posted
Well, we also "deployed them [the troops] in the first place" because we wanted to go to war. We didn't have to send them there. We decided to go to war, and sent them. Then we realized that the UN wasn't going to fall for the bs we were telling them. So, we wasted all that money getting the troops there. As long as we already have them there, well. . . we have to attack, because it costs millions to keep them there and billions to deploy them in the first place.
Wait a minute. Maybe next time, we should go counting out chickens before they are hatched. Maybe we shouldn't spend billions deploying them, and then millions keeping the "ready" until we get the go ahead from whomever we need the go ahead from! Just a thought.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To get back to the thread topic, Christopher Hutchins pointed out last week that trials for the Bali bombers have already begun, abd in some cases concluded:AP report on first vedict (death), Guardian report I added the Guardian because they have a lot on Indonesia, and to mess with newfoundlogic.
How does it help the US internationally if a country with huge human rights violations can hold public trials of terrorists with civilian judges (no comment on the fairness of said judges) and the US refuses to do the same for the detainees in Guantanamo? Link on Indonesian human rights violations: Amnesty International on Indonesia.
The war in Afghanistan has been over for a considerable time, and trials are not even scheduled, that I've heard. Not to mention the hearings on combatant status that apparently will never happen.
I don't like my country's justice system being compared with an abusive and corrupt third world country's, and America's looking the worst of the two.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Surprise, surprise. Canada looks better every day.
Surprise, surprise. Australia looks worse every day.
quote:It would be one thing if they were really justified in what they were doing but just didn't have uniforms or whatever, but they are terrorists, so I see no reason to bend the rules out of pity for them. It would be one thing if you wanted to treat them as POWs so that they would in turn treat Americans fairly but I just don't think doing so will make a difference. If it were a real country we were fighting we wouldn't put the prisoners in Guantanamo, notice Iraqi prisoners for example.
I'm going to Bob the Lawyer in puking all over this one.
See, America wants to invade Iraq. The UN says "No, you can't." America says "Yeee-hawwwwwwww! We're a gonna go an' free them Iraqis / find them weapons / take them oils / kill them Husseins". America says "this ain't gonna be no Vietnam". Three months later, America is saying "Ya'll UN folks have a responsibility to help in Iraq."
Arrogant, hypocritical and contemptuous. International law is only something to be followed when convenient, the Geneva Convenient is for wiping your ass and some human beings are afforded less compassion and treated worse than a stray dog. Wow, home of the free. Land of the brave.
And no, I don't hate America. I just find it incredibly sad what it's doing to the world... And my country isn't much better.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Execept I'd say Australia is getting to be just about on par - we just don't have the resources to do anything big about it!
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm getting sick of people saying that the US ever said, "we don't need you, UN." We tried to get the UN on board they agreed and then individual members claim they didn't agree. The US decides that it won't follow the policy of appeasement that Europe enjoys so much and gets criticized for it. Now the US doesn't ask for the UN to do its "fair share" but to help because after all it is hard to imagine how Iraqis are worse off before with Hussein.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, you do realise that homelessness, rape, theft, starvation, etc. are all up under US occupation, right?
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And all those things went up after the Soviet Union collapsed. However, in both cases state sponsored murder and slavery decreased.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A bunch of people have piped up to disagree with the no-good liberals who've posted on this thread. With the exception of one solitary psycho, no one's actually directly defended what's going on in Guantanamo. I'm really curious: do you people actually think this is justified, or are you just combing posts for things to disagree with?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with what's happening in Guantanamo but I don't support it either. I feel about it the same way I feel about whether George Bush drinks coffee in the morning. I simly don't care whether or not prisoners are held in Guantanamo. My objections to the statements in this thread are based on what the prisoners are, what happened before the war, Iraq, etc.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, what assurance can you give me that the US government hasn't locked up afghan farmers, who only know of the US in abstract that simply answered the Mujahadeen to defend their homeland?
Oh, that's right none!
-that- is the problem with camp X-Ray. The world has no justification for these individuals being there. While i don't doubt there are probably al Qaeda sympathizers in the bunch, since there is no transparency in this administrations operations (seems to be their hallmark), i find this behavior at best arrogant and offensive, and at worst, reprehensable.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't distrust my government based simply on the fact that its primarily composed of Republicans. After all how do we know Clinton didn't send hit squads into inner city neighborhoods to eliminate any conservative movements? Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a reason to distrust your government: why would they remove our means of knowing what they're doing to the Guantanemo prisoners, and why the prisoners are imprisoned, if they were only doing things that we would approve of?
posted
We never know 1% of what's going on during any administration. Its like, "Why didn't the government tell us they weren't intending on using the Marines waiting in the Persian Gulf in the first Gulf War?" Since I don't know exactly what the government is doing and I see no reason to be concerned just because of that I'm not going to distrust Bush. It really seems to me that most Democrats will oppose Bush just for the sake of opposing him.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the whole opaqueness of government as followed by the current administration is not surprising since the same PNAC folks are also generally Leo Strauss devotees.
For more info, check out Ron Paul's (the Libertarian-in-Republican's clothing in the House) brilliant speech:
posted
Why people should be skeptical when the government says 'trust us, we know what we're doing' when it imprisons people without proof of criminal activity.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
