds of millions of them living under tyrannical regimes. And are you trying to introduce moral relativism into the argument here?

I'm pleased to see you're still unbiased as always. America can't make everyone happy, but it doesn't keep people from wanting that to be true. If we leave we're bad if we stay we're bad if we kiss their asses we're bad if we tell them to fuck off we're bad if we buy things from them we're bad if we DON'T buy things from them we're bad. The way you talk everyone in the Middle East is a slave to capitalism....which isn't the case at all. Were it not for oil (that EVERYONE buys not just the US) the Middle East would be no different than it was the days before T. E. Lawrence. I'm not going to call the people there "savages", but they aren't far off.

[TitoFan]

.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.


I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through

You know what all your scenarios have in common, Lyle?
They all involve U.S. intervention.

Just maybe... if the U.S. would not intervene in other countries' issues that do not present a threat to U.S. citizens... some of this hatred would not exist. Anticipating your response, you'll surely mention problem areas like North Korea, for example. But surely you are aware that North Korea right now is not viewed favorably by the global community, because it IS perceived as a threat to other countries.

The trick here, one so "skillfully" practiced by George W, is to learn to separate those issues to require U.S. intervention, from those that don't. Historically, the U.S. intervenes way too much. Cut that to a minimum, and the hatred will naturally decrease.

[brocktonblockbust]

The problem is that the us govt and its people see a fucking enemy aorrund every fucking corner.

[Gandalf]

The problem is that the us govt and its people see a fucking enemy aorrund every fucking corner.

On every corner and now in every home. It is essentially a fascist state. Barring a moustache and a uniform, an American leader is essentially no different to Nazi Germany according to Nuremburg and UN principles and now they really do spy on all you say.

Global dictatorship is now aplace.

[brocktonblockbust]

the problem is that the us govt and its people see a fucking enemy aorrund every fucking corner.

on every corner and now in every home. It is essentially a fascist state. Barring a moustache and a uniform, an american leader is essentially no different to nazi germany according to nuremburg and un principles and now they really do spy on all you say.

Global dictatorship is now aplace.

this