The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[El Kabong]

Al, the United States is NOT a Democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. In the Pledge of Allegiance you don't say "To the Democracy for which it stands" you say "To the Republic for which it stands".


miles Socialism doesn't work....never has, never will

[brocktonblockbust]

I am a strıct constıtutıonalıst. That makes me a conservative. Ron Paul was best of the lot. Romney wants to attack Iran at a moment's notice.

[brocktonblockbust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcuw1nzxQ7Y

[Gandalf]

Socialism is working all around the world Lyle. I haven't the foggiest what you mean by that. Socialism will always be a relevant part of an effective society. And society is what a country is, only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't.

[VictorCharlie]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

[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.

[Gandalf]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

[Gandalf]

So Greenbeanz finally responds to Althugz, but does so in an attack on my 'facts'. I don't know which facts are in question here as I thought it was a rather straightforward post myself. Lots of opinions for sure, but nothing that cannot be backed up in any way.

The biggest criminal in the Middle East is Israel.

The policy towards Iran is hypocritical.

The English monarchy is a sham.

I actually work very hard and have no rich Daddy to fall back on.

[VictorCharlie]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

What isn't generalized about them? You don't post facts Miles you make broad sweeping statements and portray them as facts or definitive. You argue with straw man and non sequitar fallacies. Socialism is fine if you prefer it but you can't pretend that it isn't based on coercion and a threat of violence nor that it provides choice.

[Gandalf]

I love how Miles posts generalized opinions as fact.

What is generalized about public education, health care, bus passes, fuel allowances, pensions etc? These are socialist policies and are used in countless nations.

Most economies are mixed to differing degrees and accept the validity of socialist policies. Unfortunately they are values that ideologues are trying to dismantle.

What isn't generalized about them? You don't post facts Miles you make broad sweeping statements and portray them as facts or definitive. You argue with straw man and non sequitar fallacies. Socialism is fine if you prefer it but you can't pretend that it isn't based on coercion and a threat of violence nor that it provides choice.

It is a fact that many European nations have all/some of the socialist programmes. It is a certainly a fact that the UK has them all.

Socialist policies are not necessarily based on coercion and a threat of violence. Was the NHS introduced to the UK against the will of the general public? No of course not.

I would argue that most would agree on basic necessities which should be provided by the government in order to construct a healthier society.

[VictorCharlie]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

[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

[Gandalf]

Whether a nation or several have a socialist system for a particular service does not make your statement "only socialism can motivate good social policies. Capitalism has shown it can't" factual. Of course it is coercive. If a UK citizen decided they were not going to use any NHS services would they be allowed to keep the portion of their taxes that pay into it? Absolutely not. Generally speaking you don't have to force people to go along with a good idea.

In order for proper and effective change to come about you cannot rely on the private market. The market would sooner destroy the planet in the pursuit of short term gains. Green energy has been largely stimulated by government investment and by giving breaks and incentives to the private markets. This is socialist, it brings about the greater good for all. Look at many major economies, the governments pick and choose the winners. It is largely for the greater good of the economy and certainly so in the case of developing America and Korea. Government intervention of that nature is a form of socialism.

In the case of the NHS, I don't think any rational person would argue against it and if you did then you would likely enough be able to afford your private healthcare. You should still pay into it though as you are a citizen and it is moral obligation to pay into it. Why would you object? That is a selfish way to think. Likewise, why would you object to your taxes paying for state schools. If you have enough to educate your kids privately then cool, but again it seems to be a terribly selfish motive to not want to create a more level playing field for all. Is it not patriotic to support your fellow countrymen? The selfish gene is something I don't get politically. It is anathema to me.

We all pay taxes and most of us are paying for healthcare or pensions in some way or another. Let us just eradicate taxation altogether and use the experiment to see where it takes us. Do you think that would work? You have made a living paid for by taxes, my living is partly subsidized by taxes. A million British people protested the Iraq war and still paid for it. There are good and bad forms of taxation. Health and education are such peaceful and beneficial means of taxation. We don't want to surrender all that we earn, but we see the greater good. On the whole those taxes, those subsidizers of socialism, are decent and humane. Things like homeland security, wars and military bases are just fascistic. They seem pretty coerced to me and meanwhile schools go short.

Give me good old socialism any day of the week, it isn't perfect, but neither is fascism. But freedom also means being allowed to survive a brain tumor without selling your house.

[El Kabong]

miles, the motivation produced by socialism is one that reduces productivity. Where people are rewarded for doing the bare minimum. Capitalism rewards those who work hard and strive to achieve new heights. If you looked at Socialism through the lens of Behavioral Psychology then you might understand how bad it is for humanity.