Your view on Politics

[Rosbjerg]

much better .. thank you! ^_^

 

maybe I should be a moderator? .. A man can dream! .. a man can dream ...

[Lucius]

Luckily, I can't even see what the jerk is saying, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't exist. And I was replying to a different person entirely.

 

But thanks anyway Ros. ^_^

[SteveThaiBinh]

No nation is perfect but I say with absolute certainity that the U.S. is the least of the international offenders of human rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's difficult to compare human rights between countries, because of the need for a common standard. Indexes such as the Observer Human Rights Index tend to rank the US fairly low, but that's mainly because they include executions and death sentences as human rights abuses, something many Americans would disagree with. Even the strongest pro-US commentator wouldn't claim that the US has the best human rights record in the world, better than Scandinavia, for example. What they would do is claim that the US' responsiblities around the world, and it's role as world policeman, make such a perfect human rights record impossible.

 

You're quite right, no nations is perfect. Did anyone here claim otherwise? Well I'll just say this, I really dislike what's going on in Guantanamo.

Well, sorry about that. I hear it's pretty comfortable as far as POW camps go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1098391,00.html

 

The problem is that we really don't know. Who do we believe, the released detainees or the US government? I worry for the future of the American nation, because if it emerges that the detainees' account was the more accurate, it will have a devastating effect on the nation's confidence and sense of self worth, more even than Viet Nam did.

 

Well, considering that NATO forces are made up mostly of US equipment and personnel, I'd say we depend somewhat on their military. And let's not forget it was the US that came to the rescue in WWII. So... yeah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We in Europe certainly did depend on the threat of US power, including nuclear power, during the Cold War. It's more debatable whether we still do. However, when I was in Latvia, I noticed that Latvians are much more worried about a resurgent Russian Empire than us in Western Europe.

 

We don't want to break the alliance with the US, but there may come a time soon where we have to. NATO includes the clause that an attack on one member state is an attack on all, but when European countries invoked that after September 11 and offered help with the attack on Afghanistan, we were treated with utter contempt by the US. Furthermore, Bush's attempt to embroil NATO in his Iraq war, completely unrelated to any attack on NATO territory, jeopardised the alliance. I cannot accept that the US is going around stirring up trouble and creating instability across the world, but one day I might be called upon to defend the US with my life from the avoidable consequences of those actions.

[1eyedParrot]

A mandatory draft not only rapes the constitution it also makes for a less effective military force. A draft should only be optioned in the event of a major war(IE: WW2) in which the majority of the nation supports the war effort. The all volunteer force we have now is more effective because of the simple fact that citizens joining the army join because they want to go fight. They have the motivation, the desire and apptitude to  fufill this duty. A citizen forced to fight(IE: an unsupported draft) makes little more than cannon fodder.

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

 

 

You know, here at least, draftees don't get shipped off to war if they don't want to, and it so happens that some of those who initially resist end up continuing or taking international assignments. Besides, you need an education to become an officer.

 

 

That is doesn't make it better, your system is just different. The U.S. military is all volunteer, citizens joining the Army or Marines join because they want to get into some action. You don't join the USMC to get an office job. It's somewhat more lax in the Navy and AF but the concept is the same. If you join the U.S. military you WILL be expected to fight the enemy, as deemed by military command, in any capacity that is requested. If you don't want to fight, don't join the military.

 

 

As for patriotism, what is wrong with that? Is it a crime to be proud of your country?

 

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

I really don't want to talk more about patriotism, let me just say you don't have to be a patriot to be proud of your country.

 

You don't have to be a patriot to be proud of your country, but you CAN if you so choose. Individual choice.

 

 

No nation is perfect but I say with absolute certainity that the U.S. is the least of the international offenders of human rights.

 

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

You're quite right, no nations is perfect. Did anyone here claim otherwise? Well I'll just say this, I really dislike what's going on in Guantanamo.

 

 

So do I, I also don't like whats going in the Sudan. Niether do I like all the news reports of robberies, rapes, and murders by immigrated Islamic Arabs in Sweden. I also don't like political dissidents jailed and tortured in China. My point was not to say, "We are angels! We do no wrong!", it was to illustrate that there are much worse atrocities going on in the world that should have the foremost attention.

 

 

The U.S. is better than some other countries, I don't see Iranian carrier fleets or North Korean battleships anywhere.

 

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

So you define a country to be better by how many carrier battlegroups and battleships they have? Well you're certainly better at going to war, we've all witnessed that!  :ph34r:

 

 

Yes I do, it could be anything, airliners, mass transportation, extent of highway roads, medical care, etc... A nation is defined first by its technologicl, industrial, and economical power. The U.S. standard of living is the second highest in the world and no nation would dare to assault U.S. soil. We have space shuttles and dozens of satellites. We have put a man on the moon, who else can claim the same?

 

 

What about European militaries? Those nations depend on the local U.S. power like a baby depends on her mother's breast milk.

 

 

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

We depend on U.S. power? What on earth do you mean by that? I certainly don't depend on US military, never have. So you must mean electricity or what?

 

 

U.S. military power, YOU may not depend on it but your country does. For years EU countries have ridden the cotails of U.S. military bases, using them as an excuse not to fund their own national security.

 

 

With Putin slashing democratic processes in preperation for a return to communism the EU better get the plug out of thier ass and maybe get some patriotism for themselves.

 

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

 

Tried that, remember what happened in Europe the previous century? You keep it.

 

 

Alright, we'll also keep our troops home in the event that Putin decides he wants his eastern Europe satellite countries back.

 

EDIT: fixed formating

[mkreku]

Well, considering that NATO forces are made up mostly of US equipment and personnel, I'd say we depend somewhat on their military. And let's not forget it was the US that came to the rescue in WWII. So... yeah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you read that? In my history books (by an american author, no less) it says the russians were fighting 70% of the german forces, the americans 20% and the rest (10%) were scattered in, for example, Italy, to keep the fascists happy.

 

Where does it say Americans came to rescue..? America didn't join the war until they were attacked themselves. It wasn't out of kindness or ideology. It was out of fear they joined.

[Jellybelly]

Indeed. As a matter of fact, before they were assaulted, they even contemplated supporting the Third Reich.

[Lucius]

That is doesn't make it better, your system is just different. The U.S. military is all volunteer, citizens joining the Army or Marines join because they want to get into some action. You don't join the USMC to get an office job. It's somewhat more lax in the Navy and AF but the concept is the same. If you join the U.S. military you WILL be expected to fight the enemy, as deemed by military command, in any capacity that is requested. If you don't want to fight, don't join the military.

 

I didn't say our system was better per say, I just think it's more healthy to get a fair mix of the different layers of society into the army. Just as long as you don't send those draftees off to war, let the professionals handle that, but under critical conditions during wartime is an entirely different situation.

 

You don't have to be a patriot to be proud of your country, but you CAN if you so choose. Individual choice.

 

According to my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, a patriot is one who 'loves' his country. I don't know how you personally will define the difference between just being proud and love your country, but as for me I'll just remain proud. ^_^

 

So do I, I also don't like whats going in the Sudan. Niether do I like all the news reports of robberies, rapes, and murders by immigrated Islamic Arabs in Sweden. I also don't like political dissidents jailed and tortured in China. My point was not to say, "We are angels! We do no wrong!", it was to illustrate that there are much worse atrocities going on in the world that should have the foremost attention.

 

Yes I heard that Fox News have been reporting about immgrants in Scania (Sk

[Lucius]

Well, considering that NATO forces are made up mostly of US equipment and personnel, I'd say we depend somewhat on their military. And let's not forget it was the US that came to the rescue in WWII. So... yeah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where did you read that? In my history books (by an american author, no less) it says the russians were fighting 70% of the german forces, the americans 20% and the rest (10%) were scattered in, for example, Italy, to keep the fascists happy.

 

Where does it say Americans came to rescue..? America didn't join the war until they were attacked themselves. It wasn't out of kindness or ideology. It was out of fear they joined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And you're quite right mkreku, the Soviets were the ones responsible for grinding down the Wehrmacht, the casualties on the eastern front were terrible (especially for the Soviets).

[213374U]

Where does it say Americans came to rescue..? America didn't join the war until they were attacked themselves. It wasn't out of kindness or ideology. It was out of fear they joined.

Where did I say it was out of kindness or ideology?

 

But can you assure that without the US intervention WWII would have been won? The Germans were close to completely overrunning the Soviet Union, and even after they were driven back at Kursk no European country was in any shape to take the fighting back to them without further support. Whether the USSR would have been able to lead a successful counterstrike without US support against German forces is highly debatable.

We don't know either if they would have kept pressing foward after they had driven the Germans out of Soviet soil, considering the huge losses they had already suffered.

 

So, yeah. We really didn't need the US.

[draakh_kimera]

1eyedParrot

Yes I do, it could be anything, airliners, mass transportation, extent of highway roads, medical care, etc... A nation is defined first by its technologicl, industrial, and economical power. The U.S. standard of living is the second highest in the world and no nation would dare to assault U.S. soil. We have space shuttles and dozens of satellites. We have put a man on the moon, who else can claim the same?

 

That reasoning is somewhat erraneous. If you look at the UNHDI you'll find what's internationally accepted as factors of a countries "rank." As for space shuttles and satellites, that has nothing to do with a countries status. The USSR had satellites and people in space too. Also, I just had to comment a bit about the US standard of living. Standard of living is quite subjective, so how bout we go with the HDI rank, okay? That puts you at 8th place, not second. Not that that's bad, but it isn't second

 

1eyedParrot

You don't have to be a patriot to be proud of your country, but you CAN if you so choose. Individual choice.

 

213374U

Wrong. That's just one of the aspects of patriotism.

 

1eyedParrot

U.S. military power, YOU may not depend on it but your country does. For years EU countries have ridden the cotails of U.S. military bases, using them as an excuse not to fund their own national security.

 

The EU, or europe more righteously said, has depended on the US military power in the past. Not at the moment, but that is a result of the current political situation in the world. Also, socialistic countries tend to dismiss the importance of a military power (at least sweden does), and they do not use the US' power as an excuse. Will the EU depend on US power in the future? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It all depends on how things play out in Russia, and perhaps China, though that's gonna be decades from now.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The U.S. is better than some other countries, I don't see Iranian carrier fleets or North Korean battleships anywhere.

 

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

So you define a country to be better by how many carrier battlegroups and battleships they have? Well you're certainly better at going to war, we've all witnessed that!  :ph34r:

 

Yes I do, it could be anything, airliners, mass transportation, extent of highway roads, medical care, etc... A nation is defined first by its technologicl, industrial, and economical power. The U.S. standard of living is the second highest in the world and no nation would dare to assault U.S. soil. We have space shuttles and dozens of satellites. We have put a man on the moon, who else can claim the same?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US is eighth in the latest Human Development Index. Standard of living is about much more than economic wealth.

 

A nation can be defined by much more than technological, industrial and economic power. It's no surprise that Americans rank these as highest, because those are the areas where they succeed. What about richness of culture, diversity, bio-diversity, equitable distribution of wealth, democratic openness and indeed human rights? There are many ways of defining nations and their success or otherwise.

 

U.S. military power, YOU may not depend on it but your country does. For years EU countries have ridden the cotails of U.S. military bases, using them as an excuse not to fund their own national security.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

National security is about much more than military force. Did the US' military strength keep it safe on September 11? Is it keeping US troops safe in Iraq? Unless the US ackowledges the limits of military power soon, the result could be a disaster for it and for the world. Moreover, security is more than just military and national security. How secure are poor Americans kept safe from al-Qaeda bombs only to die because they don't have medical insurance?

[Atomic Space Vixen]

You're quite right, no nations is perfect. Did anyone here claim otherwise? Well I'll just say this, I really dislike what's going on in Guantanamo.

Well, sorry about that. I hear it's pretty comfortable as far as POW camps go.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except it's not a POW camp in that POW's are afforded certain rights, and the detainees at Guantanamo aren't being afforded, and the US government has denied them POW status, instead referring to the detainees as "enemy combatants."

However, I'm sure it's pretty comfortable as far as concentration camps go. Probably not by much though.

[WITHTEETH]

Sad, sad, sad. We're living on a thin line.

[sawyl]

Actually Meshugger is the one to get drafted since he lives in finland and finland has mandatory drafting system.

That's tough luck, man. Come live in America. It's not mandatory here yet. (But really, Finland has an army? )

 

You know, here at least, draftees don't get shipped off to war if they don't want to, and it so happens that some of those who initially resist end up continuing or taking international assignments. Besides, you need an education to become an officer.

Guess who gets shot at a lot of the time? People who are not officers.

 

We have space shuttles and dozens of satellites. We have put a man on the moon, who else can claim the same?

And what good does that man on the moon do me? NOTHING. V-5 rockets haven't bridged the wealth gap, funded my college education, or provided me with free reliable health care. Or even a free lunch. Come on, really!

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

American didn't join WW2 out of fear. It joined out of revenge and war is good for the economy.

[WITHTEETH]

Strange that war rushed that man to the moon and same for our satellite, but our satellites were second anyway, second to sputnikk ,the russians the other world power at the time. times are changing and power is too, power seems to be having more channels.

Speakinf od Russia, do you guys think they should just give Czechnia too the terrorists?

[B5C]

Except it's not a POW camp in that POW's are afforded certain rights, and the detainees at Guantanamo aren't being afforded, and the US government has denied them POW status, instead referring to the detainees as "enemy combatants."

However, I'm sure it's pretty comfortable as far as concentration camps go. Probably not by much though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats because terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. Terrorists violate every freaking rule in that convention. So they cant have legal POW rights.

[Laozi]

Ya, but you can't declare everyone who lives in a certain country a terrorist.

 

Imagine if you're a citizen of Washington,, and all of the sudden some penguins from another country come in and start pushing you around and generally wreak up the joint. What are you going to do, maybe get a gun and shoot at some penguins, or maybe just protest the penguins being there. Then said penguins say," hey, this guy must be a terrorist because he didn't take the little american flags we passed out and start waving them for all the american journalist." They lock you up and without a trial you have no way of proving that you are not a terrorist, and with no one form the outside to view whats going on, it wouldn't matter if you could. Your life is forfeit on the whim of an invading tyrant. Damn penguins

[envida]

Except it's not a POW camp in that POW's are afforded certain rights, and the detainees at Guantanamo aren't being afforded, and the US government has denied them POW status, instead referring to the detainees as "enemy combatants."

However, I'm sure it's pretty comfortable as far as concentration camps go. Probably not by much though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats because terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. Terrorists violate every freaking rule in that convention. So they cant have legal POW rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another thing is these assumed terrorists get no rights at all. They dont get a chance to prove they are not a terrorist; they are put in jail for years without any chance at all to prove their innocence! Thats the worst part of it. They are just dragged in and put in jail on the bare assumption that they must be terrorists, Some of them are of course but I can guarantee you that some of them are just as innocent as you and me and they have no way of clearing their name. And that is the disgusting part about what they are doing at Guantanamo

[B5C]

Im sorry, but I guess you havent read the Geneva Convention.

 

It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

 

.....

 

Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war and until they are found to be an unlawful combatant. Depending on the circumstances, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN Convention Against Torture have committed themselves not to use torture on anyone for any reason.

 

from Wikipedia

 

Nice Opinion Ed:

 

Terrorists Have No Geneva Rights

Don't blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

 

BY JOHN YOO

Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

In light of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, critics are arguing that abuses of Iraqi prisoners are being produced by a climate of disregard for the laws of war. Human-rights advocates, for example, claim that the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is of a piece with President Bush's 2002 decision to deny al Qaeda and Taliban fighters the legal status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Critics, no doubt, will soon demand that reforms include an extension of Geneva standards to interrogations at Guantanamo Bay.

 

The effort to blur the lines between Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib reflects a deep misunderstanding about the different legal regimes that apply to Iraq and the war against al Qaeda. It ignores the unique demands of the war on terrorism and the advantages that a facility such as Guantanamo can provide. It urges policy makers and the Supreme Court to make the mistake of curing what could prove to be an isolated problem by disarming the government of its principal weapon to stop future terrorist attacks. Punishing abuse in Iraq should not return the U.S. to Sept. 10, 2001, in the way it fights al Qaeda, while Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants remain at large and continue to plan attacks.

 

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq. President Bush and his commanders announced early in the conflict that the Conventions applied. Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which applies to prisoners of war, clearly states: "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." This provision would prohibit some interrogation methods that could be used in American police stations.

 

One thing should remain clear. Physical abuse violates the conventions. The armed forces have long operated a system designed to investigate violations of the laws of war, and ultimately to try and punish the offenders. And it is important to let the military justice system run its course. Article 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which governs the treatment of civilians in occupied territories, states that if a civilian "is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the States, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in favor of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." To be sure, Article 31 of the Fourth Convention prohibits any "physical or moral coercion" of civilians "to obtain information from them," and there is a clear prohibition of torture, physical abuse, and denial of medical care, food, and shelter. Nonetheless, Article 5 makes clear that if an Iraqi civilian who is not a member of the armed forces, has engaged in attacks on Coalition forces, the Geneva Convention permits the use of more coercive interrogation approaches to prevent future attacks.

 

A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

 

As a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws--the infliction of severe mental or physical pain--leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.

 

The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.

 

It is also worth asking whether the strict limitations of Geneva make sense in a war against terrorists. Al Qaeda operates by launching surprise attacks on civilian targets with the goal of massive casualties. Our only means for preventing future attacks, which could use WMDs, is by acquiring information that allows for pre-emptive action. Once the attacks occur, as we learned on Sept. 11, it is too late. It makes little sense to deprive ourselves of an important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks while we are still in the middle of a fight to the death with al Qaeda. Applying different standards to al Qaeda does not abandon Geneva, but only recognizes that the U.S. faces a stateless enemy never contemplated by the Conventions.

 

This means that the U.S. can pursue different interrogation policies in each location. In fact, Abu Ghraib highlights the benefits of Guantanamo. We can guess that the unacceptable conduct of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib resulted in part from the dangerous state of affairs on the ground in a theater of war. American soldiers had to guard prisoners on the inside while receiving mortar and weapons fire from the outside. By contrast, Guantanamo is distant from any battlefield, making it far more secure. The naval station's location means the military can base more personnel there and devote more resources to training and supervision.

 

A decision by the Supreme Court to subject Guantanamo to judicial review would eliminate these advantages. The Justices are currently considering a case, argued last month, which seeks to extend the writ of habeas corpus to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo. If the Court were to extend its reach to the base, judges could begin managing conditions of confinement, interrogation methods, and the use of information. Not only would this call on the courts to make judgments and develop policies for which they have no expertise, but the government will be encouraged to keep its detention facilities in the theater of conflict. Judicial over-confidence in intruding into war decisions could produce more Abu Ghraibs in dangerous combat zones, and remove our most effective means of preventing future terrorist attacks.

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005144

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Except it's not a POW camp in that POW's are afforded certain rights, and the detainees at Guantanamo aren't being afforded, and the US government has denied them POW status, instead referring to the detainees as "enemy combatants."

However, I'm sure it's pretty comfortable as far as concentration camps go. Probably not by much though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats because terrorists do not follow the Geneva Convention. Terrorists violate every freaking rule in that convention. So they cant have legal POW rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Just a little something...

[B5C]

Just a little something...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I guess this man is a freedom fighter right?

 

 

and this was a legal attack agaist a enemy?

 

[Aishur-Rim-Nisheshu]

Cool it down guys.

 

To be fair to BS5, terrorism is a terrible crime but let's not forget that a quasi-war had already existed between Western US and Islam for a long time now.

[B5C]

Cool it down guys.

 

To be fair to BS5, terrorism is a terrible crime but let's not forget that a quasi-war had already existed between Western US and Islam for a long time now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, I remember those quasi-war years. They bomb us and we do nothing.