Your view on Politics

[SteveThaiBinh]

Um, yeah. While all nations are supposed to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, not all respect them when the time comes. Iraq before the new government was installed is an example of that. I'm not sure what would they do to captured US soldiers in North Korea in the event of a war, either. I'm sure you can find more examples yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, when the time came it turned out that the US, which had been insisting on humane treatment of POWs for decades, didn't respect the Geneva Conventions much either.

 

I'm not an expert by any means, but here's what I think. Since the Geneva Conventions were created, they have been repeatedly flouted by all sides, Western and otherwise. However, treatment of prisoners of war has improved. The real achievement of the Geneva Conventions has been to promote the idea that POWs should receive decent treatment. Ideas are powerful. The existence of a (perhaps impractical) idea is nevertheless a force for making the real situation better.

 

While any brutal dictator can flout the terms of the Geneva Conventions, no dictator, not Pinochet, not Saddam Hussein, has been able to undermine the power of the ideas the conventions represent. But the US has the power to do just that, and is doing that, because as the leader of the free world it has given up on respecting the rights of detainees. That threatens to throw the whole process into reverse.

 

The US government has chosen a narrow view of national security and does not yet understand how completely its moral authority has been destroyed, or why that is important.

[Lucius]

i belive that that homosexuality is wrong and gross.however  being a christian i will show no hate or rejection toward homosexuals... i also refuse to accept the evolution theroy and i dont think humans are animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that Christianity is wrong and gross, but I don't hate or reject Christians. There is nothing contradictory in that sentence.

I refuse to accept gravitational theory and believe the only reason we can't float is because leprechauns are holding us down. I also refuse to accept aerodynamic theories and believe the only reason airplanes fly is a placebo effect, and once everyone accepts the truth all airplanes will crash to the ground.

The evidence in favour of evolution is so absolutely overwhelming that the only reason not to accept it is willful ignorance. The concepts of a flat Earth and the universe revolving around our planet were biblical, but they have very few adherents left today. Those that do still believe in a flat Earth with the universe revolving around us are rightly scoffed at for willfully disregarding all evidence.

I know a large part of the rejection of evolution comes from a need to people to somehow feel more "special" than they already are, "special creations of God", as if a god that rushes through things is more special than a god who takes its time.

I don't know why so many Christians have no problem accepting the concept of their deity being immortal and powerful enough to create the universe and all its inhabitants in six days, but have issues with the concept that maybe that same deity might have the patience to take billions of years to do it.

Not only that, I wonder why they don't have issues with God doing such shoddy work, what with leaving us fairly useless appendices and spines that are poorly suited for bipedal walking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is my favorite post... ever. You describe what I'm unable to say in a very eloquent manner.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

The 9/11 attacks was an ACT OF WAR and not a crime. You never saw the planes live on TV hit the towers. You never saw people jumping off buildings. You never saw the fires burning the Pentagon and WTC. You never saw the tower fall.

 

WTC attack was a act of war and not a crime. Killing three thousand people for allah is not a crime, but a war crime.

 

The invasion of Afganistian was justifed. Because wanted Osama's head! We told them give Osama to us or die. Well they chose to die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Silly me, thinking only nations could commit to war. How about Tim McVeigh? Previous to September 11, he committed the biggest act of terrorism on US soil. How was it treated? He was tried in criminal court. Alabama wasn't bombed because they harbour white supremists. New York wasn't invaded because he was born there. The only difference other than sheer number of dead was that McVeigh was an American citizen. He killed more Americans than likely anyone in Guantanamo, yet was afforded more rights after his capture. And. He. Was. A. Terrorist.

I find it interesting all the stuff you think I never saw. I was glued to my television all day watching everything that happened. So unless you were in New York watching it all in person, you didn't see any more than I did. The only reason I can think of that would bring about such a bizarre assumption is that you must think that everyone who watched the events that day must want to turn the desert into glass, but wrong. I watched the criminal act play out and wanted those who were responsible hunted down and brought to justice. Instead I've watched the United States slaughter many more innocents than were murdered that horrible day.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

This is my favorite post... ever. You describe what I'm unable to say in a very eloquent manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:"> Thanks.

[B5C]

Silly me, thinking only nations could commit to war. How about Tim McVeigh? Previous to September 11, he committed the biggest act of terrorism on US soil. How was it treated? He was tried in criminal court. Alabama wasn't bombed because they harbour white supremists. New York wasn't invaded because he was born there. The only difference other than sheer number of dead was that McVeigh was an American citizen. He killed more Americans than likely anyone in Guantanamo, yet was afforded more rights after his capture. And. He. Was. A. Terrorist.

I find it interesting all the stuff you think I never saw. I was glued to my television all day watching everything that happened. So unless you were in New York watching it all in person, you didn't see any more than I did. The only reason I can think of that would bring about such a bizarre assumption is that you must think that everyone who watched the events that day must want to turn the desert into glass, but wrong. I watched the criminal act play out and wanted those who were responsible hunted down and brought to justice. Instead I've watched the United States slaughter many more innocents than were murdered that horrible day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You make me sick. Also note thats before 9/11 days. So under Clinton, acts of terrorism was a crime and not a war. Which was a mistake. Also note why we didnt crack down on American terrorists are 2 reasons:

 

1. Ruby Ridge

2. Waco

 

Also they are US citizens cause the attacks. So they have rights because they are a citizen of the United States.

 

The terrorists who attacked us on that day are foreigners with no US citizenship. It was a attack out side of the US. That is war. I hated Clinton's anti-terror tactics. We should have invaded Afganistian after the USS Cole.

[Lucius]

You know what makes me sick? The fact that you think non US citizens have no rights and your signature.

[B5C]

You know what makes me sick? The fact that you think non US citizens have no rights and your signature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

They should not. They should have limted rights. Like no free eduction, driving, or any government programs. Unless they are here for school or work (Which should be monitored) or they prove them selves that they are getting their US Citizenship. Citizenship should be somthing that is a privlege and you should repect it.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

You make me sick. Also note thats before 9/11 days. So under Clinton, acts of terrorism was a crime and not a war. Which was a mistake. Also note why we didnt crack down on American terrorists are 2 reasons:

 

1. Ruby Ridge

2. Waco

 

Also they are US citizens cause the attacks. So they have rights because they are a citizen of the United States.

 

The terrorists who attacked us on that day are foreigners with no US citizenship. It was a attack out side of the US.  That is war. I hated Clinton's anti-terror tactics. We should have invaded Afganistian after the USS Cole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what about me is making you sick? That I want terrorists punished under law, or that I don't think the best way to get the murderers of innocent people is to kill many, many more innocent people?

Invading Afghanistan after the USS Cole would have been even more of an obscene overreaction, but of course it was Clinton's fault. I'm sure conservatives are still scrambling to find some way to blame World Wars 1&2, the Korean War, and Vietnam on Bill Clinton.

It also scares the hell out of me as a non-citizen of the US that I would have no rights, which of course means that if I ever jaywalk there I could face the death chamber. That of course is crap, because even non-citizens have rights in criminal court, which is why terrorists have been given a new designation. As for it being an attack outside of the US, I have to assume you're no longer talking about Sept. 11 but now going on about, what, Afghanis fighting against foreign invaders?

[draakh_kimera]

They should not. They should have limted rights. Like no free eduction, driving, or any government programs. Unless they are here for school or work (Which should be monitored) or they prove them selves that they are getting their US Citizenship. Citizenship should be somthing that is a privlege and you should repect it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That sounds very similar (not as open or explicit, but built on similar grounds), to how a certain group of people were treated by the nazis during the second world war <_<

 

Also, it's interesting how americans tend to "forget" how several problems with dictators and terrorists were at first supported by them, like Saddam, bin Laden, Pinochet, there's more...

[kirottu]

You know what makes me sick? The fact that you think non US citizens have no rights and your signature.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They should not. They should have limted rights. Like no free eduction, driving, or any government programs. Unless they are here for school or work (Which should be monitored) or they prove them selves that they are getting their US Citizenship. Citizenship should be somthing that is a privlege and you should repect it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yay for tourism!

[B5C]

So what about me is making you sick? That I want terrorists punished under law, or that I don't think the best way to get the murderers of innocent people is to kill many, many more innocent people?

 

Yes they can have a trial, but they should have no rights as a POW. Remember terrorists are animals.

 

Invading Afghanistan after the USS Cole would have been even more of an obscene overreaction, but of course it was Clinton's fault. I'm sure conservatives are still scrambling to find some way to blame World Wars 1&2, the Korean War, and Vietnam on Bill Clinton.

 

World War I- Alliances and the Serbs

 

World War II- Appesement from the British and French. Germay and the Japs.

 

Korean War- Communists

 

Vietnam- Communists

 

It also scares the hell out of me as a non-citizen of the US that I would have no rights, which of course means that if I ever jaywalk there I could face the death chamber. That of course is crap, because even non-citizens have rights in criminal court, which is why terrorists have been given a new designation.

 

No we would just put you on a plane and kick you out.

 

As for it being an attack outside of the US, I have to assume you're no longer talking about Sept. 11 but now going on about, what, Afghanis fighting against foreign invaders?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the 9/11 attacks was a foriegn operation. They are funed outside the US but trained in the US and used our planes as weapons.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I find it interesting all the stuff you think I never saw. I was glued to my television all day watching everything that happened. So unless you were in New York watching it all in person, you didn't see any more than I did. The only reason I can think of that would bring about such a bizarre assumption is that you must think that everyone who watched the events that day must want to turn the desert into glass, but wrong. I watched the criminal act play out and wanted those who were responsible hunted down and brought to justice. Instead I've watched the United States slaughter many more innocents than were murdered that horrible day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On September 11 2001 I was living in Viet Nam. I didn't have a television, so although I saw photos in newspapers, I didn't see the television pictures of the events until nearly two years later when I returned to the UK. I wonder sometimes if not sharing in the trauma of those days, in the whole media spectacle, has affected my views.

 

What I most remember about the events was how unsympathetic my Vietnamese friends were. They felt sorry for the people who died and for their families, but they didn't feel sorry for 'America'. In fact, they hoped that America would finally understand the horror that America inflicted upon that Viet Nam - everyone I knew had lost a relative, usually an uncle or grandfather, in the war. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out like that.

[B5C]

That sounds very similar (not as open or explicit, but built on similar grounds), to how a certain group of people were treated by the nazis during the second world war <_<

 

Hey I support the Jews. Dont call me a racist. Heck I am a Zionist. Israel will only belong to the Jews. Even the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Palaestinans have to homeland. West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt.

 

Also, it's interesting how americans tend to "forget" how several problems with dictators and terrorists were at first supported by them, like Saddam, bin Laden, Pinochet, there's  more...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simple: The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend.

 

Saddam- Iran was our enemy.

UBL- We need him to kick the damn soviets butts.

Pinochet- We needed him to kick the communist government out and replace it with a capitalist state. Which he did and the nation prospered.

 

Also note that Monroe Doctrine is still in affect. So North and South America is our control.

[kirottu]

Remember terrorists are animals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You should try some other even more extreme example in hoping of fueling a flame war since animals have rights.

[B5C]

On September 11 2001 I was living in Viet Nam.  I didn't have a television, so although I saw photos in newspapers, I didn't see the television pictures of the events until nearly two years later when I returned to the UK.  I wonder sometimes if not sharing in the trauma of those days, in the whole media spectacle, has affected my views.

 

What I most remember about the events was how unsympathetic my Vietnamese friends were.  They felt sorry for the people who died and for their families, but they didn't feel sorry for 'America'.  In fact, they hoped that America would finally understand the horror that America inflicted upon that Viet Nam - everyone I knew had lost a relative, usually an uncle or grandfather, in the war.  Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What part of Nam were you in? The Old South or Old North. If you stayed in the North. I can see that, but in the South. I felt like we abandon them. The people of the South were slaughtered by the Charlie and Northern Communists.

[SteveThaiBinh]

(Foreigners) should have limted rights. Like no free eduction, driving, or any government programs. Unless they are here for school or work (Which should be monitored) or they prove them selves that they are getting their US Citizenship. Citizenship should be somthing that is a privlege and you should repect it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you implement this, then Americans abroad can expect to get the same treatment from other countries. They won't put up with it, and will return home, as will foreign workers in the US. Global trade will be damaged and an economic recession could even be triggered. People in the US and across the world will lose their jobs.

 

Whose security will that improve?

[SteveThaiBinh]

What part of Nam were you in? The Old South or Old North. If you stayed in the North. I can see that, but in the South. I felt like we abandon them. The people of the South were slaughtered by the Charlie and Northern Communists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I lived in what was South Vietnam for a year, and then the North for two years, and I was in the North on September 11.

 

You won't find a lot of sympathy for the US in either half, in my experience. People in the north blame the US entirely for the war, people in the south divide the blame between the North Vietnamese, the US and the corrupt South Vietnamese leaders equally. I always treated what people said with caution, of course. Viet Nam is still a Communist country, and people can't speak freely to foreigners, certainly not to be critical of the Party.

 

Someone in south Vietnam told me that they had been happy when the Americans left, because it meant the war was over. But then they were angry because when the North Vietnamese arrived, the repression was pretty severe.

 

That said, people are remarkably forgiving and don't bear grudges. They have a fairly positive attitude towards the US, given all they have suffered. But they are understandably intolerant of what they see as the US wars of aggession in Afghanistan, Iraq and others.

[213374U]

I'm not an expert by any means, but here's what I think.  Since the Geneva Conventions were created, they have been repeatedly flouted by all sides, Western and otherwise.  However, treatment of prisoners of war has improved.  The real achievement of the Geneva Conventions has been to promote the idea that POWs should receive decent treatment.  Ideas are powerful.  The existence of a (perhaps impractical) idea is nevertheless a force for making the real situation better.

I honestly don't know. I would really like to think that if the US went to war with North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or some other country, Western POWs would be treated according to the Conventions. But so far, it seems that the only ones that respect those agreements are those who "invented" the principles on which they are founded. And after Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not even by the US.

 

 

While any brutal dictator can flout the terms of the Geneva Conventions, no dictator, not Pinochet, not Saddam Hussein, has been able to undermine the power of the ideas the conventions represent.  But the US has the power to do just that, and is doing that, because as the leader of the free world it has given up on respecting the rights of detainees.  That threatens to throw the whole process into reverse.

I agree, to a point. You are right in that no dictator can undermine the power of an idea, but since usually dictators already have the international community against them, they really don't lose anything by violating the Conventions, too. Even if the whole world respected those Conventions and were adherents to the idea of innate human rights, it only takes one dictator (or democratically elected president) to violate human rights. So much for the power of ideas.

 

 

Silly me, thinking only nations could commit to war. How about Tim McVeigh? Previous to September 11, he committed the biggest act of terrorism on US soil. How was it treated? He was tried in criminal court. Alabama wasn't bombed because they harbour white supremists. New York wasn't invaded because he was born there. The only difference other than sheer number of dead was that McVeigh was an American citizen. He killed more Americans than likely anyone in Guantanamo, yet was afforded more rights after his capture. And. He. Was. A. Terrorist.

The difference is that he wasn't backed or funded by any governments. Small countries with little in the way of economic or military resources are resorting to terrorism as their way to cowardly wage war against those they could not attack openly. That is something that international law and justice courts are not ready to deal with.

[draakh_kimera]

Hey I support the Jews. Dont call me a racist. Heck I am a Zionist. Israel will only belong to the Jews. Even the West Bank and Gaza. Since the Palaestinans have to homeland. West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not calling you a racist. But what you think of how non-US citizens should be treated is comparable to the persecution of the Jews by the Nazis.

 

Simple: The Enemy of my Enemy is my friend.

 

Saddam- Iran was our enemy.

UBL- We need him to kick the damn soviets butts.

Pinochet- We needed him to kick the communist government out and replace it with a capitalist state. Which he did and the nation prospered.

 

Also note that Monroe Doctrine is still in affect. So North and South America is our control.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And the consequences of such short-sighted politics has become evident.

[213374U]

You should try some other even more extreme example in hoping of fueling a flame war since animals have rights.

[B5C]

You should try some other even more extreme example in hoping of fueling a flame war since animals have rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, animals do have rights. They have the right to be in my stomach.

[Baley]

Yes, animals do have rights. They have the right to be in my stomach.

(w00t) "

 

Killer line

[kirottu]

You should try some other even more extreme example in hoping of fueling a flame war since animals have rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, animals do have rights. They have the right to be in my stomach.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you plan to start eating terrorist as well? That would be scary.

[Baley]

(w00t) Terorists are tasty "

Especially with mayonaise

[B5C]

Do you plan to start eating terrorist as well? That would be scary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

No Terrorists are like coyotes. You shoot them at sight.