BF2S Forums Mrs Gibbons ('Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested)

Gawwad wrote:

Only in America...

Dumbass

Turquoise wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I never thought I'd say this, but honestly, I'm gonna have to support intervention in countries like Sudan.  I still disagree with the Iraq war, but when a country is in as shitty shape as Sudan, somebody's gotta clean up the place, and the natives obviously are incapable of it.

You cant pick and choose turq.  It may not be whats right, but it reality right now.

I disagree.  It's better to be selective in how you intervene rather than to enter everything or ignore everything.

In other words, I'm no longer an isolationist, but I'm also not a full-fledged interventionist.

I would argue that occupying Sudan would've made a lot more sense than occupying Iraq.  At least Iraq had a stable government.  Sudan is an absolute mess.  It's even worse off than Iraq is right now.  Forget Baghdad, Darfur is where we should be.

I have to say I agree. I am essentially an isolationist but if you are going to go down the road of intervention it is prudent to pick your fights carefully. There's nothing to be gained from stirring hornets nests ...sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  It's better to be selective in how you intervene rather than to enter everything or ignore everything.

In other words, I'm no longer an isolationist, but I'm also not a full-fledged interventionist.

I would argue that occupying Sudan would've made a lot more sense than occupying Iraq.  At least Iraq had a stable government.  Sudan is an absolute mess.  It's even worse off than Iraq is right now.  Forget Baghdad, Darfur is where we should be.

I have to say I agree. I am essentially an isolationist but if you are going to go down the road of intervention it is prudent to pick your fights carefully. There's nothing to be gained from stirring hornets nests ...sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Agreed...  but I guess I've come around to the idea that we have to intervene sometimes.  I don't really expect a country like Ireland to do it because we're so much bigger and more powerful.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that America more or less has to get involved in certain conflicts so that countries like China and Russia don't instead (like China is currently doing right now in Darfur).

Granted, most of our intervention has been far from humanitarian.

Not these days but it has in the past (WW2 obviously). I guess what gets my goat is imperialism and meddling being carried out under the banner of altruist interventionism. Ireland do send peace keeping troops all over the world but that's 'band aids on severed limbs' type stuff half the time and pretty pointless ...a bit like the UN in general. My philosophy on interventionism is that some scenarios are actually better left to work themselves out in the long run; the end result is always more stable and not usually an artificial state of 'peace' or 'democracy'. Having said that some scenarios can't be left to work themselves out as the results would be disastrous e.g. WW2.

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  It's better to be selective in how you intervene rather than to enter everything or ignore everything.

In other words, I'm no longer an isolationist, but I'm also not a full-fledged interventionist.

I would argue that occupying Sudan would've made a lot more sense than occupying Iraq.  At least Iraq had a stable government.  Sudan is an absolute mess.  It's even worse off than Iraq is right now.  Forget Baghdad, Darfur is where we should be.

I have to say I agree. I am essentially an isolationist but if you are going to go down the road of intervention it is prudent to pick your fights carefully. There's nothing to be gained from stirring hornets nests ...sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

Agreed...  but I guess I've come around to the idea that we have to intervene sometimes.  I don't really expect a country like Ireland to do it because we're so much bigger and more powerful.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that America more or less has to get involved in certain conflicts so that countries like China and Russia don't instead (like China is currently doing right now in Darfur).

Granted, most of our intervention has been far from humanitarian.

I guess im just looking at it through my own soldier's perspective.

"Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison"...Sudan bottled it.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-11-29 16:55:13)

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Not these days but it has in the past (WW2 obviously). I guess what gets my goat is imperialism and meddling being carried out under the banner of altruist interventionism. Ireland do send peace keeping troops all over the world but that's 'band aids on severed limbs' type stuff half the time and pretty pointless ...a bit like the UN in general. My philosophy on interventionism is that some scenarios are actually better left to work themselves out in the long run; the end result is always more stable and not usually an artificial state of 'peace' or 'democracy'. Having said that some scenarios can't be left to work themselves out as the results would be disastrous e.g. WW2.

I guess my viewpoint is somewhat imperialistic.  I realize that the colonial period helped create a situation where much of Africa and India became dependent on their European occupiers, but after seeing how many of these countries ended up with so-called independence, I'd say that many of them would be better off today if European nations were still running them.

India is ok (all things considered), but Pakistan and Bangladesh are a mess.  They'd be better off if Britain was still running them.  Maybe Sudan would be better off with an American/European cooperative effort running them.  They've certainly shown their inability to run themselves properly, as has the Dem. Rep. of Congo.

I know an Indian guy who actually wishes India was still under British rule!

I, however, just can't identify with that mindset. Britain ran Ireland into the ground when they were in charge. When we finally threw off their imperialistic shackles we made a great success of our nation, it took us a while but we did it and we did it ourselves. the contrast between the Republic of Ireland and present day Northern Ireland shows how dramatic our improvements have been. You did the same yourselves in the US I believe!? Would you as an American be content to live under the flag and monarchy of another people?

Well, first, this is probably going to come back to haunt me, but I seriously think that Irish culture is just more functional in the modern world than the cultures of many other nations run by the Europeans.  I think this is part of why Ireland was able to recover from the abuses it suffered.  Granted, EU money certainly helped as well, but I figure the British owed at least that much to your people after the famines they suffered in past times.

Granted, being somewhat Irish myself, I suppose I have a bias.

Second, I don't often mention this, but I probably would've been a Tory back in the Revolution days had I lived back then and been wealthy enough to even have a choice in the matter.  The Revolution was a noble idea, but the odds were against it from the get go.  Ironically, it was France that more or less allowed us to defeat the British, because they were fighting them at the same time we were.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-11-29 17:05:47)

What a fucking joke. . . . Why does the west even help these pricks?? She's their teaching their ignorant kids and they arrest her for naming a stupid teddy bear Muhammed. . . .

Fuck the Sudan! Let em' fend for their fucking selves!! She should be glad she's getting deported!! What a toilet of a country!

Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-11-29 22:24:30)

Why do you have to bring my name into this?

Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2007-11-30 00:16:11)

usmarine2005 wrote:

KILLSWITCH wrote:

"Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, has been sentenced to 15 days in prison"...Sudan bottled it.

Funny how the defenders of islam glance over this and the one I posted,.

I wouldn't defend this kind of insanity... I don't defend any religion's supposed right to enforce moral or ethical tyranny. I WOULD defend people of a certain religion who are being persecuted because of the perception or mis-perception (is that a word?) of their faith at large or the actions of a minority of that faith.

This shit with the teddy is just ridiculous, half the Muslim world is called Mohamed ffs. It's just a teddy ...she should have called the fucking thing Jesus just to really piss them off.

I wonder what they'd do if they knew i call my toilet paper mohammad?

Braddock wrote:

Not these days but it has in the past (WW2 obviously). I guess what gets my goat is imperialism and meddling being carried out under the banner of altruist interventionism. Ireland do send peace keeping troops all over the world but that's 'band aids on severed limbs' type stuff half the time and pretty pointless ...a bit like the UN in general. My philosophy on interventionism is that some scenarios are actually better left to work themselves out in the long run; the end result is always more stable and not usually an artificial state of 'peace' or 'democracy'. Having said that some scenarios can't be left to work themselves out as the results would be disastrous e.g. WW2.

er... Braddock history check.. Ireland remained neutral through out WW2 it didn't partake in the war effort officially.. though many Irish fought for the British / Canadians

m3thod wrote:

velocitychaos wrote:

I wonder what they'd do if they knew i call my toilet paper mohammad?

Seperate your head from your body.

With rocks.