Forums > Social Discussion > So, will it all be justified?
Login/Join to ParticipatemULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
As someone who deeply opposed the invasion of Iraq, I find that there is one pro-war argument in particular that is difficult to answer. It has been mentioned in the other war threads, but never properly discussed - we always seem to get sidelined by debating individual incidents, the truth about which no-one knows.
I tend to assume that the US/UK motives for engaging in this war were entirely self-serving and immoral, but for the purposes of this debate their motivations, I think, are irrelevant. The argument I always find it difficult to answer is this:
If, in five years time, the people of Iraq are significantly better off than they would have been under Saddam, will the war not have been justified?
This argument avoids questions of motivation, the existance of WMDs.. all the lies and rhetoric our glorious leaders espoused to talk us into this thing.
(should note that I consider those arguments to have been completely proved to be spurious -
even if there were WMDs we obviously had no idea whether they still existed, though of course we knew they were there in the first place because we sold them to him;
we are allied with and supporting regimes guilty of far worse atrocities;
both the CIA and the foreign service advised their respective governments that the post-war chaos in Iraq would reduce stability in the area rather than increase it;
no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida has ever been demonstrated)
Comes back to the question of whether you can do a good thing for bad reasons, I suppose. We could debate endlessly whether the Iraqi people or the world at large are actually better off for the change... but let's face it, none of us really know what we're talking about. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that in five years the Iraqi people and the world at large are going to be better off for this war (quite an assumption - it grates with me as well). Was it justified?
As someone who deeply opposed the invasion of Iraq, I find that there is one pro-war argument in particular that is difficult to answer. It has been mentioned in the other war threads, but never properly discussed - we always seem to get sidelined by debating individual incidents, the truth about which no-one knows.
I tend to assume that the US/UK motives for engaging in this war were entirely self-serving and immoral, but for the purposes of this debate their motivations, I think, are irrelevant. The argument I always find it difficult to answer is this:
If, in five years time, the people of Iraq are significantly better off than they would have been under Saddam, will the war not have been justified?
This argument avoids questions of motivation, the existance of WMDs.. all the lies and rhetoric our glorious leaders espoused to talk us into this thing.
(should note that I consider those arguments to have been completely proved to be spurious -
even if there were WMDs we obviously had no idea whether they still existed, though of course we knew they were there in the first place because we sold them to him;
we are allied with and supporting regimes guilty of far worse atrocities;
both the CIA and the foreign service advised their respective governments that the post-war chaos in Iraq would reduce stability in the area rather than increase it;
no connection between Saddam and Al Qaida has ever been demonstrated)
Comes back to the question of whether you can do a good thing for bad reasons, I suppose. We could debate endlessly whether the Iraqi people or the world at large are actually better off for the change... but let's face it, none of us really know what we're talking about. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that in five years the Iraqi people and the world at large are going to be better off for this war (quite an assumption - it grates with me as well). Was it justified?
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Ray, there's a degree to which I agree with you, you know. Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that, did you? Comparing Bush to Hitler is a dangerous game. On one level, I think it is interesting to look at the similarities, both in the attitudes espoused and (more particularly) in the reactions to this attitudes evinced by the governments of other countries. However, I think it's fairly clear to everyone that there is a world of difference between the two, and statements that compare the two are guaranteed to aggravate and annoy, and to make any sort of reasonable discussion much more difficult. So, Ray, I agree with almost all of your reply, and I reckon you've done well to be so restrained - I'm sure that if you'd made a statement that I disagreed with as much as you (I'm sure) disagree with the Bush/Hitler comparison, that I wouldn't have managed to be half as reasonable.
However, you know I'm going to have to take you up on a couple of those points. Sorry! Firstly,
- there are indeed a lot of people who find the concept of "collateral damage" very hard to stomach: if you drop bombs you are going to kill people, period. However, as you and I have debated before, the evidence is conclusive that vast numbers of Iraqi civilians were killed needlessly by the allied military. The US used FAEs, and the British used cluster bombs on civilian targets. It now looks as though the British army may face prosecution before the Hague War Crimes tribunal.
Secondly,
- this is totally wrong on many counts. The US government flouts international law so often and so flagrently that it's no longer really a surprise. Nine of the detainees are British citizens - they have British passports. Whether they were or were not part of any legal army is a different question, but as they have not been charged with anything it's kind of irrelevant. Regardless of their 'limited rights', the US is at least a nominal signatory to the convention of human rights, which the treatment of the 'detainees' at Guantanamo Bay is in direct and complete contravention of. And here's a brief rundown on the Geneva Convention:
Article 3,1...the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
[...]
(d): The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(you'll note that the military tribunals without right of appeal that have been ordained for the GB detainees contravenes this)
Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[...]
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
(which includes both foreign nationals who profess allegiance to Al Qaida, and the Afghan/Taliban resistance)
Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
(That'll be all the rest of the GB prisoners then)
Article 14:
Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.
(Woops!)
Article 18:
All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.
[...]
Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.
(Woops!)
Article 25:
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.
The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.
It goes on and on. I'll stop there, but prisoners should be able to write to their families, to have legal representation, to receive post, to lodge complaints about their treatment...
The Guantanamo Bay camp is a legal and moral disgrace. It is indefensible. The US is using loopholes to dodge its own laws (by siting the camp conveniently overseas) but cannot dodge either the Geneva Convention or the Convention on Human Rights - these it has just ignored.
Other than that, though, I agree with you Ray.
Ray, there's a degree to which I agree with you, you know. Bet you never thought you'd hear me say that, did you? Comparing Bush to Hitler is a dangerous game. On one level, I think it is interesting to look at the similarities, both in the attitudes espoused and (more particularly) in the reactions to this attitudes evinced by the governments of other countries. However, I think it's fairly clear to everyone that there is a world of difference between the two, and statements that compare the two are guaranteed to aggravate and annoy, and to make any sort of reasonable discussion much more difficult. So, Ray, I agree with almost all of your reply, and I reckon you've done well to be so restrained - I'm sure that if you'd made a statement that I disagreed with as much as you (I'm sure) disagree with the Bush/Hitler comparison, that I wouldn't have managed to be half as reasonable.
However, you know I'm going to have to take you up on a couple of those points. Sorry! Firstly,
Quote:
To me (and I know I will get called on it) colateral damage is one thing, but holding over a million people in a camp and gassing them all in select turn are two completly differnt things
- there are indeed a lot of people who find the concept of "collateral damage" very hard to stomach: if you drop bombs you are going to kill people, period. However, as you and I have debated before, the evidence is conclusive that vast numbers of Iraqi civilians were killed needlessly by the allied military. The US used FAEs, and the British used cluster bombs on civilian targets. It now looks as though the British army may face prosecution before the Hague War Crimes tribunal.
Secondly,
Quote:
If you really want to know why those men are in G-Bay just take a look at the Geniva Convention's laws of war. Bush isnt breaking the law because he has lawyers that know all the lovely loopholes and can beat the system. The men in that camp are not citizens of any country, nor are they part of any leagle army. Therefore they have very limited rights
- this is totally wrong on many counts. The US government flouts international law so often and so flagrently that it's no longer really a surprise. Nine of the detainees are British citizens - they have British passports. Whether they were or were not part of any legal army is a different question, but as they have not been charged with anything it's kind of irrelevant. Regardless of their 'limited rights', the US is at least a nominal signatory to the convention of human rights, which the treatment of the 'detainees' at Guantanamo Bay is in direct and complete contravention of. And here's a brief rundown on the Geneva Convention:
Article 3,1...the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
[...]
(d): The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(you'll note that the military tribunals without right of appeal that have been ordained for the GB detainees contravenes this)
Article 4: A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[...]
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
[...]
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
(which includes both foreign nationals who profess allegiance to Al Qaida, and the Afghan/Taliban resistance)
Article 5:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
(That'll be all the rest of the GB prisoners then)
Article 14:
Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.
(Woops!)
Article 18:
All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment.
[...]
Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.
(Woops!)
Article 25:
Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.
The foregoing provisions shall apply in particular to the dormitories of prisoners of war as regards both total surface and minimum cubic space, and the general installations, bedding and blankets.
It goes on and on. I'll stop there, but prisoners should be able to write to their families, to have legal representation, to receive post, to lodge complaints about their treatment...
The Guantanamo Bay camp is a legal and moral disgrace. It is indefensible. The US is using loopholes to dodge its own laws (by siting the camp conveniently overseas) but cannot dodge either the Geneva Convention or the Convention on Human Rights - these it has just ignored.
Other than that, though, I agree with you Ray.
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Your article 4 isn't does not cover the Al Qiada. Sorry and they weren’t spontaneous.
You also have to understand that though GB has ordered a tribunal without the possibility of appeal... it hasn't happened yet (or at least I have yet to hear about it)
I'll tell ya what, when the prisoners in G-Bay start acting like humans, they will get treated like them. You don’t throw piss at the guards and then complain about not getting treated well. (I wish I knew where I read that, I think it is in a magazine back in my room... I'll take a look for it when I go home later.)
Item 6 of Article 4 does not apply to those who are coming in from another country to aid Al Qaida. Why? Because they do not follow those of Item 2. They have to carry arms openly, they don't do this. They hide as doing some practical job, then when the opportunity appears they pull out an AK 47 and start shooting. That is against the Geneva Convention. It isn't that they don't have time; they are traveling a rather large distance to join up with the taliban/Al Qaida.
Honestly I wish I had a lawyer’s knowledge of the Geneva Convention. It would make arguing this so much easier. Like I said Bush's people know the loopholes.
Yes I agree that the prisoners should be able to get incoming and send out going mail.
They do have access to lawyers, maybe not who they choose but they do have it.
The prisoners are not being beaten, or tortured (physically or mentally). The Red Cross has been into the camp numerous times and has yet to say the prisoners are being treated poorly.
Look at the post below this for what I am replying to.
Wan Hwo Ren, the way I see things is that these people in the camp are getting treated a hell of a lot better than they should be. In my opinion, if you commit a serious crime such as murder, rape and what not, you willingly forfeit any rights you ever had. Obviously when you committed those crimes you didn't care about your victims rights, so why should anyone care about yours?
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (1074706746)
Your article 4 isn't does not cover the Al Qiada. Sorry and they weren’t spontaneous.
You also have to understand that though GB has ordered a tribunal without the possibility of appeal... it hasn't happened yet (or at least I have yet to hear about it)
I'll tell ya what, when the prisoners in G-Bay start acting like humans, they will get treated like them. You don’t throw piss at the guards and then complain about not getting treated well. (I wish I knew where I read that, I think it is in a magazine back in my room... I'll take a look for it when I go home later.)
Item 6 of Article 4 does not apply to those who are coming in from another country to aid Al Qaida. Why? Because they do not follow those of Item 2. They have to carry arms openly, they don't do this. They hide as doing some practical job, then when the opportunity appears they pull out an AK 47 and start shooting. That is against the Geneva Convention. It isn't that they don't have time; they are traveling a rather large distance to join up with the taliban/Al Qaida.
Honestly I wish I had a lawyer’s knowledge of the Geneva Convention. It would make arguing this so much easier. Like I said Bush's people know the loopholes.
Yes I agree that the prisoners should be able to get incoming and send out going mail.
They do have access to lawyers, maybe not who they choose but they do have it.
The prisoners are not being beaten, or tortured (physically or mentally). The Red Cross has been into the camp numerous times and has yet to say the prisoners are being treated poorly.
Look at the post below this for what I am replying to.
Wan Hwo Ren, the way I see things is that these people in the camp are getting treated a hell of a lot better than they should be. In my opinion, if you commit a serious crime such as murder, rape and what not, you willingly forfeit any rights you ever had. Obviously when you committed those crimes you didn't care about your victims rights, so why should anyone care about yours?
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (1074706746)
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
Posted:
Do you consider this to be okay Raymond?
Quote:
Bush isnt breaking the law because he has lawyers that know all the lovely loopholes and can beat the system.
Do you consider this to be okay Raymond?
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Ray - I included most of article four because different sections of it apply to the GB detainees in different ways. I agree my layout was poor, but I didn't mean that only part (6) was relevant. In any case, the later article that includes all those whose fate has yet to be decided clinches it.
So it does apply. And whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" - surely a central tenet of the the rule of law, and of human rights, and of justice? In Guantanamo Bay this has not only been ignored, it has been made a mockery of.
Since posting last I have found out more about the camp, and done some more research into the relevance and application of both the convention of human rights and the geneva convention. For now, trust me if you can, the camp flouts both, but I'll post the proof when I can write it up a bit better - I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment. It appears we agree though Ray - you haven't answered most of the points (suspension of civil rights, living space to be equal with that of captors, etc) and you have even agreed with one of them - they should be able to send and receive mail. Even if only one of these articles was being ignored, it would put the whole process in contravention of the very convention you cited in its defence, which should be enough.
Ray, I'm sorry that so much of this is about the US government. I feel as though I'm aiming my bile in the wrong direction - I intend to start a new thread soon about the process of culpability for my own country. Please accept that no government is perfect, and that a whole lot of what the US is doing at the moment is WRONG. You said:
But can you not see how terrible this attitude is? If you are proven guilty, if you are tried by your peers in a fair and impartial court, then maybe (though I don't agree) you could be right. But the people in the camp HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED. They have not even been charged, in most cases. It is so, so wrong. Do you know, some of the people who were detained, and have now been set free, were held for up to two years without charge, and have been offered no sort of reparation for their wrongful imprisonment whatsoever. It is WRONG.
Ray - I included most of article four because different sections of it apply to the GB detainees in different ways. I agree my layout was poor, but I didn't mean that only part (6) was relevant. In any case, the later article that includes all those whose fate has yet to be decided clinches it.
So it does apply. And whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" - surely a central tenet of the the rule of law, and of human rights, and of justice? In Guantanamo Bay this has not only been ignored, it has been made a mockery of.
Since posting last I have found out more about the camp, and done some more research into the relevance and application of both the convention of human rights and the geneva convention. For now, trust me if you can, the camp flouts both, but I'll post the proof when I can write it up a bit better - I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment. It appears we agree though Ray - you haven't answered most of the points (suspension of civil rights, living space to be equal with that of captors, etc) and you have even agreed with one of them - they should be able to send and receive mail. Even if only one of these articles was being ignored, it would put the whole process in contravention of the very convention you cited in its defence, which should be enough.
Ray, I'm sorry that so much of this is about the US government. I feel as though I'm aiming my bile in the wrong direction - I intend to start a new thread soon about the process of culpability for my own country. Please accept that no government is perfect, and that a whole lot of what the US is doing at the moment is WRONG. You said:
Quote:
Wan Hwo Ren, the way I see things is that these people in the camp are getting treated a hell of a lot better than they should be. In my opinion, if you commit a serious crime such as murder, rape and what not, you willingly forfeit any rights you ever had. Obviously when you committed those crimes you didn't care about your victims rights, so why should anyone care about yours?
But can you not see how terrible this attitude is? If you are proven guilty, if you are tried by your peers in a fair and impartial court, then maybe (though I don't agree) you could be right. But the people in the camp HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED. They have not even been charged, in most cases. It is so, so wrong. Do you know, some of the people who were detained, and have now been set free, were held for up to two years without charge, and have been offered no sort of reparation for their wrongful imprisonment whatsoever. It is WRONG.
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I find it funny how patriotic people can say such anti-patriotic things. Ray do you have absolutly no value for the constitution or are you just completly ignorant of it? Ok, you can say that the constitution doesn't apply to afghans.
What about the american citizens arrested and sent to cuba? Im pretty damn sure it applys to them.
Also remember when RUMSFIELD [censored] his pants because the iraqis put up photos of POW's in violation of the geneva convention when we did it to the friggin afghans already. And then we did it to saddam. Hell with saddam they showed humilating footage of his bloody medical examination.
You as a soldier should be very upset about this stuff, because it means when you, and your fellow soldiers get captured. You will be much much more likely to be subject to torture, execution, humilation, public ridicule etc... Want to be dragged through the streets while people throw garbage at you to be executed in public and then hung from a meat hook?
Because if you don't treat their soldiers nicely, they have no reason to treat yours nicely. This is why the germans were pretty good with american POW's in WW2, because we had a bunch of their POW's and they weren't about to subject their own soldiers to the crueltys they would be subjecting on ours, and vice versa.
I find it funny how patriotic people can say such anti-patriotic things. Ray do you have absolutly no value for the constitution or are you just completly ignorant of it? Ok, you can say that the constitution doesn't apply to afghans.
What about the american citizens arrested and sent to cuba? Im pretty damn sure it applys to them.
Also remember when RUMSFIELD [censored] his pants because the iraqis put up photos of POW's in violation of the geneva convention when we did it to the friggin afghans already. And then we did it to saddam. Hell with saddam they showed humilating footage of his bloody medical examination.
You as a soldier should be very upset about this stuff, because it means when you, and your fellow soldiers get captured. You will be much much more likely to be subject to torture, execution, humilation, public ridicule etc... Want to be dragged through the streets while people throw garbage at you to be executed in public and then hung from a meat hook?
Because if you don't treat their soldiers nicely, they have no reason to treat yours nicely. This is why the germans were pretty good with american POW's in WW2, because we had a bunch of their POW's and they weren't about to subject their own soldiers to the crueltys they would be subjecting on ours, and vice versa.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Well Ray, I think it's sad when people beileve their own propaganda. I tend to think of them as ignorant, gullable
and stupid, because they believe all the LIES (and they have been proved to be lies) that their government tells them. Can no one in the US think for themselves??? U know, I sometimes wonder how many americans believe the US won the Vietnam war. Most I bet.
[qoute]I don't support the murder of 1,000,000+ people.
No, only 10,000 or so, but hey, that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral.
Aint that the truth. Both in war and trade, there is one set of rules for the US, and another for the rest of the world.
So when is Bush gunna destrol all the US WMD????
Well Ray, I think it's sad when people beileve their own propaganda. I tend to think of them as ignorant, gullable
and stupid, because they believe all the LIES (and they have been proved to be lies) that their government tells them. Can no one in the US think for themselves??? U know, I sometimes wonder how many americans believe the US won the Vietnam war. Most I bet.
[qoute]I don't support the murder of 1,000,000+ people.
No, only 10,000 or so, but hey, that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war is illegal and immoral.
Quote:
Bush isnt breaking the law because he has lawyers that know all the lovely loopholes and can beat the system.
Aint that the truth. Both in war and trade, there is one set of rules for the US, and another for the rest of the world.
So when is Bush gunna destrol all the US WMD????
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Actually, this isn't the truth at all. As discussed above, both the US and Britain are in breach of almost every international convention on war or human rights you can care to name - it's not that they're exploiting loopholes, they're just ignoring the rules entirely. See above for discussion on why Guantanamo Bay breaks the Geneva Convention and the Convention on Human Rights, see 'What Price Democracy' for a letter on why Britain has trasgressed the International Criminal Court statute, see discussion in several other threads for details of the use by both GB and the US of Weapons of Mass Destruction (US used FAEs, Britain Cluster Bombs, both on civilian targets).
It begins to look as though Britain at least will face prosecution. The States, under their absolutely ludicrous "Invade The Hague" policy, have refused to sign up to the War Crimes Tribunal - "No American soldier will be prosecuted on foreign soil for their conduct during the course of hostilities." In this case at least, it is "one set of rules for the US, and another for the rest of the world."
Ray, the slightest bit of investigation will show you that your government is not exploiting clever loopholes (which would just be immoral, not illegal) but is in fact completely flouting a string of the most fundamental protections of human rights that have ever been devised.
Can anyone say "Liberty, Justice, and the American Way?"
Quote:
Bush isnt breaking the law because he has lawyers that know all the lovely loopholes and can beat the system.
Actually, this isn't the truth at all. As discussed above, both the US and Britain are in breach of almost every international convention on war or human rights you can care to name - it's not that they're exploiting loopholes, they're just ignoring the rules entirely. See above for discussion on why Guantanamo Bay breaks the Geneva Convention and the Convention on Human Rights, see 'What Price Democracy' for a letter on why Britain has trasgressed the International Criminal Court statute, see discussion in several other threads for details of the use by both GB and the US of Weapons of Mass Destruction (US used FAEs, Britain Cluster Bombs, both on civilian targets).
It begins to look as though Britain at least will face prosecution. The States, under their absolutely ludicrous "Invade The Hague" policy, have refused to sign up to the War Crimes Tribunal - "No American soldier will be prosecuted on foreign soil for their conduct during the course of hostilities." In this case at least, it is "one set of rules for the US, and another for the rest of the world."
Ray, the slightest bit of investigation will show you that your government is not exploiting clever loopholes (which would just be immoral, not illegal) but is in fact completely flouting a string of the most fundamental protections of human rights that have ever been devised.
Can anyone say "Liberty, Justice, and the American Way?"
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I wonder how many Ozzies think that the Vietnam Conflict was a war? The US never declared war, so that makes it pretty darn hard to win it eh? Secondly, there isn't a soul here who doesn't know about the tragic mistake of Vietnam. Personally I don't see why we should have wasted lives like we did to stop something that self-destructs anyway.
I wonder how many Ozzies know who stopped the Jap advance on their country? Remember what happened in Darwin? Perhaps you should stop and think about that eh? Or maybe you would prefer to great your friends with a bow and konitiwa, instead of "g-day mate".
Joe, I know exactly what you meant, and for clarification I was talking about item 6 of Article 4, though I would have sworn I said that. I was debating you item for item.
You are more than welcome to start your own thread, but the anti-nuke-power group that infests this board will have little less than praises for your country, I am sorry you won't see much in the way of follies. I just don't see it happening. Not trying to be rude or negative, just don't see it happening.
My attitude towards criminals isn't terrible. Maybe in the situation in G-Bay it doesn't fairly apply, but that is my attitude towards everyone not just the people in G-Bay.
Now those men in G-Bay are not prisoners of war. I have said that time and time again. They don't meet the criteria. Therefore they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Now they do still fall under the Human Rights Act. Everyone does. It doesn't matter what my opinion is on that one. Are their human rights being violated? Not according to the Red Cross.
Astar, why should murderers enjoy a carefree life in a prison where their room is bigger than mine, they have medical, dental, food, cable TV, access to college courses ALL AT NO COST!! Hell if you want a good life rob a bank go to jail for eight years walk out with a doctorate in something or other and while you’re in get braces and your trick knee fixed. No I am very much against that, constitution or no constitution.
Astar listen to me, the way the US treats it's POWs is far better than any country we have ever pitted ourselves against and better than any we ever will. The Germans in WWII gassed their own countrymen, by the thousands, and you think the nice treatment of POWs is going to appease for that? What are you anti-Jew? In Somalia when the men drug the chopper pilots threw town via the use of chains and a pick up truck... was that good treatment. How about the Batan Death march where over a million Philipinos and US service men were marched across the country then eventually enslaved in work camps? Ever hear of the Bridge over the River Kwi? Who was it that built that? Ohh yes... enslaved POWs.
You think that not getting mail and access to lawyers is do damn bad... dude you got a few friggin screws loose. Those guys are treated like kings in comparison to how our own service members have been treated in the past.
Joe, the US has no faith in an enemies court system. Why in samhell should we subject our troops to a court system that is even more flawed than our own?
Also, you are trying to make it sound like the US uses nothing but FAEs and Cluster bombs... dude get a clue, it is a friggin war, bad things happen. I am still waiting to see this transcript that you have.
This is so BS yall are freaking out over something that is so minute in the grand scale of things. Why don't you look at the Japanese prison system, or even the Korean, Russian, Chinese? You will find that their civil and human rights record for prisoners be it foreigners or citizens is far worse than anything the US can dream up.
Quote:
U know, I sometimes wonder how many americans believe the US won the Vietnam war. Most I bet.
I wonder how many Ozzies think that the Vietnam Conflict was a war? The US never declared war, so that makes it pretty darn hard to win it eh? Secondly, there isn't a soul here who doesn't know about the tragic mistake of Vietnam. Personally I don't see why we should have wasted lives like we did to stop something that self-destructs anyway.
I wonder how many Ozzies know who stopped the Jap advance on their country? Remember what happened in Darwin? Perhaps you should stop and think about that eh? Or maybe you would prefer to great your friends with a bow and konitiwa, instead of "g-day mate".
Joe, I know exactly what you meant, and for clarification I was talking about item 6 of Article 4, though I would have sworn I said that. I was debating you item for item.
You are more than welcome to start your own thread, but the anti-nuke-power group that infests this board will have little less than praises for your country, I am sorry you won't see much in the way of follies. I just don't see it happening. Not trying to be rude or negative, just don't see it happening.
My attitude towards criminals isn't terrible. Maybe in the situation in G-Bay it doesn't fairly apply, but that is my attitude towards everyone not just the people in G-Bay.
Now those men in G-Bay are not prisoners of war. I have said that time and time again. They don't meet the criteria. Therefore they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Now they do still fall under the Human Rights Act. Everyone does. It doesn't matter what my opinion is on that one. Are their human rights being violated? Not according to the Red Cross.
Astar, why should murderers enjoy a carefree life in a prison where their room is bigger than mine, they have medical, dental, food, cable TV, access to college courses ALL AT NO COST!! Hell if you want a good life rob a bank go to jail for eight years walk out with a doctorate in something or other and while you’re in get braces and your trick knee fixed. No I am very much against that, constitution or no constitution.
Astar listen to me, the way the US treats it's POWs is far better than any country we have ever pitted ourselves against and better than any we ever will. The Germans in WWII gassed their own countrymen, by the thousands, and you think the nice treatment of POWs is going to appease for that? What are you anti-Jew? In Somalia when the men drug the chopper pilots threw town via the use of chains and a pick up truck... was that good treatment. How about the Batan Death march where over a million Philipinos and US service men were marched across the country then eventually enslaved in work camps? Ever hear of the Bridge over the River Kwi? Who was it that built that? Ohh yes... enslaved POWs.
You think that not getting mail and access to lawyers is do damn bad... dude you got a few friggin screws loose. Those guys are treated like kings in comparison to how our own service members have been treated in the past.
Joe, the US has no faith in an enemies court system. Why in samhell should we subject our troops to a court system that is even more flawed than our own?
Also, you are trying to make it sound like the US uses nothing but FAEs and Cluster bombs... dude get a clue, it is a friggin war, bad things happen. I am still waiting to see this transcript that you have.
This is so BS yall are freaking out over something that is so minute in the grand scale of things. Why don't you look at the Japanese prison system, or even the Korean, Russian, Chinese? You will find that their civil and human rights record for prisoners be it foreigners or citizens is far worse than anything the US can dream up.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
You may well be right, though as Britain is a nuclear power as well I don't quite understand all of your comment. I did start another thread, about the degree to which any semblance of democracy in Britain has been compromised by our complicity in these unsupported and illegal acts, and it turned straight into a rant about the US. I'm sorry Ray - I thought that most of the people on here were engaged in a level of debate that reached beyond blatant anti-Americanism. I guess to some level you have been proved right. However, part of the reason that it changed like that was you leaping in to debate issues in my post which we have debated elsewhere, which I sourced carefuly and can prove, and which I had given notice that I did not wish to be the focus of the thread.
We're not talking about an enemy's court system - we're talking about the International Criminal Court, which (if Guantanamo Bay or the Texan Justice system is anything to go by) is an awful lot better on every count than the American system. The US was a signatory to these courts, but is now (under Bush) the only country in the world to have rescinded their membership.
No, I'm not. In fact it was mainly the UK use of cluster bombs that I was going on about, I think. However, even if every other operation conducted by the US military in the last hundred years had been flawless and exemplarary, the use of these weapons would contravene the Geneva Convention, the ICC statutes and the declaration of human rights, which therefore makes it a subject for discussion. I am writing you a lengthy PM, sourced to a degree that I hope you will find conclusive - a link to the transcript will be included in that. May take a few days though - no need to check your messages just yet!
I remember you saying elsewhere, I can't remember where, that because you were an American, anyone saying that the US was bad was tantamount to them saying that you were bad. I think that this is the attitude which causes so much friction on the board. You will note that I feel so strongly about my own country's moral destitution that I have started a seperate thread to focus on it. I am keen, as I have stated elsewhere, for people to slate the UK at the top of their lungs. If you were as prepared to listen to criticism of the US then I think you'd find life on HOP a lot easier.
If someone was to say that they thought the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia was dreadful, and I angrily replied that it was no such thing, in fact there were no problems in Saudi Arabia at all... well, I'd expect to be involved in an argument pretty quickly. Do you see the similarity?
Well , this is where that whole lift from the Geneva Convention and the ICC statutes was relevant, and why I don't think you've quite understood my poor layout. They are not prisoners of war because they have been defined by your president (in a fit of temper, so the story goes) as "Illegal Combatants". A very loose term, which actually hasn't been defined well enough to avoid the GC rulings. Making it illegal. It's not a loophole, Ray, it's a crime.
There may well be people in Guantanamo Bay who were / are terrorists, and whose detention is only a contravention of the ICC / human rights convention on protection of civil rights (They may be treated well enough to avoid Red Cross condemnation of the site, but they have been held without charge for two years... woops!), but you'll note the final article of the GC conventions on "definitions of a POW' that I quoted includes anyone who hasn't been defined as being not one of these categories. As the men in GB haven't been charged with anything, that actually includes all of them.
For once, Ray, either find a loophole in this case or admit that, as the rest of the world has already sadly concluded, the GB detentions are morally and legally wrong. Do you have any idea how much more respect I'd have for you, and how much more everyone else would have for you, if you had the courage to come out and say that your government might well just be wrong? Pretty much every other damn government on the planet is a bunch of lying, cheating, bloodthirsty and self-interested swine. One of the reasons that all these threads end up being a load of people ranting about how evil the US is on one side, and you on the other, is that you don't seem to be able to see that your government could do anything wrong.
Oh, and one more comment:
Exactly, Ray. Exactly.
Now perhaps you see why everyone was so set against it?
Quote:
You are more than welcome to start your own thread, but the anti-nuke-power group that infests this board will have little less than praises for your country, I am sorry you won't see much in the way of follies. I just don't see it happening. Not trying to be rude or negative, just don't see it happening.
You may well be right, though as Britain is a nuclear power as well I don't quite understand all of your comment. I did start another thread, about the degree to which any semblance of democracy in Britain has been compromised by our complicity in these unsupported and illegal acts, and it turned straight into a rant about the US. I'm sorry Ray - I thought that most of the people on here were engaged in a level of debate that reached beyond blatant anti-Americanism. I guess to some level you have been proved right. However, part of the reason that it changed like that was you leaping in to debate issues in my post which we have debated elsewhere, which I sourced carefuly and can prove, and which I had given notice that I did not wish to be the focus of the thread.
Quote:
Joe, the US has no faith in an enemies court system. Why in samhell should we subject our troops to a court system that is even more flawed than our own?
We're not talking about an enemy's court system - we're talking about the International Criminal Court, which (if Guantanamo Bay or the Texan Justice system is anything to go by) is an awful lot better on every count than the American system. The US was a signatory to these courts, but is now (under Bush) the only country in the world to have rescinded their membership.
Quote:
Also, you are trying to make it sound like the US uses nothing but FAEs and Cluster bombs... dude get a clue, it is a friggin war, bad things happen
No, I'm not. In fact it was mainly the UK use of cluster bombs that I was going on about, I think. However, even if every other operation conducted by the US military in the last hundred years had been flawless and exemplarary, the use of these weapons would contravene the Geneva Convention, the ICC statutes and the declaration of human rights, which therefore makes it a subject for discussion. I am writing you a lengthy PM, sourced to a degree that I hope you will find conclusive - a link to the transcript will be included in that. May take a few days though - no need to check your messages just yet!
Quote:
This is so BS yall are freaking out over something that is so minute in the grand scale of things. Why don't you look at the Japanese prison system, or even the Korean, Russian, Chinese? You will find that their civil and human rights record for prisoners be it foreigners or citizens is far worse than anything the US can dream up.
I remember you saying elsewhere, I can't remember where, that because you were an American, anyone saying that the US was bad was tantamount to them saying that you were bad. I think that this is the attitude which causes so much friction on the board. You will note that I feel so strongly about my own country's moral destitution that I have started a seperate thread to focus on it. I am keen, as I have stated elsewhere, for people to slate the UK at the top of their lungs. If you were as prepared to listen to criticism of the US then I think you'd find life on HOP a lot easier.
If someone was to say that they thought the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia was dreadful, and I angrily replied that it was no such thing, in fact there were no problems in Saudi Arabia at all... well, I'd expect to be involved in an argument pretty quickly. Do you see the similarity?
Quote:
Now those men in G-Bay are not prisoners of war. I have said that time and time again. They don't meet the criteria. Therefore they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Now they do still fall under the Human Rights Act. Everyone does. It doesn't matter what my opinion is on that one. Are their human rights being violated? Not according to the Red Cross.
Well , this is where that whole lift from the Geneva Convention and the ICC statutes was relevant, and why I don't think you've quite understood my poor layout. They are not prisoners of war because they have been defined by your president (in a fit of temper, so the story goes) as "Illegal Combatants". A very loose term, which actually hasn't been defined well enough to avoid the GC rulings. Making it illegal. It's not a loophole, Ray, it's a crime.
There may well be people in Guantanamo Bay who were / are terrorists, and whose detention is only a contravention of the ICC / human rights convention on protection of civil rights (They may be treated well enough to avoid Red Cross condemnation of the site, but they have been held without charge for two years... woops!), but you'll note the final article of the GC conventions on "definitions of a POW' that I quoted includes anyone who hasn't been defined as being not one of these categories. As the men in GB haven't been charged with anything, that actually includes all of them.
For once, Ray, either find a loophole in this case or admit that, as the rest of the world has already sadly concluded, the GB detentions are morally and legally wrong. Do you have any idea how much more respect I'd have for you, and how much more everyone else would have for you, if you had the courage to come out and say that your government might well just be wrong? Pretty much every other damn government on the planet is a bunch of lying, cheating, bloodthirsty and self-interested swine. One of the reasons that all these threads end up being a load of people ranting about how evil the US is on one side, and you on the other, is that you don't seem to be able to see that your government could do anything wrong.
Oh, and one more comment:
Quote:
dude get a clue, it is a friggin war, bad things happen.
Exactly, Ray. Exactly.
Now perhaps you see why everyone was so set against it?The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Okay the nuke free country type thing... that was because I didnt read your location right. My bust through and through... I saw the New Zealand and poof to make a long story short, you gots what you reads.
I am going to rephrase what I have said in the past, GWB could possibly be breaking the law, but I don't think that he is. I believe that his buddies have found him a loophole. I can't prove it, I can't even attempt to.
Trust me I know the follies of my Gov. I have only worked for them for a little over 3 years! I've seen it all the time, broken more laws since comming into the Corps than I ever did before. The US Gov is just as corrupt as any other countries, if not more.
Okay the nuke free country type thing... that was because I didnt read your location right. My bust through and through... I saw the New Zealand and poof to make a long story short, you gots what you reads.
I am going to rephrase what I have said in the past, GWB could possibly be breaking the law, but I don't think that he is. I believe that his buddies have found him a loophole. I can't prove it, I can't even attempt to.
Trust me I know the follies of my Gov. I have only worked for them for a little over 3 years! I've seen it all the time, broken more laws since comming into the Corps than I ever did before. The US Gov is just as corrupt as any other countries, if not more.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
65 posts
Location: Santa Cruz, California
65 posts
Location: Santa Cruz, California
Posted:
As an American citizen opposed to "Iraqi Freedom" - the takeover will never be justified.
As a friend of many Iraqi people (including one tortured by Udday Saddam Hussein) - the war was justified.
Debate all we want, the answer will only be known in five years.
I'm going to Iraq in April/May just for this purpose - to ask the Iraqi people what they think of the capitalistic privitization policy taking place in their Muslim society. Do they want porno movie houses, McDonalds, Walmart? OR, do they want employment, food, housing.. the basic needs since they are living with a 70% unemployment rate.
Of course, this has happened to so many other countries after war - but this one really hits hard.....
As an American citizen opposed to "Iraqi Freedom" - the takeover will never be justified.
As a friend of many Iraqi people (including one tortured by Udday Saddam Hussein) - the war was justified.
Debate all we want, the answer will only be known in five years.
I'm going to Iraq in April/May just for this purpose - to ask the Iraqi people what they think of the capitalistic privitization policy taking place in their Muslim society. Do they want porno movie houses, McDonalds, Walmart? OR, do they want employment, food, housing.. the basic needs since they are living with a 70% unemployment rate.
Of course, this has happened to so many other countries after war - but this one really hits hard.....
The experience of learning is living.
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Aye. This is pretty much the central question though - if in five years everything really is loads better, will it have been justified? I still think not, I think that even if everything in Iraq is perfect (Geiger readings near Basra are over 2000 times the background level, due to the volume of depleted uranium shells used) we didn't try hard enough to explore the peaceful avenues before we went in all guns blazing.
I will be really interested to see what you find out from your visit, however. The impact of western culture in Oman (where my parents live) over the last five years has been both fascinating and repelling - a strange mix of liberation and corruption. The effect in Iraq is likely to be even more profound. Please tell us all about your experiences, when you get the chance.
Aye. This is pretty much the central question though - if in five years everything really is loads better, will it have been justified? I still think not, I think that even if everything in Iraq is perfect (Geiger readings near Basra are over 2000 times the background level, due to the volume of depleted uranium shells used) we didn't try hard enough to explore the peaceful avenues before we went in all guns blazing.
I will be really interested to see what you find out from your visit, however. The impact of western culture in Oman (where my parents live) over the last five years has been both fascinating and repelling - a strange mix of liberation and corruption. The effect in Iraq is likely to be even more profound. Please tell us all about your experiences, when you get the chance.
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
that figure seems to edge into absurditity. 2000 times normal background radiation? Depleted uranium rounds are barely radioactive. I don't know much about background radiation and lethal doses of radiation, but it sounds like 2000 times would be causeing recordable radiation sickness. I mean, 2000X is a lot.
that figure seems to edge into absurditity. 2000 times normal background radiation? Depleted uranium rounds are barely radioactive. I don't know much about background radiation and lethal doses of radiation, but it sounds like 2000 times would be causeing recordable radiation sickness. I mean, 2000X is a lot.
SILVER Member
old hand
899 posts
Location: New York City, USA
old hand
899 posts
Location: New York City, USA
Posted:
Thats a ton of radiation!
Camels will begin to mutate and take over Arabia!
Hey, does anybody smell a sit-com??
Raph
Thats a ton of radiation!
Camels will begin to mutate and take over Arabia!
Hey, does anybody smell a sit-com??
Raph
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Quote:
I wonder how many Ozzies think that the Vietnam Conflict was a war? The US never declared war, so that makes it pretty darn hard to win it eh? Secondly, there isn't a soul here who doesn't know about the tragic mistake of Vietnam.Quote:
Ray, a war by any other name is still a war, and what u say sounds like a poor excuse for getting your arse wipped.Quote:Good point, WTF were u doing there and ditto for Iraq.
Personally I don't see why we should have wasted lives like we did to stop something that self-destructs anyway.Quote:100% we don't make stupid war movies that distort the truth. Wot about Burma???
I wonder how many Ozzies know who stopped the Jap advance on their country?Quote:Right again Ray, i'm told there are a number of small children GB and wot u mean is that they don't meet Bush's criteria. Don't u know the breaking the Geneva Convention sets a precedent and U could be locked away in a place like GB without any rights???
Now those men in G-Bay are not prisoners of war. I have said that time and time again. They don't meet the criteria. Therefore they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Now they do still fall under the Human Rights Act. Everyone does. It doesn't matter what my opinion is on that one. Are their human rights being violated? Not according to the Red Cross.Quote:Wot breaking the Geneva Convention?
This is so BS yall are freaking out over something that is so minute in the grand scale of things.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Hmm, since I don't have a huge amount of time to post anything here, I'm unfortunately going to have to limit this to the one point in this thread that stands out to me the most:
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every february 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of spock ears, you could wander the streets stabbing people indescriminately, would you do it?
It shouldn't matter if there's a loophole or not, certain things are just plain wrong.
Hmm, since I don't have a huge amount of time to post anything here, I'm unfortunately going to have to limit this to the one point in this thread that stands out to me the most:
Quote:
I am going to rephrase what I have said in the past, GWB could possibly be breaking the law, but I don't think that he is. I believe that his buddies have found him a loophole. I can't prove it, I can't even attempt to.
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every february 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of spock ears, you could wander the streets stabbing people indescriminately, would you do it?
It shouldn't matter if there's a loophole or not, certain things are just plain wrong.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
If you wish for me to answer for the actions of my Gov., then I suggest that you go ask them instead of me. What I would do and what GWB is doing might be two different things. Did that ever occur to you?
Here let me ask you all a similar question:
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every February 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of Spock ears, you could wander the streets smoking pot, would you do it?
I am sure most here would say yes, seen as how they do it legal or not loophole or not.
It shouldn't matter if there's a loophole or not, certain things are just plain wrong.
Stone, if you are trying to provoke me by what you posted please, just don't waste your time.
What were we doing in Vietnam; well during that time just about every democratic Gov. was scared of the growing Communist "threat". The US was there to try to stop this spread of communism. In this instance we failed. Did you know that the Korean War is still going on? A war that is over 50 years old, imagine that. Kind of interesting aint it?
Hrm... So you didn't answer the question, I mean could it possibly been the pressure of the US in the Pacific, or maybe the US pilots’ deaths over the skies of Darwin? Hrm...
As far as children being in GBay, to this I have no knowledge. But, I hear that the moon is made of cheese too.
The radiation levels in Iraq being over 2000x more than normal... hrm I really doubt that. Depleted Uranium is probably the safest form of Uranium, seen as how US military personnel touch it and work around it daily. It covers our tanks, our large cal. weapons shoot it, and it is pretty darn common. Either the radiation level in Iraq was super low to begin with or your source is feeding you a soup sandwich
If you wish for me to answer for the actions of my Gov., then I suggest that you go ask them instead of me. What I would do and what GWB is doing might be two different things. Did that ever occur to you?
Quote:
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every February 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of Spock ears, you could wander the streets stabbing people indiscriminately, would you do it?
Here let me ask you all a similar question:
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every February 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of Spock ears, you could wander the streets smoking pot, would you do it?
I am sure most here would say yes, seen as how they do it legal or not loophole or not.
It shouldn't matter if there's a loophole or not, certain things are just plain wrong.
Stone, if you are trying to provoke me by what you posted please, just don't waste your time.
What were we doing in Vietnam; well during that time just about every democratic Gov. was scared of the growing Communist "threat". The US was there to try to stop this spread of communism. In this instance we failed. Did you know that the Korean War is still going on? A war that is over 50 years old, imagine that. Kind of interesting aint it?
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder how many Ozzies know who stopped the Jap advance on their country?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% we don't make stupid war movies that distort the truth. Wot about Burma???
Hrm... So you didn't answer the question, I mean could it possibly been the pressure of the US in the Pacific, or maybe the US pilots’ deaths over the skies of Darwin? Hrm...
As far as children being in GBay, to this I have no knowledge. But, I hear that the moon is made of cheese too.
The radiation levels in Iraq being over 2000x more than normal... hrm I really doubt that. Depleted Uranium is probably the safest form of Uranium, seen as how US military personnel touch it and work around it daily. It covers our tanks, our large cal. weapons shoot it, and it is pretty darn common. Either the radiation level in Iraq was super low to begin with or your source is feeding you a soup sandwich
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
For the record, I don't smoke, so my answer would be no.
You see the keywords here are 'certain things'.
There's a hell of a lot of debate about if smoking pot is wrong or not, but I'd hope that everyone here accepts that both stabbing people and removing their basic human rights is outright wrong. I'd hope there was no debating that whatsoever.
I'll just ask my question again, in a more cut down version this time:
Do you think that someone should be able to ignore the basic human rights of a group of people, regardless of whether they can get away with it or not?
I'll also direct you to the bible, GWB's reading material of choice and something I assume you know quite well. Do you not think there's a rather large difference in the principles he says he lives his life by and those which he allows to be put into effect?
For the record, I don't smoke, so my answer would be no.
Quote:
Here let me ask you all a similar question:
If some lawyers managed to find a legal loophole saying that every February 29th, as long as you're wearing green socks and a pair of Spock ears, you could wander the streets smoking pot, would you do it?
I am sure most here would say yes, seen as how they do it legal or not loophole or not.
It shouldn't matter if there's a loophole or not, certain things are just plain wrong.
You see the keywords here are 'certain things'.
There's a hell of a lot of debate about if smoking pot is wrong or not, but I'd hope that everyone here accepts that both stabbing people and removing their basic human rights is outright wrong. I'd hope there was no debating that whatsoever.
I'll just ask my question again, in a more cut down version this time:
Do you think that someone should be able to ignore the basic human rights of a group of people, regardless of whether they can get away with it or not?
I'll also direct you to the bible, GWB's reading material of choice and something I assume you know quite well. Do you not think there's a rather large difference in the principles he says he lives his life by and those which he allows to be put into effect?
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Now when I answer this question I would like to make it clear that I am not talking about the people in G-Bay. I have been asked my opinion and I am about to give it, you (being the reader) may not agree with it.
In my opinion, if you are criminal convicted of a serious crime, as in rape and murder, you willingly forfeit any rights that you ever possessed. In a case like that and in that case alone, I feel that it is okay to ignore all basic human rights.
I am not saying that it should those people should be subjected to horrors or anything that is cruel, but I am saying that they should have no right to complain or file a grievance, if anything bad should happen, because they did not respect their victims rights in the first place.
I have tried to be clear on this, if anyone has any questions please ask, I will do my best to answer them, but like I said, this is my opinion and my opinion alone it really isn't based on anything but an opinion. I do suggest for the sake of a public argument that you do so using the PM system.
~EDIT~ (I left out the last part of your post
)
I absolutely feel that he says one thing about his life and then turns around and does the exact opposite by his actions. There are only two types of people in the world one is a hypocrite the other is a liar. Either he is being hypocritical of himself or he is flat out lying about his faith. Either way, who are you or I or anyone to judge him on the grounds of his religion?
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (Fireproof) (1075231486)
Quote:
Do you think that someone should be able to ignore the basic human rights of a group of people, regardless of whether they can get away with it or not?
Now when I answer this question I would like to make it clear that I am not talking about the people in G-Bay. I have been asked my opinion and I am about to give it, you (being the reader) may not agree with it.
In my opinion, if you are criminal convicted of a serious crime, as in rape and murder, you willingly forfeit any rights that you ever possessed. In a case like that and in that case alone, I feel that it is okay to ignore all basic human rights.
I am not saying that it should those people should be subjected to horrors or anything that is cruel, but I am saying that they should have no right to complain or file a grievance, if anything bad should happen, because they did not respect their victims rights in the first place.
I have tried to be clear on this, if anyone has any questions please ask, I will do my best to answer them, but like I said, this is my opinion and my opinion alone it really isn't based on anything but an opinion. I do suggest for the sake of a public argument that you do so using the PM system.
~EDIT~ (I left out the last part of your post
)I absolutely feel that he says one thing about his life and then turns around and does the exact opposite by his actions. There are only two types of people in the world one is a hypocrite the other is a liar. Either he is being hypocritical of himself or he is flat out lying about his faith. Either way, who are you or I or anyone to judge him on the grounds of his religion?
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (Fireproof) (1075231486)
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
86 posts
Location: I'm not sure
Posted:
Ray, people are asking you about these loopholes because you brought them up, making it sound like you think it's okay. You are the one that takes it personally whenever anybody brings up any of the atrocities that have been committed by your government. I sure wouldn't blame you or any other American for them, it's not like you have a say in the matter, is it?
As far as your similar question, like so many of your posts, it totally misses the point. I can't even understand how you can possibly miss the point by so much. I'll try to explain it in simple terms:
The question asks if it is okay to do something morally wrong because some loophole in the law allows it. If you consider smoking pot to be morally wrong then you essentially asked the same question.
You see Ray, some people have a sense of right and wrong that comes from a conscience and actual thought. This is a good thing.
So I would smoke pot, loophole or not, because it doesn't harm anybody else.
I would not stab people or imprison them without charge or respect for human rights, loophole or not, because it is morally wrong.
I guess it belongs in another thread, but do you really equate smoking pot with stabbing random, innocent people??
Please Ray, try hard to read what others post and understand it, even if it means you take a little time to think about it before you post. I don't know how many times Joe has said that his country, Britain, is as guilty as America, but you seem to only see that he is critical of your beloved country. You didn't even pay enough attention to realize where he was from, when he had said it to you so many time? Please pay attention Ray.
Quote:
What I would do and what GWB is doing might be two different things. Did that ever occur to you?
Ray, people are asking you about these loopholes because you brought them up, making it sound like you think it's okay. You are the one that takes it personally whenever anybody brings up any of the atrocities that have been committed by your government. I sure wouldn't blame you or any other American for them, it's not like you have a say in the matter, is it?
As far as your similar question, like so many of your posts, it totally misses the point. I can't even understand how you can possibly miss the point by so much. I'll try to explain it in simple terms:
The question asks if it is okay to do something morally wrong because some loophole in the law allows it. If you consider smoking pot to be morally wrong then you essentially asked the same question.
You see Ray, some people have a sense of right and wrong that comes from a conscience and actual thought. This is a good thing.
So I would smoke pot, loophole or not, because it doesn't harm anybody else.
I would not stab people or imprison them without charge or respect for human rights, loophole or not, because it is morally wrong.
I guess it belongs in another thread, but do you really equate smoking pot with stabbing random, innocent people??
Please Ray, try hard to read what others post and understand it, even if it means you take a little time to think about it before you post. I don't know how many times Joe has said that his country, Britain, is as guilty as America, but you seem to only see that he is critical of your beloved country. You didn't even pay enough attention to realize where he was from, when he had said it to you so many time? Please pay attention Ray.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I can bring up a topic on rape, but does that mean that I applaud rape or even want to go out and rape someone? No it doesn't. WHR, I do not like it when people bring up the mistakes of my countries past as if they were the only ones that have ever done anything wrong. The ratio of "Bad USA" topics to "Bad any other country" is probably something like 100 : 1! This does get to be offending. Does that explain why I get a bit upset? If I am not held responsible, then why is it that I am asked to explain or justify the actions of the past? You see, in a way all Americans are viewed responsible for our governments actions. Why else were two planes flown into the WTC? Because those people held the American PUBLIC responsible for the actions of the American government.
I know and knew exactly what the question was about. I was turning it around and relating it to something that most here could identify with. What if, (I have already answered this in the post before WHR's so this is just a what if) I didn't find the removing the human rights of others morally wrong? What would that mean?
Your conscience tells you that smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else, my conscience tells me that hurting me hurts others therefore I don't smoke pot. Do you understand my reasoning? Am I wrong in this? No. Are you wrong for what you think? Only if you are violating the laws of the country you are in.
Now keeping the fact that WHR feels that stabbing people is morally wrong in mind, put yourself in this scenario. For a minute I want everyone to pretend that they are female and that a man who you can not overpower is trying to rape you. You manage to get a hold of a knife. Is it morally wrong to stab him?
I know that scenario is not really playing on what WHR intended but think about it, what are morals? Do they apply in every single situation? What if you came to a situation in your life where the only thing to do was to throw your morals out the window? Could you do it?
WHR, I took this very sarcastically. Be careful what you say, I might not always delete what I have first written.
I make mistakes WHR, I am not perfect, why do you feel the need to correct me on every little thing. Does it bring you pleasure, does it raise your self-esteem?
Quote:
Ray, people are asking you about these loopholes because you brought them up, making it sound like you think it's okay. You are the one that takes it personally whenever anybody brings up any of the atrocities that have been committed by your government. I sure wouldn't blame you or any other American for them, it's not like you have a say in the matter, is it?
I can bring up a topic on rape, but does that mean that I applaud rape or even want to go out and rape someone? No it doesn't. WHR, I do not like it when people bring up the mistakes of my countries past as if they were the only ones that have ever done anything wrong. The ratio of "Bad USA" topics to "Bad any other country" is probably something like 100 : 1! This does get to be offending. Does that explain why I get a bit upset? If I am not held responsible, then why is it that I am asked to explain or justify the actions of the past? You see, in a way all Americans are viewed responsible for our governments actions. Why else were two planes flown into the WTC? Because those people held the American PUBLIC responsible for the actions of the American government.
Quote:
The question asks if it is okay to do something morally wrong because some loophole in the law allows it. If you consider smoking pot to be morally wrong then you essentially asked the same question.
I know and knew exactly what the question was about. I was turning it around and relating it to something that most here could identify with. What if, (I have already answered this in the post before WHR's so this is just a what if) I didn't find the removing the human rights of others morally wrong? What would that mean?
Quote:
You see Ray, some people have a sense of right and wrong that comes from a conscience and actual thought. This is a good thing
So I would smoke pot, loophole or not, because it doesn't harm anybody else
Your conscience tells you that smoking pot doesn't hurt anyone else, my conscience tells me that hurting me hurts others therefore I don't smoke pot. Do you understand my reasoning? Am I wrong in this? No. Are you wrong for what you think? Only if you are violating the laws of the country you are in.
Quote:(Edited to show emphasis)
I would not stab people... ...it is morally wrong.
Now keeping the fact that WHR feels that stabbing people is morally wrong in mind, put yourself in this scenario. For a minute I want everyone to pretend that they are female and that a man who you can not overpower is trying to rape you. You manage to get a hold of a knife. Is it morally wrong to stab him?
I know that scenario is not really playing on what WHR intended but think about it, what are morals? Do they apply in every single situation? What if you came to a situation in your life where the only thing to do was to throw your morals out the window? Could you do it?
Quote:
You didn't even pay enough attention to realize where he was from, when he had said it to you so many time? Please pay attention Ray.
WHR, I took this very sarcastically. Be careful what you say, I might not always delete what I have first written.
I make mistakes WHR, I am not perfect, why do you feel the need to correct me on every little thing. Does it bring you pleasure, does it raise your self-esteem?
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Actually, it isn't that surprising a figure. In the first Gulf War, throughout the course of the war, the total estimate of the quantity of DU expended (as in, fired at Iraqis and then left lying around in Iraq) was about thirty five metric tons, most of which was dispersed and at a distance from local civilian populations.
Estimates for this war are still patchy, however Britain has admitted that it alone expended between one and two thousand metric tonnes. In addition, combat this time round took place at much closer proximity to the civilian population, and (frequently) in much less dispersed arenas. So what we're talking about here is several hundred times the quantity of DU, deployed in a much denser area, much closer to the civilian population.
The effect of even small quantites of DU on young and unborn children is well documented. Below is a summary of some of the statistics. Please note that references to the Gulf War refer to the first Gulf War, and bear in mind as you read the statistic I quoted above relating to the relative quantities of such materiel deployed...
It's probably worth noting that Depleted Uranium (with it's "sustained and chronic deleterious effect on the health of a local population") counts as... you guessed it... a Weapon Of Mass Destruction! Guess who's NOT going to get invaded for using WMDs on children.... and you've guessed it again! Yes, that's right, neither Britain nor the US will have cluster bombs dropped on their citizens for their war crimes... doesn't it just make you so proud?
But I've got off topic. It's hard to find primary sources on the net - the references I've found, which all quote the same figures, refer to a British Army research group report on radiation levels in Basra. I'd be interested to read the report, but I can't find it on the net. The reading right across Basra is apparently twenty times higher than usual, and I guess the closer you go to 'Hot Spots' of localised expenditure of DU materiel, the higher the readings will get.
So that's one point.
Whilst I was checking my statistics on that, I noticed that another post had gone in to the forum - Ray's post above. I can't be bothered to get into the whole "who said what thing" again, it takes us so far off topic.
As far as anyone who lives in either the UK or the Us having any moral obligation to obey the law whatsoever, don't make me laugh. Our governments have flouted the most fundamental protections of human rights that exist, invaded another country illegally, slaughtered 35,000 innocent civilians, used WMDs on children, lied to us consistently to protect whatever hideous motivations they possess... and you think we should obey their laws. That is genuinely hilarious.
Besides which, anyone who didn't go to jail for trying to smash up warplanes and stop the bombing of Iraq by any means possible doesn't really need to worry too much about morals either. Compared to our complicity in what is tantamount to genocide (460,000 children died as a result of the sanctions, and Madeleine Albright said... "it is a price worth paying"... anyone spot a similarity to another historic campaign?) what does it matter whether we shoplift, shoot up on smack and rob houses? It just doesn't even figure on the same score sheet.
Sorry, that's an over-reaction, and I don't want to get into an argument on why it's wrong to shoplift. After reading through the post above I am suddenly depressed and despondant again. I feel really wretched - should have done so much more than go on a few shitty marches and feel all good about myself.
Quote:
The radiation levels in Iraq being over 2000x more than normal... hrm I really doubt that. Depleted Uranium is probably the safest form of Uranium, seen as how US military personnel touch it and work around it daily. It covers our tanks, our large cal. weapons shoot it, and it is pretty darn common. Either the radiation level in Iraq was super low to begin with or your source is feeding you a soup sandwich
Actually, it isn't that surprising a figure. In the first Gulf War, throughout the course of the war, the total estimate of the quantity of DU expended (as in, fired at Iraqis and then left lying around in Iraq) was about thirty five metric tons, most of which was dispersed and at a distance from local civilian populations.
Estimates for this war are still patchy, however Britain has admitted that it alone expended between one and two thousand metric tonnes. In addition, combat this time round took place at much closer proximity to the civilian population, and (frequently) in much less dispersed arenas. So what we're talking about here is several hundred times the quantity of DU, deployed in a much denser area, much closer to the civilian population.
The effect of even small quantites of DU on young and unborn children is well documented. Below is a summary of some of the statistics. Please note that references to the Gulf War refer to the first Gulf War, and bear in mind as you read the statistic I quoted above relating to the relative quantities of such materiel deployed...
Quote:
In the areas where depleted uranium was used in southern Iraq, a number of serious health problems have emerged among both soldiers and civilians.
For instance, there has been a 66% increase in leukaemias and cancers in southern Iraq. There has also been a marked increase in the numbers of children born with birth malformations, with horrific reports of 3 children in one family being born with severe congenital malformations.
There are also large numbers of soldiers who served in the Gulf with Allied forces and in the Iraqi army, who are now suffering from mysterious illnesses - often referred to as Gulf War syndrome. Many of these illnesses reflect those seen among Iraqi children and civilians. For example, of the 697,000 US troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. There are also defects reported among their newborn children. In a veterans community in Mississippi, 67% of the children were born with malformations.
The area of southern Scotland used to test depleted uranium weapons has the highest rate of childhood leukaemia in Scotland. The residents of the flats in Amsterdam into which the El Al jet crashed in 1992 have also reported mysterious illnesses (the jet had depleted uranium counterweights
It's probably worth noting that Depleted Uranium (with it's "sustained and chronic deleterious effect on the health of a local population") counts as... you guessed it... a Weapon Of Mass Destruction! Guess who's NOT going to get invaded for using WMDs on children.... and you've guessed it again! Yes, that's right, neither Britain nor the US will have cluster bombs dropped on their citizens for their war crimes... doesn't it just make you so proud?
But I've got off topic. It's hard to find primary sources on the net - the references I've found, which all quote the same figures, refer to a British Army research group report on radiation levels in Basra. I'd be interested to read the report, but I can't find it on the net. The reading right across Basra is apparently twenty times higher than usual, and I guess the closer you go to 'Hot Spots' of localised expenditure of DU materiel, the higher the readings will get.
So that's one point.
Whilst I was checking my statistics on that, I noticed that another post had gone in to the forum - Ray's post above. I can't be bothered to get into the whole "who said what thing" again, it takes us so far off topic.
As far as anyone who lives in either the UK or the Us having any moral obligation to obey the law whatsoever, don't make me laugh. Our governments have flouted the most fundamental protections of human rights that exist, invaded another country illegally, slaughtered 35,000 innocent civilians, used WMDs on children, lied to us consistently to protect whatever hideous motivations they possess... and you think we should obey their laws. That is genuinely hilarious.
Besides which, anyone who didn't go to jail for trying to smash up warplanes and stop the bombing of Iraq by any means possible doesn't really need to worry too much about morals either. Compared to our complicity in what is tantamount to genocide (460,000 children died as a result of the sanctions, and Madeleine Albright said... "it is a price worth paying"... anyone spot a similarity to another historic campaign?) what does it matter whether we shoplift, shoot up on smack and rob houses? It just doesn't even figure on the same score sheet.
Sorry, that's an over-reaction, and I don't want to get into an argument on why it's wrong to shoplift. After reading through the post above I am suddenly depressed and despondant again. I feel really wretched - should have done so much more than go on a few shitty marches and feel all good about myself.
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I would like to read that whole article, could you post the site info please?
~Edit~ (hehe opps keyboard error )
The DU does need to be cleaned up. I will definatly admit that the radiation has gone up due to its use and I will admit the possibility that people are being effected. I doubt that GWS is due to DU. Seen as how my father a Vet of the Gulf War, was never near combat let alone near any DU and still has some symptoms of GWS. For clearification he was in Turkey.
Now this is an off topic conspiriacy theory, but could it be possible that the people of Iraq were mistakenly poisoned by their own Gov.? Perhaps there are WMDs there and that they have broken open radiating the drinking water of the people?? I know it is farfetched and I am only saying this to perhaps spur thought in a differnt direction.
How far does this go? Should one go out and start wearing green socks and Spock ears and start stabbing people? Now if you wish to rephrase by saying some of the new laws put in place after the actions of the past 3 years should be ignored and totaly removed from the books... then I would agree, but you make it sound as if you shouldn't follow any laws.
The way you phrased
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (Fireproof) (1075239416)
I would like to read that whole article, could you post the site info please?
~Edit~ (hehe opps keyboard error
)The DU does need to be cleaned up. I will definatly admit that the radiation has gone up due to its use and I will admit the possibility that people are being effected. I doubt that GWS is due to DU. Seen as how my father a Vet of the Gulf War, was never near combat let alone near any DU and still has some symptoms of GWS. For clearification he was in Turkey.
Now this is an off topic conspiriacy theory, but could it be possible that the people of Iraq were mistakenly poisoned by their own Gov.? Perhaps there are WMDs there and that they have broken open radiating the drinking water of the people?? I know it is farfetched and I am only saying this to perhaps spur thought in a differnt direction.
Quote:
As far as anyone who lives in either the UK or the Us having any moral obligation to obey the law whatsoever, don't make me laugh.
How far does this go? Should one go out and start wearing green socks and Spock ears and start stabbing people? Now if you wish to rephrase by saying some of the new laws put in place after the actions of the past 3 years should be ignored and totaly removed from the books... then I would agree, but you make it sound as if you shouldn't follow any laws.
The way you phrased
Quote:to me made it sound as if you were implying that the UK and the US targeted on a reguler basis children to be torched by an FAE or something. Perhaps you could be more careful next time or elaborate a bit better?
used WMDs on children
EDITED_BY: Raymund Phule (Fireproof) (1075239416)
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Opinion noted.
Can I now ask what your opinion on the people in Guantanamo bay being held without trial in inhumane conditions? Surely since they've not been convicted they should still be allowed their rights?
Er.. since he's your president and he keeps insisting on bringing his religion into his politics, I should imagine it's quite important to judge him on the grounds of his religion, just as it would be to judge him on any other aspect of his policies.
At the very least, the fact that he's either a hypocrite or lying about his religion should throw up the incredably important question of 'what else is he lying about?'
Just to make myself a little clearer to make sure that wasn't taken the wrong way, I meant that I think people should be judging his religion in the way that it might influence his decisions (in the same way as having shares in an oil company might influence decisions made about oil prices for example).
I did not mean that people should judge his religion as a contest between faiths or anything like that.
I hope that makes things clearer
Quote:
In my opinion, if you are criminal convicted of a serious crime, as in rape and murder, you willingly forfeit any rights that you ever possessed. In a case like that and in that case alone, I feel that it is okay to ignore all basic human rights.
Opinion noted.
Can I now ask what your opinion on the people in Guantanamo bay being held without trial in inhumane conditions? Surely since they've not been convicted they should still be allowed their rights?
Quote:
Either he is being hypocritical of himself or he is flat out lying about his faith. Either way, who are you or I or anyone to judge him on the grounds of his religion?
Er.. since he's your president and he keeps insisting on bringing his religion into his politics, I should imagine it's quite important to judge him on the grounds of his religion, just as it would be to judge him on any other aspect of his policies.
At the very least, the fact that he's either a hypocrite or lying about his religion should throw up the incredably important question of 'what else is he lying about?'
Just to make myself a little clearer to make sure that wasn't taken the wrong way, I meant that I think people should be judging his religion in the way that it might influence his decisions (in the same way as having shares in an oil company might influence decisions made about oil prices for example).
I did not mean that people should judge his religion as a contest between faiths or anything like that.
I hope that makes things clearer
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Okay, I have lived in worse conditions during my time in the Corps, so I have no sympithy for them.
Nobody should be judged on their religion regardless if they throw it around. That is like judging someone on the color of thier skin. Well... to me it is the same, to you it might not be.
He could be lying about anything and everything that ever happend in his life, or he could not be lying about anything and everything that ever happend in his life, once again who are to judge him on anything he did before running for office
You wouldn't be trying to suggest that you judge a whole religion based on his actions alone are you?
To be continued...
Okay, I have lived in worse conditions during my time in the Corps, so I have no sympithy for them.
Nobody should be judged on their religion regardless if they throw it around. That is like judging someone on the color of thier skin. Well... to me it is the same, to you it might not be.
Quote:
At the very least, the fact that he's either a hypocrite or lying about his religion should throw up the incredably important question of 'what else is he lying about?'
He could be lying about anything and everything that ever happend in his life, or he could not be lying about anything and everything that ever happend in his life, once again who are to judge him on anything he did before running for office
Quote:
I meant that I think people should be judging his religion in the way that it might influence his decisions
You wouldn't be trying to suggest that you judge a whole religion based on his actions alone are you?
To be continued...
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
You joined the Corps of your own free will, so that's irrelevant innit?
Um, we are the millions of people whose lives are massively influenced by his honesty and good character or lack of it. That's who we are to judge.
I don't think Bovril was suggesting that. I took it to mean it might be a good idea to judge a State Leader on whether his actions are overly influenced by his religion.
Did that last sentence confuse you? It did me...
Quote:
Okay, I have lived in worse conditions during my time in the Corps
You joined the Corps of your own free will, so that's irrelevant innit?
Quote:
who are to judge him on anything he did before running for office?
Um, we are the millions of people whose lives are massively influenced by his honesty and good character or lack of it. That's who we are to judge.
Quote:
You wouldn't be trying to suggest that you judge a whole religion based on his actions alone are you?
I don't think Bovril was suggesting that. I took it to mean it might be a good idea to judge a State Leader on whether his actions are overly influenced by his religion.
Did that last sentence confuse you? It did me...
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Doesn't look like I did too good a job on that
I agree completely with Simian there.
And there too.
Surely the honesty (or lack of) of a politician is a rather important matter? Or will you vote for your next president while remaining completely ignorant of if he's likely to keep his promises or tell you a pack of lies?
Not at all, that's a completely different discussion. With my 20/20 hindsight, I think the word religion was the wrong one. Faith would have been much better.
I didn't mean to imply that Christianity in general should be judged, more GWB's personal interpretation, particularly how flexible it is and how he decides to ignore quite important parts of it.
Yeah, that's what I meant, I just didn't write it very well.
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry
EDITED_BY: TheBovrilMonkey (1075315619)
Quote:
I hope that makes things clearer
Doesn't look like I did too good a job on that
Quote:
Ray: Okay, I have lived in worse conditions during my time in the Corps
Simian:You joined the Corps of your own free will, so that's irrelevant innit?
I agree completely with Simian there.
Quote:
Ray: who are to judge him on anything he did before running for office?
Simian: Um, we are the millions of people whose lives are massively influenced by his honesty and good character or lack of it. That's who we are to judge.
And there too.
Surely the honesty (or lack of) of a politician is a rather important matter? Or will you vote for your next president while remaining completely ignorant of if he's likely to keep his promises or tell you a pack of lies?
Quote:
You wouldn't be trying to suggest that you judge a whole religion based on his actions alone are you?
Not at all, that's a completely different discussion. With my 20/20 hindsight, I think the word religion was the wrong one. Faith would have been much better.
I didn't mean to imply that Christianity in general should be judged, more GWB's personal interpretation, particularly how flexible it is and how he decides to ignore quite important parts of it.
Quote:
I don't think Bovril was suggesting that. I took it to mean it might be a good idea to judge a State Leader on whether his actions are overly influenced by his religion.
Yeah, that's what I meant, I just didn't write it very well.
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry
EDITED_BY: TheBovrilMonkey (1075315619)
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
mULti-torTOISe
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
310 posts
Location: Kent currently, Cornwall soon, New Zealand eventua...
Posted:
Still working on my "conclusive argument" PM to you Ray, will put all links in that. The summary I found was from www.cadu.org.uk, but if you just type "depleted uranium health risks" into Google you'll find plenty. The only ones that play the risk down are government or military sites. 'Nuff said.
The US and the UK used WMDs on children. They may have slaughtered a load of adults at the same time... no, you're right, that makes it so much better. I will watch my phraseology from now on.
As to the phrase
- you will note that I was refering to the laws passed by our bloodthirsty and immoral governments, not to any sort of moral code. I think we would both agree that stabbing people is wrong, whether you're wearing green socks or not. Funny that you still think it's alright to drop bombs on people, so long as you're wearing the right kind of uniform...
Still working on my "conclusive argument" PM to you Ray, will put all links in that. The summary I found was from www.cadu.org.uk, but if you just type "depleted uranium health risks" into Google you'll find plenty. The only ones that play the risk down are government or military sites. 'Nuff said.
The US and the UK used WMDs on children. They may have slaughtered a load of adults at the same time... no, you're right, that makes it so much better. I will watch my phraseology from now on.
As to the phrase
Quote:
As far as anyone who lives in either the UK or the Us having any moral obligation to obey the law whatsoever, don't make me laugh.
- you will note that I was refering to the laws passed by our bloodthirsty and immoral governments, not to any sort of moral code. I think we would both agree that stabbing people is wrong, whether you're wearing green socks or not. Funny that you still think it's alright to drop bombs on people, so long as you're wearing the right kind of uniform...
The Confusion Squid has many tentacles
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Simian:
Not to me, but then again it all boils down to opinion. The people in G-Bay were not just selected at random. Ever hear the phrase guilty by assosiation? While they may or may not be guilty in a court system, they have been detained because of thier own free will choice to be around those that have done wrong. Kinda like, you and your mates are crossing into Canada from the US, you have a bag of some illeagle drug in the back of the rental car. (I am not 100% on this but pretend that I am right just for the sake of an example) The Canadian cops stop you at the border and happen to have a K-9 unit there that happens to smell the druggs. Well, all of you in the car are detained for atleast a little while, whilst the cops do their thing. Did that make sence? I hope so.
You know you do have a good point, but I think that the time to judge was during campaigne season not now.
Nah I think I know what you mean.
Okay, what is the point of any religion? I feel that it is a basis for one to live their life by. My actions are influenced by my religion. Most people who have a religion, their actions are influenced by their religion.
Simian, my question to you is should there only be state leaders who have no religious influence what so ever?
TBM:
Read what I said to Simian
I agree with you to an extent and I understand what you mean, but what are the important parts to GWB?
No worries, I completly understand what it means to be in a bit of a hurry hehe
Joe, thanks for the site, I will read more when I get a chance.
Joe, we will both agree that murder is wrong, but something tells me that we will both disagree on the definition of murder. So that is a topic for another debate. I view war to be differnt from murder.
Simian:
Quote:
You joined the Corps of your own free will, so that's irrelevant innit?
Not to me, but then again it all boils down to opinion. The people in G-Bay were not just selected at random. Ever hear the phrase guilty by assosiation? While they may or may not be guilty in a court system, they have been detained because of thier own free will choice to be around those that have done wrong. Kinda like, you and your mates are crossing into Canada from the US, you have a bag of some illeagle drug in the back of the rental car. (I am not 100% on this but pretend that I am right just for the sake of an example) The Canadian cops stop you at the border and happen to have a K-9 unit there that happens to smell the druggs. Well, all of you in the car are detained for atleast a little while, whilst the cops do their thing. Did that make sence? I hope so.
Quote:
Um, we are the millions of people whose lives are massively influenced by his honesty and good character or lack of it. That's who we are to judge.
You know you do have a good point, but I think that the time to judge was during campaigne season not now.
Quote:
I don't think Bovril was suggesting that. I took it to mean it might be a good idea to judge a State Leader on whether his actions are overly influenced by his religion.
Did that last sentence confuse you? It did me...
Nah I think I know what you mean.
Okay, what is the point of any religion? I feel that it is a basis for one to live their life by. My actions are influenced by my religion. Most people who have a religion, their actions are influenced by their religion.
Simian, my question to you is should there only be state leaders who have no religious influence what so ever?
TBM:
Quote:
I agree completely with Simian there.
Quote:
And there too.
Surely the honesty (or lack of) of a politician is a rather important matter? Or will you vote for your next president while remaining completely ignorant of if he's likely to keep his promises or tell you a pack of lies?
Read what I said to Simian
Quote:
Not at all, that's a completely different discussion. With my 20/20 hindsight, I think the word religion was the wrong one. Faith would have been much better.
I didn't mean to imply that Christianity in general should be judged, more GWB's personal interpretation, particularly how flexible it is and how he decides to ignore quite important parts of it.
I agree with you to an extent and I understand what you mean, but what are the important parts to GWB?
Quote:
Yeah, that's what I meant, I just didn't write it very well.
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry
No worries, I completly understand what it means to be in a bit of a hurry hehe
Joe, thanks for the site, I will read more when I get a chance.
Quote:
think we would both agree that stabbing people is wrong, whether you're wearing green socks or not. Funny that you still think it's alright to drop bombs on people, so long as you're wearing the right kind of uniform...
Joe, we will both agree that murder is wrong, but something tells me that we will both disagree on the definition of murder. So that is a topic for another debate. I view war to be differnt from murder.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Heavy snippage throughout, I didn't want to make a huge post containing huge quotes.
There's a difference between being detained in a Canadian jail cell while everything's being investigated and being held in what's effectively a concentration camp.
I'm not suggesting that they be released while everything's investigated, just that they're held humanely while it's being done.
Is that too much to expect or is it being assumed that they're all guilty so they can be treated however the US wants to treat them?
Surely it's worth investigating and judging now, so GWB isn't given another term in office if he doesn't deserve it?
Yes.
According to a part of US legislation, state leaders are required to leave their religion at the door, as it were.
(I'm sorry, I don't have the time to look it up, maybe someone who knows it better than I do can help).
Heavy snippage throughout, I didn't want to make a huge post containing huge quotes.
Quote:
The people in G-Bay were not just selected at random. Ever hear the phrase guilty by assosiation? While they may or may not be guilty in a court system, they have been detained because of thier own free will choice to be around those that have done wrong.
Well, all of you in the car are detained for atleast a little while, whilst the cops do their thing.
There's a difference between being detained in a Canadian jail cell while everything's being investigated and being held in what's effectively a concentration camp.
I'm not suggesting that they be released while everything's investigated, just that they're held humanely while it's being done.
Is that too much to expect or is it being assumed that they're all guilty so they can be treated however the US wants to treat them?
Quote:
You know you do have a good point, but I think that the time to judge was during campaigne season not now.
Surely it's worth investigating and judging now, so GWB isn't given another term in office if he doesn't deserve it?
Quote:
my question to you is should there only be state leaders who have no religious influence what so ever?
Yes.
According to a part of US legislation, state leaders are required to leave their religion at the door, as it were.
(I'm sorry, I don't have the time to look it up, maybe someone who knows it better than I do can help).
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com