London brazilian murder odd information...

[Induane]

First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.

Actually it is a good point just not in the sense of cost.  The US realizes that its ifastructure is fossile fuel dependant.  Without Oil the America as we know it does not exist.  Changing to alternative fuel sources is a slower and costly job for a country of our size.  As a result our transistion will be much slower.  I think the US was smart enough to realize how much oil is in that region, and didn\'t want some of the worlds richest oil fields left in the hands of a sadistic evil leader who is completely anti-US.  Thus he wanted to make sure that during our transitional times we would not have to have any reliance on that region of the world since any puppet government we install will obviously support US interests.  We won\'t allow otherwise of course.

It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.

Your best point in quite some time Xordan and quite on track.  I agree that news is biased because all people have inherit biases that they can\'t get around.  No one person can be completely impartial.

(Remember that the UK had the most powerful navy and army in the world at this time. Nothing could stand in our way if we made an effort.).... and that\'s a very short history.

There is more too it than that - at that time it was a long and tough journey just to cross the ocean - even for GBs navy.  Upon arrival they were often tired, and malnourished.  The US people fought differently too.  They weren\'t lining up on a battlefield using \"Gentlemans Tatics\" They knew they couldn\'t win that way.  So they did raids, small things very efficient, as one brittish soldier claimed during a retreat - it seemed even the women and children were all armed.  There was little chance of escape.  We won becaue it was a costly war and because we were using tatics that were considered barbaric at the time.  Much like guirella tatics of insurgents in iraq today.  That kind of war is tough to win, because you can be number1 in firepower, and still lose.  THe US leaned that in Korea.

[Uyaem]

Originally posted by Induane

First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.

Actually it is a good point just not in the sense of cost.

Yes, it is, because it\'s not the same entity who pays the price.
Who paid the war? The state = the people.
Who would have had to buy the oil? The oil refining companies = the \'oil lobby\'.
Who gets the oil for free now? ....


EDIT: Anyway, the discussion is rather drifting away from the thread title
To stay on topic: Regardless of the situation, you cannot, must not shoot on sheer suspicion. You have to know for a fact. I have no idea what the British law says about it, and I don\'t care, this is not about legality, this is about morale - no law is above morale.
There was just one incident now, which is surprisingly few given that the whole city is (justly) on edge. But just let this become a weekly incident and let the shooter get away with it, then the baby gets a name - martial law.

[Valbrandr]

First: This is not a clever point of view. You do know it would have cost the US much less just to buy all the oil off Iraq than to invade? If it was for oil then they\'ve made a huge loss.

I am not saying that it is the only reason but I dont think we would be there if they had no oil.  

It\'s obvious we all have different points of view. It\'s also very obvious that we\'ve only got the media to rely on, who each tell a slightly different story to bend the viewer/reader/listeners way of thinking. With all these different bits of info it\'s very hard for us to compare our views, because we are all talking about different situations. Imo, what I am saying is perfectly logical and 100% correct. To another person, and another situation what they are saying is also perfectly logical and 100% correct. We should all try to read lots of different news sources and take them all into consideration before giving a point of view. Each news source is written in a way which tries to convince you it is true, so by reading different ones, you see the conflicts and piece together something more factual. I never quote any news sites because I know that the report is biased and not completely accurate.

We do agree on this however.  I dont want this to be taken to a personnal level.  We disagree... and there is nothing wrong with that because by disagreeing we are atleast bringing out two sides of the arguement.  

And even... I learnt a lot of bad things about the two WW about Americans...

Americans said they have to help France because of the fact France helped them for their revolution...

but learnt a lot of american weapons has been sold to the Germans during the two WW... I learnt American wait a lot before helping, I learnt Allies were able to come before. I learnt allies dropped bombs on Dresdes killing poor civilian with no reasons, I learnt America drops the nuclear bombs for testing purpose, I learnt the Marshall plan was a way to find new exportation trades, I learnt the Marshall plan forced french to accept american product especially american movies to show the american way of life to the people of France...

I know that America find its \"boys\" tanks to the poverty of a big part of its nation, I know black people were sent the first to the front line (I know that algerian people and others french colonization people were sent the first to the front line too ), I know the one who save France were poor people sent to a real Slaughterhouse to get killed (poor people are only name written on the paper) and to help rich people to trade once the peace came back.

Sometimes Im wondering if Im the only one who think his ideas are only utopia because the real world is awful...

There is no need to compare the french and the american because Im sure France didnt help USA with no reason in the 18th century. Unfortunately, my teachers never find it was interesting to teach what\'s happened during the american revolution so I still dunno what really happened there... its only something like Americans who wanted to become independant toward UK in my mind... nopthing more...  

Before this topic dies I would like to address a few of your statements fken.  First I dont know anything about America selling weapons to Germany During the second World War.  Second, about waiting to get involved.. yes we did wait in the first World War but it was because of Americas policies which had nothing to do with Europes problems as they viewed it.  We were under the Monroe Doctrine which set up realms of influence in a way.  The USA did not want Europe influencing South America as it was so the Monroe Doctrine was created.  So when WWI came about America stayed out until the Zimmerman Note/Telegram.  Which was a message from a German general, if I am not mistaken, that was intercepted by the US.. telling Mexico to invade us.  Thats when the US got involved.. and yes the USA was selling weapons to both sides during that war.  

World War II could have been avioded.  No America did not jump right in.  But what really pushed America out of the situation was the Treaty of Versailles.  America was apart of the talks.. our president Woodrow Wilson came up with a 14 points program which would not have punished Germany as much and would help rebuild them.  But it was rejected.  Wilson ended up leaving the situation to France and the UK.  France wanted Germany to pay dearly and that is what happened.  This is why the WWII even happened.  Germany fell into a great depression after this which decimated the country.  People looking for someone to make them strong again... and eventually they get Hitler not that they knew what he would do.  

This led to Germany invading Poland in which I think was 1939 and WWII really taking shape.  Yes America did not get involved until Dec 7th 1941.. Pearl Harbor.  But it was because of the Monroe Doctrine again.. isolation.  And the American people did not want to do it not to mention Franklin Roosevelt, possibly Americas greatest president ever, promised not to send our boys to war.  We were just coming out of the great depression btw.  Its not like America was not going to help or allowed Germany to use their Blitzkrieg tactics against France.  But it was all of our failures that it came to this in the first place.  

If you are wondering if what I say is true just look it up... I am a student of History.. nearly finished.  Finally get to use it .

[fken]

First Xordan just imagine that USA government never react for the complete USA nation...

And in fact it\'s not only the problem of USA: it\'s the same problem with a lot of others government...

I mean that there is no problem to wage a war bought by every US citizens and then earn money thanks to your oil raffinery and other oil companies. Then there are a lot of others goals like supremacy, be proud to do what dady wasnt able to do (a bad issue of the Koweit war... do you remember?) or building companies interest...

Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea? I think they have more problem with their government and Im sure they represent a bigger threat than a country who suffered the american embargo for so long...

----------------------

Xordan dont say french president is dumb, it would be really dumb to say that.

Why?

Because the fact you wasnt able to remember his name (it\'s president Chirac) show us you dont even try to get information about him before expressing yourself and then because (and I must admit it even if I dont like him...) he is an intelligent guy. Believe in me.

If you wanna know the name of a real mad guy who could become the next french president remember this name: Sarkozy. This guy is a real threat in my mind. But you might understand that in the future...

[Induane]

Had Iraq not had any mojor natural resource then it would seem likely that we wouldn\'t have gone there in the first place.  There are plenty of countries who were probabily worse than iraq, especially in africa, but the US isn\'t going to enter a war there because they have no intereststs there as we already own all their diamond mines.  

The point is that terrorism has already succeeded in reshaping the face of the world, and in changing the foreign policies of the US and Social policies of the US - and actually of the world.  Every time a country gets so scared they enact laws to keep themselves safe, each time taking a few more freedoms away from the people, and thus moving more and more towards a facist state.  The problem with reacting the way we have to terrorism is that its lead us to mimick some of their behaviors in the name of safety - the cops shooting this guy is just an example that made headlines.  Probablly there are many more we\'ll never hear about.  

Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea? I think they have more problem with their government and Im sure they represent a bigger threat than a country who suffered the american embargo for so long...

1.) They have no oil, and their only big industry is submarine ballests.  So we\'re not that interested.

2.) The US needs china in an economic way, so we have to be careful about what we do on their border.  While we as a country aren\'t afraid of them militarily, we do fear what could happen if we lose them as a trading partner.

SO in short terrorism is winning because of countries like the US.  We slowly become them, or less of the democracy we love, every time we attack them.  Our country has fallen into a foreign policy that is condusive to terrorist recruits, because many people see our involvement in places world wide as attacks on cultures and contries who don\'t want us there.  Our foreign policy went beyone \"premptive strike\" it was more a \"preventative strike\"  It said to Iraq - we think maybe sometime in the future you COULD become a problem so we\'\'ll invade you on that suspicion.  Oh and becuase we like Israel and you\'re kinda close to that.  Iraq wasn\'t a direct threat to the US as a soverign nation.  

And partway through the war in Iraq, the Bush administration changed the focus from weapons of mass destruction to \"Operation Iraqis freedom\"  How nice.  Sorry about the dead people.  Also he redefined what WMD\'s were, going from a nuclear focus, to include chemical and biological weapons.  A broad defination that still didn\'t help us as we found nothing.  

I say we stand up to terrorism by not losing our resolv to do what is RIGHT and MORAL (loaded words I know).  If we can take the time to look at the underlying problems that lead to terrorism like hatred and violence, perhaps we could better fight it if we understood it.  To the US, terrorists get no Geneva Convention rights, and according to the convention they shouldn\'t.  But I hold the US to a higher moral standard than that - and I believe that if we are going to be critical of peoples treatments, then we should warrant them rights of the Geneva convention also - thus putting ourselves on the moral high ground.  

[Xordan]

Originally posted by fken
Because the fact you wasnt able to remember his name (it\'s president Chirac) show us you dont even try to get information about him before expressing yourself and then because (and I must admit it even if I dont like him...) he is an intelligent guy. Believe in me.

I didn\'t say I couldn\'t remember it. I said I couldn\'t spell it.
And yes he is dumb, unless he\'s trying to start a war between France and the UK for some strange reason, because that\'s the way he\'s heading. Insulting the UK constantly isn\'t the path to good relations.

Isn\'t Sarkozy that right-wing guy? I\'d be happy if France was pulled a bit more towards the center instead of being hard left.  :rolleyes:

I am not saying that it is the only reason but I dont think we would be there if they had no oil.

No, even if there wasn\'t any oil, Iraq would have been the target. George Bush Senior still had a bone to pick with Saddam. This gave him the opportunity to finish what he stated in the gulf war. I see now your point about oil, but I do not think you can give that as the only single reason for the war. Other private contractors gained massive amount of money from this. There were many things which contributed, and not one thing which would have singly effected the target.

Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea?

The very second the US lands a troop on north korea the US will have a nuke dropped on it and then we\'ll have a nuclear war. That\'s why.

To stay on topic: Regardless of the situation, you cannot, must not shoot on sheer suspicion. You have to know for a fact. I have no idea what the British law says about it, and I don\'t care, this is not about legality, this is about morale - no law is above morale.

So if that guy would have been carrying a bomb, you would have rather it go off and kill lots of people?

There is more too it than that - at that time it was a long and tough journey just to cross the ocean - even for GBs navy. Upon arrival they were often tired, and malnourished.

And that\'s exactly one of the reasons why the whole thing started and ended. Why should America say taxes to a country which is so far away and hard to get to? And UK didn\'t bother sending enough troops to take America back because they didn\'t see the point in using the resources for something which is too far away and hard to get to which didn\'t give back enough to make up for that resource loss.

The point is that terrorism has already succeeded in reshaping the face of the world, and in changing the foreign policies of the US and Social policies of the US - and actually of the world.

Gotta agree with that.

While we as a country aren\'t afraid of them militarily, we do fear what could happen if we lose them as a trading partner.

Please remember that China could destroy the whole US in a matter of hours. Every country with nuclear weapons capibility is a threat. And yeah, China\'s economy is massive and growing fast. It will overtake the US in the next decade, so the US wants to keep trade links strong.

[Induane]

No, even if there wasn\'t any oil, Iraq would have been the target. George Bush Senior still had a bone to pick with Saddam. This gave him the opportunity to finish what he stated in the gulf war. I see now your point about oil, but I do not think you can give that as the only single reason for the war. Other private contractors gained massive amount of money from this. There were many things which contributed, and not one thing which would have singly effected the target.

Yep - its just another reason along with many more that were the real reasons we went.  

The real reasons were obviously facads from the start.  Only people brought up to be mindless sheep believed it (unfortunately this is a good deal of the population of the US)

Please remember that China could destroy the whole US in a matter of hours. Every country with nuclear weapons capibility is a threat. And yeah, China\'s economy is massive and growing fast. It will overtake the US in the next decade, so the US wants to keep trade links strong.

Yep, but I think that it would take a desperate China to start something that would mean their own total destruction as well.  I (hope) that it would be a last resort thing, and that by  that time we either have a missile defense system, or the ability to prevent them from launching ( if we were in an offensive).  

[Xordan]

Originally posted by Induane

The real reasons were obviously facads from the start.  Only people brought up to be mindless sheep believed it (unfortunately this is a good deal of the population of the US)

I wouldn\'t say that. I can see perfectly good reasons for them going in to Iraq. I still don\'t discount the possibility that there are WMD in Iraq, as it\'s almost impossible to find something buried in a hole in a country of that size. I just don\'t discount that there are reasons which weren\'t given for it as well. I also think that if France hadn\'t have veto\'d like they veto everything which doesn\'t benifit them, and the rest of the UN agreed to help go into Iraq then the situation would be much better than it is now. That decision proved the UN useless, caused a split in global relations, and furthered a split in the EU relations. A big win for terrorists. If the UK had not stuck to the US (something I\'m very thankful that Tony Blair did. It was a great decision.) Then the US would be split diplomatically from the EU, something which terrorists want. The more we divide ourselves, the more we are allowing them to change the way we live.

Yep, but I think that it would take a desperate China to start something that would mean their own total destruction as well.  I (hope) that it would be a last resort thing, and that by  that time we either have a missile defense system, or the ability to prevent them from launching ( if we were in an offensive).  

If China launched everything they had, no missle defensive system could save you. Any military action against China would cause this to happen, because the situation would be desperate. And yes, something like that would kill everything on Earth.

[Induane]

I wouldn\'t say that. I can see perfectly good reasons for them going in to Iraq. I still don\'t discount the possibility that there are WMD in Iraq, as it\'s almost impossible to find something buried in a hole in a country of that size. I just don\'t discount that there are reasons which weren\'t given for it as well. I also think that if France hadn\'t have veto\'d like they veto everything which doesn\'t benifit them, and the rest of the UN agreed to help go into Iraq then the situation would be much better than it is now. That decision proved the UN useless, caused a split in global relations, and furthered a split in the EU relations. A big win for terrorists. If the UK had not stuck to the US (something I\'m very thankful that Tony Blair did. It was a great decision.) Then the US would be split diplomatically from the EU, something which terrorists want. The more we divide ourselves, the more we are allowing them to change the way we live.

I was just saying that the origional reason for going in isn\'t valid - \"We see a growing threat to our nation in the nation of Iraq! I saw we act now to protect ourselves rather than wait for more innocent American lives to be lost.\"  Sorry bush but I consider our troops to be innocent (at least most of them, there are always bad apples).  I also agree that France abuses veto power in a way that paralyzes the UN, but it is the fault also of the UN\'s structure.  A better idea would be to limit the number of veto\'s in any given say 4 year period to just one veto per country - that would force a more fair vote, and the veto would be saved for extreme situations.  You are also right that dividing us is what the terrorists want, but the issue is polarized by politcs, and disagreements on how to solve the problem.  A United front is more important, but only if its the right way of going about things.  I was completely against going into Iraq from the beginning, but now that we\'re there I say we\'d better win, so I want them to conduct the war on terror in a way that will actually have a chance of success.   Its something we need to be able to finish since we started it.

If China launched everything they had, no missle defensive system could save you. Any military action against China would cause this to happen, because the situation would be desperate. And yes, something like that would kill everything on Earth.

I pray that day doesn\'t befall us all.

...but it probabily wouldn\'t killall bacteria and stuff.  Some thrive on radiation.  It would just set back evolution by about a trillion years, giving rise to a new earth.  Perhaps its supposed to happen anyways - a natural progression.... lol now I\'m really getting \"out there\"

[lanser]

Having read through this thread I find it highly amusing that we (british police) are being slammed for accidently shooting an innocent man, considering the fact that except in special circumstances the Police are NOT armed with anything other than a nightstick.
There (IIRC) are more shootings in Washington DC in a month than in the whole of the UK in a year and you can\'t tell me that they are all justified.
And if the gentleman in question had been carrying a bomb we would all be asking why the police didn\'t do something.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs4/firearms_stats.pdf
The statistics for 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued was 16,657. The number of times a conventional firearm was discharged by police was 8 which covered 4 incidents. A baton round was discharged on 15 occasions and a Taser was fired on 13 occasions as less lethal alternatives to conventional firearms.
Armed response vehicles were deployed on 13,218 occasions and there were 6,096 authorised firearms officers in England and Wales

Good job we\'re not excessively gung ho
anyway just my tuppence worth.

[Xordan]

Originally posted by Induane

I was just saying that the origional reason for going in isn\'t valid - \"We see a growing threat to our nation in the nation of Iraq! I saw we act now to protect ourselves rather than wait for more innocent American lives to be lost.\"

lol, yeah that would have been a good reason if they\'d given other reasons as well. North Korea posed and poses a far greater threat than Iraq but it was ignored pretty much, so you can\'t give \'Iraq is a threat, therefore we must smash\' as a reason

I agree that the stucture of the UN is flawed. 1 veto per year per major country is enough imo. It actually makes the veto worth something.

[Valbrandr]

   Quote:Otherwise, tell me why USA hasnt wage a war to Korea?

The very second the US lands a troop on north korea the US will have a nuke dropped on it and then we\'ll have a nuclear war. That\'s why.

I am pretty sure he meant before we went into Iraq.  We did not know they had any nukes at that point.  Kim Jong Il came out after we went into Iraq and said he had nukes because he knew the USA could not do anything because their hands were full with Iraq.  And btw, North Korea only has the delivery capability to hit Hawaii.. and there is a possibility of the west coast but that is doubtful.  We think that there is a good chance that they can hit Hawaii.

Before we knew they had nukes.. why not go in there?  Because they dont have anything.  Why dont we help the poor African nations?  Because very few have any resources like Diamonds and oil mostly in Nigeria.  We do things that benefit us.. not for the good of the world.  Nations normally act selfish.  

And yes the UN is flawed.. but what hurts it the most is that the most powerful nation (US) in the world feels as if it is exempt from international law.  If we dont play by the rules who else will?

[fken]

@Xordan: Everything you said about french policy were mistakes, wrong ideas and odd things...

First, President Chirac is a right president not a left one: if you wanna something more right than UMP you will just find Jean Marie Lepen an extremist who think muslim must be send back to the frontiers with every \"foreigner\". This guy think that France must let the euro down and come back to the franc. He said in his presidential ad:
\"Je suis economiquement de droite et socialement de gauche...\"

-> I am economicaly form right and socially left...

And when you know right is (almost) the side of the economy and left the side of the social... you understand this guy had no campaign...

This kind of guys are dangerous extremly dangerous and dont worry if someone if stupid enough to wage a war against UK and kill Europa he would be the good one...

-------------

Our actual government is selling every public enterprise, changing the fees in favour of the richest and increasing the poverty of the poorest people... I think it\'s a real right policy...

-------------

N Sarkozy is a real mad guy. A real threat.
First he is young and proud -> he is able to change France tranquility by waging wars...
Then everything he did were mistakes. When he was a \"minister of police\" (ministre de l\'int?rieur), he simply erased some police station in hot place for economical purposes... but thanks to him, policemen were in the city (you were able to see policemen every 30 meters in Metz once... I swear!). Of course the policemen\'s mistakes (bavures polici?res) increased dangerously. The number of  judgement toward policemen has increased dangerously... aso...
When Sarkozy was a minister of trade (ministre de l\'?conomie et des finances), he did his ads to get the job of the president of the UMP (taking the place of Chirac).
Nicolas Sarkozy swore publicaly he wont sell public enterprise like EDF and GDF... When he was a elected president of the UMP he organized a party of 6M?... (just one night).
Nicolas Sarkozy is everytime in front of the camera: a child is killed in a hot street and he come to give to the family all his sympathy... off course policestations has been closed in this kind of street...

And last time I saw him, he said there could never be an act like the murder of the brazilian in France because french policemen are allowed to shot only in self defense purpose... But, in France a lot of people died because of mistakes from policemen. And if I\'m well remembering, Sarkozy were here to give his opinion... But he certainly forgot that when he spoke about english policemen shooting...

And never forgot french politics reproached some reactions of Sarkozy publicaly (especially people from his own party) saying they were wondering why Sarkozy want to destruct his own party...

Sarkozy is what I call a opportunist (i dunno if the word is the same in english. Ive no english dictionary close to me... the french word is \"opportuniste\".

@Induane: I think like you about terrorism subject. But I dont think the France abuse of his UN veto... I think the only goal was to show to the world that USA doesnt care about the rest of the countries of the world... It was shown by Bush and now USA will have to pay for that... only because of the pride of their president... it\'s a shame.

And moreover, I think sometimes terrorist attack help government to react like they want to react (data retentions, immunity of the government or of the politics or of the policemen (now you can kill someone just by saying you thought he had bomb on him and tried to runaway...). Sometimes I even am wondering if Ben Laden really exists...

NB: USA have enough of bombs to destruct the entire world 40 times minimum... I dont know if China is the only threat with its bombs...

[Xordan]

fken: My mistake then. My French politics knowledge isn\'t good. Doesn\'t make me non-hate Chirac any more though. Imo he\'s a right jackass

And I think: US, UK, France, China, Russia all have enough to blow up the world several times over. Altogether I think the stockpile is ~150,000 nukes.

[Induane]

But I dont think the France abuse of his UN veto... I think the only goal was to show to the world that USA doesnt care about the rest of the countries of the world... It was shown by Bush and now USA will have to pay for that...

Well thats not entirely accurate.  When Colin Powell was doing negotiations France promised to back the US if they decided to take military action. Then when they didn\'t it was a stab in the back. This isn\'t propeganda, its a commonly known fact and France made no attempt to hide it at all.  All they said publically was that they changed their minds at the last minute.

only because of the pride of their president... it\'s a shame.

Not just pride, but definately a part of it I think.  I\'m sure he probabily just wasn\'t smrart enough to figure out that he was being manipulated by his cabinet.  I don\'t think he personally is a liar, I just think he wasn\'t smart enough to realize he was being puppeted.  This isn\'t really uncommon, so the only thing I can blame him for is pride like you said and his sense of revenge.