Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Unsurprising, but horrible. And to think they were 99% likely to have been completely innocent of any crime
As if keeping people in a fucking cage wasn't enough
i'm not being defeatist and taking the piss, i just think we should probably do it.
what is the best way to live one's life in relation to these troubled times?
never heard that one used before.
Draw a line.
Be aware that all your actions have consequences.
Look after those you love.
And hope and work for the revoltuion.
That's all we can do.
For the former case they should have been processed in accordance with the Geneva convention, in the second processed through a court of law. The US government have done neither.
the argument is that they don;t deserve that, as they weren't in uniform when captured.
what a load of shit.
is there any timescale for trials or justice, or is it just "keep 'em there as long as possible and make it look like we're doing something"?
GB is a travesty.
running this place, America would be calling it a brutal affront to democracy and freedom, especially if that country had an abundance of natural resources.
u.s show 3 signs of a failed state.
there was an article about it in the independent 2 the other day.
the worst hing is the fact that the news companies (sky news included) are leaning towards saying that its an act of war. that they were guilty and killed themselves to withstand giving away information.
its crap how its being reported. imagine what its like on fox...
US shows the signs of a failed state? what?
so i'll have a word.
they check them at the airport.
don't get a tan, you might look a bit middle eastern, or even worse... hispanic!
im an American citizen (greencard holder anyway) so they love me. I can feel my mexican neck coming along tho, after only 5 hrs in the sun. Im going to have a swim then go for a 5lb beef and avocado burito!! i love american.
why are the US so quiet about human rights abuses in azerbaijan?
if they werent doing anything wrong, why are they at The Bay? (i wrote that because i cant spell guantameno. see.)
if they're guilty of something, then surely they should've at least been charged with something?
absolutely disgusting but depressingly typical and unsurpringing.
that the US is a normal country, with normal laws and respect for life, values 'n stuff. When in fact it's an incredibly weird joke played by capitalism.
because the U.S. is the ONLY country to do stuff like this
It's morally completely wrong. I'm more shocked as to why anyone in power would think detaining people such as this can ever be justified.
The US just seems to me to be several completely opposing cultures in the same country.
The only country to do this sort of thing whilst claiming to be a fair and democratic society.
i was going to say that last night but then my interweb connection died.
there are a lot of countries that practise imprisonment without charge or release, but i'd imagine most don't claim to be beacons of freedom and hope for the downtrodden..
I dont disagree with you guys, but I think that you are missing the US point here, they know that Guatanamo is what it is, otherwise why would they obviously let the whole world see what it is and that it isnt in the US, and let the whole world see that they arn't tried, and let the whole world see that its based in Cuba, they make the captives wear orange just to ram the point home. The point that the US is really trying to make is......"If we like, we will choose not to be hampered by our own human rights laws, or international law, we will do whatever to 'win' we dont actually care what you or others think....yes there will be outcry from the pinko liberals, but we can manage/bear that"
(They could easily have kept the prisoners secretly in groups clandestinely in the US (or Afghanistan) and spout something about 'extrodinary circumstances' mean they cannot be 'processed' by normal methods, when asked about the few of those prisoners, from countries that the US feels it has to be diplomatic to (e.g. the UK)
I am of course just paraphrasing what I think the US's message is.....I believe they feel the need to make this message because they feel that the 'terror states' believe that the weakness of a huge superpower like the US is that it has its hands tied by the need for democratic popularity, and that they are often hampered by their own self examination, this to a degree may be true, what a shame that they always administer and miscalculate so badly that they always learn far too late, they are unaware that their 'miscalculations' are as terrifying to the rest of the world as the threat of terrorism is to them, unfortunately, because of the size and power of the military machine that they have they are brutal, they have chosen the wrong path, they have not instead developed understanding or subtlety or skill, or education, to deal diplomatically with situations, their own power has meant that in dealings with other countries they have always had their side given more weight/precidence, they will always ahve tended to come off favourably, they have often managed to sway people in other governments (specially poor countries) to help the US at the other countries expense, this means that they would naturally have little good will towards themselves in any negotiation (unless they'd physically save the nation in warfare)
It would be very difficult for the worlds most militarily powerful and richest nation to always restrain itself and not put itself first in negotiations with another country (cos they are considerably richer and more powerful they would almost always come out on top, unless several nations band together in a 'conspiracy' against the US.....e.g. Europe/EEC or the Muslim world, or even socialism (In their eyes).....So because of their power they are not able to use 'good' diplomacy (there will always appear to be an underlying stick or carrot) so there may always be some duress when engaging with the US.
Unfortunately the US seems to have exacerbated the 'natural' problems of being the richest an miliarily most powerful ntion, by having a weak and incapable premier who is advised by a group of non altruistic non idealistic, materialist self interest promoters who seem to be totally driven by seem=ing their duty to maintain the status quo of oil/big business (for e.g) concerns for as long as possible, at the moment they face the problem of trying to keep the same amount of power and profits in particular areas when normally naturally these would alter (future of oil use will decline), these 'advisers are particularly bullish (and probably not too competant cos they dont see the whole picture, despite their efforts....cos they ARE biased) and their actions will be extreme as they pursue their own ideas to satisfy their own agendas.....obviously these people have completely different agendas from what the average american thinks they should be(although they could probably win over the average american by using the 'fear' factor).
I see little way in which democracy could influence what these people do.....the whole Gutanamo thing illustrates this to other 'non democratics' that they're not weak (even if their countrymen are bound by lawyers, THEY. are not).
So tell me guys, why would you expect a bunch of highly motivated, totally ruthless capitalists to care about whether someone is deserving of suffering or not....? Huh? we all know about starving peasents, exploited child miners (child chimney sweeps, slave labour......we all know particular people are prepared to accept this, I believe that the US people are on the whole, hoodwinked into supporting the 'horrid' things the US does, by a few people.
We should try to see it this way, because that is the way to protect best against us becoming more like this.
it's an unnecessarily long post to express a very simple premise. what i don't get, though, is why people aren't outraged by the fact that European countries tolerate this stuff
seriously, guantanamo bay is a result of oil interests?
'fair + democratic' is not one side of a dichotomy but one end of a continuum. But then i've encountered people on here claiming that IRAN is a legitimate democracy so i think there is something quite cynical there.
"it's an incredibly weird joke played by capitalism"
what are you on about ?
Even if they were the ones who actively organised the flights into the Twin Towers it's immaterial.
We (that includes the US) developed the ideas of things like the Geneva Convention because we believed we should be 'better'.
It doesn't matter if your enemy is practising terrorism like that, the point is that you strive to do that 'right' thing.
Keeping the prisoners at Guantanamo in the way they are doing is utterly immoral.
right, so if guantanamo bay didn't violate the third geneva convention you wouldn't be calling for it to close?
you're probably intelligent enough to understand the implications therein.
i still don't think it follows that america runs a torture camp in cuba because there are some resource-rich countries in the middle east.
Most people don't care that much about world affairs. Trains running on time and the destruction of apparent home enemies are far more important. Nothing's changed since the rise of fascism in the 20s and 30s. You should know this.
but the thing that stops us generally making progress is the vested interests of nation states. i don't think that america is essentially that much worse than china or france.
and i don't believe in punishment for anyone for anything.
just ask Tuco.
violates every concept of Human Rights and Justice - and they have the gall to regail the gates with the motto "Honor (sic) bound to defend freedom"
Also, the actual construction of the place was a $200million contract for KBR/Haliburton and Dick Corp. (as in Cheney)
was that Guantanmo stands up as an example of what happens when you fuck around with the United States. do you think if they were complete pansies and nice to everyone they'd still get access to as much oil as they want for reasonable prices?
again, i don't get what you're saying. it's not as if they've put the saudi royal family in GB, is it?
THe US government invaded a country. The people held had been invited by the government of that country to help resist the US invaders.
a lot of them are from afghanistahn, no? the taleban weren't exactly nice fellows.
still, something should've been done with them a long time ago. they shouldn't still be locked up without charge..
to the state of the incarceration of the people.
no it's completely relevant. in a war between the US and the Taleban, you supported the Taleban. It's pretty revealing.
"The people held had been invited by the government of that country to help resist the US invaders."
hang on. the people held in guantanamo bay are people invited by the pre-war iraqi government to fight the US invaders?
well, we have had a lot of wars lately.
but never claim again to be in favour of things like democracy and human rights if you took the side of the islamists in afghanistan
...and more to do with basic human rights. It doesn't really take a convention being in place for you to know that detaining people for an indefinite period without a fair trial/right to a defence is not something which a 'decent' country should be doing.
And if 'we're' fighting a 'war on terror', we simply have to keep a firm grasp on our own moral ground 'cos, if we're no better than the people we're fighting, then what's the point of the fight at all? You can't fight for freedom whilst detaning people without a trial without compromising the very thing your fighting for.
With regard to the suicides, I (like anyone posting on this board) have absolutely no idea whether the 3 prisoners were guilty or not. The claim earlier in the thread that it's "99% certain they havent' committee a crime" is maybe a little inaccurate. But, even if they have committed a crime, they still have the right to a fair trial.
None of us can even say for certain that it wasn't a "PR exercise". I'm not saying I think it was (in factI don't think it was) but the truth is no-one can know why they did it.
Either way, I do think it's extremely unwise of the US government official to say it was. It comes across as crass, insensitive and will simply anger people in a volatile situation. And, furthermore, it assumes the guilt of 3 people who had not been convicted of any crime.
The more the "War on Terror" goes on, with Guantanamo Bay, Al-Ghruab and the massacres of innocent civilians, the more I feel that we've (i.e. the US and Britian for its complicity) lost any moral high ground we've ever had. Which makes me wonder what we're fighting for.
"I (like anyone posting on this board) have absolutely no idea whether the 3 prisoners were guilty or not. The claim earlier in the thread that it's "99% certain they havent' committee a crime" is maybe a little inaccurate. But, even if they have committed a crime, they still have the right to a fair trial."
Crime? They will never face a trial because it will be shown quickly and easily that they are not criminals regardless of what they have done, because they had been invited by a government to help fight a war against an invading force.
was the invasion of afghanistan not carried out by NATO?
A scruple for you JJones;
If you had a friend whose girlfriend was cheating on him would you tell him? Or would you decide that it was really none of your business?
ok, anschul. are you saying intervention is always wrong?
that's fine. It's not a position I share, but then i'm not a conservative isolationist
Against whom - the US invaders??????
but the US intervened on the side of the democrats. Initially, at least. but you don't support that for some reason.
them attacking the american army is no worse than the american army attacking them. In fact it could be argued that the american army attacking them is worse because it is happening on their soil.
however when american soldiers are captured they are tortured.
jesus what a fucked up world!
but the US occupation of afghanistan was approved by the UN and therefore legal. It differs from iraq
The US is bigger and has a more powerful miltary force. Any condemnation of the US can be seen as condemnation of the actions of a typical imperialist power. It used to be Britian, Portugal, Germany, at present it is the US.
that's irrelevant. France benefitted from its collusion with Saddam's govt. in Iraq but never deployed a single troop there.
After Tiananmen Square
I'm no conservative isolationist but neither am I naive enough to believe that the US went into Afghanistan with the purpose of liberating the Afghanis from the Taleban
you thought the intervention in afghanistan was about heroin, though?
can't a war be a war of liberation irrespective of the intentions of those who fight it?
What it reveals about my outlook is consistency.
What it reveals about you is the intrinsic dishonesty of your politics. You offer criticisms of the US, and maybe other 'Western' powers but then "find" a reason to support their actions. Such dishonesty is worse than blatant support for the US and UK governments' actions.
no, no. you don't understand anything of my politics at all. i supported the intervention in afghanistan but am opposed to guantanamo bay. It's probably the most widespread position.
i did write large chunks of dick marty's report on ER so please don't accuse me of justifying US human rights abuses.
go and wank over medialens, you cunt
But you can argue about the lagality of an UN decision of that sort !
Still doesn't excuse Guantanamo...
It is a bullshit issue.
i'm not trying to excuse guantanamo. Just to contest Traynor's absurd belief that the people who fought against the removal of the Taliban were actually anti-imperialistic freedom fighters.
well, you know what the say about people who resort to abuse during argument
It was about political posturing and PR post-9/11
It was also about testing weapons and trying to emasculate the Frankenstein's Monster that the US created in Al-Qaeda
and many other things besides...
the heroin trade question is low down on the list of reasons but it's there somewhere
the dishonesty of your outlook is clear. Why are you opposed to Guantanamo Bay if you supported the invasion? Such an outlook implies that the US has some morailty in its imperialism, which it does not. The incraceration at Guantananmo Bay is part of the US government's actions against Afghanistan. To pick out one thing and bang on about your lack of approval whilst supporting the invasion itself is extremely dishonest. You are trying to hijack the opposition to Guantanamo.
then the US/UK Governments could have done it at any point in the last decade or so 'cos everyone knew how bad the Taliban regime was.
In fariness, I don't think the US ever pretended that this was their goal. They invaded 'cos the Taliban wouldn't hand over Bin Laden (unless he was guaranteed a fair trial in a neutral country). Obviously the invasion left 'em without Bin Laden.
To be honest I think the reason they invaded was partially PR-related. The US population had been badly shaken by September 11 and wanted revenge. Afghanistan was the first practical target to allow the US government to prove to its people that it was gonna be tough on terrorists.
"the US/UK Governments could have done it at any point in the last decade or so 'cos everyone knew how bad the Taliban regime was."
But government's do change. If we'd had the same government for the last 10 years, i'd take your point. Frankly, given that the Major government were unwilling to intervene on the side of the Bosnians in the 90s, an unprovoked intervention to liberate the people of Afghanistan wasn't terribly likely.
otherwise it just becomes an occupation
Surely your own homeland's 'liberation' by the Soviets is an obvious case in point that you can readily appreciate ??
yeah, i think that's fair enough. did most people in Afghanistan want rid of the Taliban?
i agree with virtually everything you've said. which is why i think it was right to remove the taliban and wrong to intern innocent people without trial for years.
Traynor fails to see the consistency in this because he thinks that if you opposed Bush's Iraq war you must also oppose his plan to repeal the Estate Tax cos, y'know, both America, innit?
This thread is stupidly long so I'd better address this here:
"right, so if guantanamo bay didn't violate the third geneva convention you wouldn't be calling for it to close? "
Discussing things with you, JJ, would be rewarding if you didn't seem to wilfully misunderstand whatever people write. Is English your first language? I ask that honestly, not as a dig.
It should have been blindingly obvious that I was talking about the violation of human rights in a broad and obvious sense. The Geneva Convention is merely a bit of paper to try to enforce ideas that should be evident to any human being with compassion.
english isn't technically my first language, no. but i've lived in the UK long enough that it might aswell be.
i think the problem is tbe distinction between the general and literal. As a rhetorical flourish you add a reference to the Geneva Conventions to a general statement about human rights and i respond with specificity. It probably doesn't help that i have fairly different political views and, perhaps, more specific ones than most people who post on here. Except anschul, obviously.
That is the main feature of your approach. I gave you leeway and debated the issues. You responded with intrinsic dishonesty. You deserve no respect.
"well, you know what the say about people who resort to abuse during argument" That is a typical remark from people with your outlook. You propose immoral politics, present them in a dishonest way and then criticise people when they treat you like the shit that you are. If I met Bush, I wonder get into a debate with him, I'd just twat him - that would be all the respect he needs.
but the alleged legility of the american 'liberation' of Afghanistan served the american to do whatever they wanted inclunding Guntanamo.
Sadly this 'liberation' hadn't really helped the population a lot. And what will happen when the americans will go ?
...they were fighting against an invading force (i.e. the US) so I can sympathise with Traynor's argument.
But it's important not to lose sight of the fact that this isn't a black-and-white issue. The Taliban were an oppressive, brutal regime and - invited or not - I find it hard to muster up sympathy for anyone who'd fight to defend them.
But this does not excuse the US's own behaviour in the matter. I think the grounds for invastion of Afghanistan were extremely dodgy (Certainly it was NOT about liberating the people of Afghanistanand I don't think even the US claimed that this was their motive) and the camp at Guantanomo Bay goes againt everything the US claims to be fighting for.
Hitler brought stability to Germany....
Pinochet brought stability to Chile.
...and I accept that I maybe over simplified things myself in what I said. Which I apologise for.
pushes you further to abject support for the US.
Your views are appalling.
I shall show you the respect yoUr views deserve: FUCK OFF!
oh for christ's sake, you have a reflexive hatred for the US and your views are boring. Your entire knowledge about international politics was presumably absorbed in about 45 minutes worth of a STWC rally.
Read the news stories from the time. The official story (that's not to say I'm disputing it) was that we went to war was 'cos the Taliban wouldn't hand over Bin Laden to the US without a guarantee of a fair trial in a neutral country.
Nobody ever claimed to be trying to liberate the people of Afghanistan. Even in US news conferences, that was always just a secondary issue. That's not to say that the Taliban weren't unpleasant bastards but there was never any question that it was a war of liberation.
"there was never any suggestion that it was a war of liberation"
no, but it was a war of liberation in practice. at least, it was until the international community abandandone afghanistan to the warlords.
incidentally, when it came to handing over bin laden for trial in a neutral country - what would he have been tried for ?
I think you'll find there is a link but it's not as direct as "we want oil so we'll make a concentration camp for foreign-looking people"
firstly I'd say that your confusion may be down to English not being your first language, because I've noticed your tendency to latch onto strange parts of people's statements before.
As far as your political views are, I actually can't make them out at all. Half the time you come across as a right-wing slaveing Bush Regime zionist apologist, and the other half as some sort of left-wing Noam Chomsky love-in. I only ever argue with the point you seem to be making but it can be hard to determine at times.
"Half the time you come across as a right-wing slaveing Bush Regime zionist apologist, and the other half as some sort of left-wing Noam Chomsky love-in. I"
doesn't that make me Christopher Hitchens?
but thats why I wrote a long passage I mentioned why america is different in there.....admitedly long passages can turn people off.....Im sorry, I cant always post interactively cos Im at work
I quite like some of the "political threads" we have on DiS but I dislike the lack of rationality that too often blights them. I have learnt from experience that you cannot have a debate with some people on here because they read an entire political outlook into a single, simple statement.
though I'm not sure what he means by this
"It probably doesn't help that i have fairly different political views and, perhaps, more specific ones than most people who post on here. Except anschul, obviously."
your views are not inspecific. i think it's basically a compliment.
I don't like Rapscalion-Jones though. He has deserted the good ship Drowned in Sound
and the sort of left winger that I respect greatly but at the same time I worry that his view point is too learned for me to assail, yet too narrow to make me entirely comfortable.
I don't know. I suspect that's why the US government refused - i.e. the risk that they wouldn't have enough evidence to convict him of anything.
I personally believe a war cannot be a war of liberation unless that is it's stated purpose.
Of course the removal of the Taliban was a good thing but I can't really see it as a war of liberation as I do not believe that anyone was primarily motivated by the best interests of the people of Afghanistan.
confer morality (short enough for you JJ?)
which is why i always thought it odd that so many people criticised the iraq war for being 'illegal' above all else.
not that i want to start that argument up again.
been way up there /\
However I have to take issue with you cos you seem to have told me off a bit for my long post saying just one thing and then you go off ignoring what I said
a) I said oil and big business for example.
b) I explained why the US was different from France and China re negotiating vs brute force
c) You ignored my essential point which is whilst G bay is obviously a breech of international and US law, that is precisely why we have so much TV footage and mild complaints about it, because the US want to show other non 'geneva conv compliants' that they will do whatever they want despite their 'apparent' human rights laws and agreements, if they feel that they have to or want to, the US is big and powerful enough to shrug off censure from Europe or many other countries, they are not likely to get huge embargos because they are so enourmously involved in other countries economies/defence, I also said that this is a natural position for any country that would find itself in the US's position, I do not pick on them because they are 'yanks' but the role they have comes with huge difficulties and sometimes weaknesses.....I mean how do you sell to your own populous, the idea that you gave an advantage to a much smaller country in some negotiation or another. when your democratic society votes on how well they are satisfied as consumers (or 'greed' if you need it shorter or blunter.....(do you see you would take 'greed' the wrong way.....do you see that the long winded way actually makes it less accusatorial?)) (This post not so good or well made but I am quite cross with JJ for misinterpreting needlessly)
Im with JDT more on this one (and not just cos Ive met him, JJ you must realise that other peoples views in other countries may have been formed just as sincerely as yours, consequently the incumbant power brokers of the world (whose lives are/were relatively safe should have a duty to care for these peoples views as well (specially when the big power brokers purportedly support human rights and the other people might come from countries where this is not purported) I was trying to say that these power brokers do not do this, they act bullishly and deliberately 'moon' at the rest of the world with G bay saying "look we'll do whatever OK even if we do get bleedin heart liberals moaning.....actually we quite enjoy the sound of bleeding hert liberals moaning"
This is so wrong cos its what makes some people in some countries hate the US as a symbol so much and actually probably increases ther chances of violent action against ordinary americans.
When the twin tower thing happened, and CNN was broadcasting cheering palestinians and americans were being shocked, and they were posting the death toll, I mused to myself in an un pc way....."I wonder how many months it will be before the US kills the same number of arabs or muslims".
I cannot tell whether the public demand for action was thus used to do what some in the US government circles had wanted all along, or whether all the action afterwards was genuinely generated just by those events......a bit of both no doubt.....cos every changes from day to day.
JJ I know this sort of ambiguity is anathma to you but sometimes being vague about things is the right thing to do.......whilst you go scurrying around chasing up whether this or that is against this or that directive, Dick Cheney is laughing his socks off at you.....theres no question it breeches rights you fool.......address instead, why the US wants the breech to be soooooo visible.....sooooooo memorable (remember the orange suits?....how could you possible forget.....its just sooooooo televisual.....no doubt whose the patsies in that camp eh?)
Listen mate wise up to what is really going on, if you cant see, it is no wonder the majority in democracies cant see.
Sorry this is a crap post cos I'm cross
Im going off on one, because I havnt heard anyone else opine that the US WANTS people to notice that G bay is a breech WANTS a few complaints and mild protest from the west, so maybe its all in my head
broken in public
have the US been using any 'decadent western rock music' as a means to sap the moral fible of the pure, in G bay? (Im thinking back to the General Noriega 'seige' here ......."where is Noriega?" "bring him back"...."I demand to have him put on trial, I want to hear what he has to say".....is something you dont here the US public asking (maybe they're not allowed to ask, maybe the media doesnt relay that sort of question to politicians.....the only way any counter voice seems to get heard in the US seems to be via popular commercial media (Moore's films, Chomskies writings/musings, and Dixie Chicks indictment)
Or do I (as an outsider to the US) just not get to hear.
does anybody still take michael moore seriously?
i can see precisely what's going on. i suppose my position is that there's a distinction to be made between the CASE for a particular action or set of actions and the METHOD. I think there is a case for a war against terror and i don't believe (and i suspect this conflicts with the vast majority of posters here) that, say, September 11th was a self-inflicted wound and I'm irritated by the way, as i see it, that people who have their own gripes with the United States appoint themselves ventriloquists for murderous fascists. I don't, however, support kidnapping people in Banjul, torturing them in Uzbekistan and them dumping in Camp X-Ray for 3 years. Obviously, the surrendering of the moral high ground is likely to make the problem of terrorism worse. I don't dispute that.
i disagree that it would be implausible for European countries to stand up to the United States over this issue. The internal economy of the EU is large enough to be self-sustaining for most businesses in Western Europe and we don't rely on the United States for defence now that the cold war is over - so why don't we have a unified suspension of diplomatic relations with the US?
I will try to give a half-arsed answer. I think it's because every country in Europe still accepts that military interventions are sometimes necessary. European countries were broadly enthusiastic about an intervention in Kosovo and the Americans were sceptical. But whose troops actually went in? The Americans. Every time Europe wants something doing it expects American soldiers to do it.
I know what I think the answer to the problem is (unified EU position on foreign affairs and defence, greater military spending by eu members etc) but i just think that the status quo suits France just as much as it suits the United States. For that reason, i don't think it's appropriate to disproportionately critical of the US when most governments are as cynical as one another.
and i'm curious to know why you think GB is deliberately visible.
I mean Abandon Reply
And by 'specific' do you mean one you can recognise and, perhaps. by your definition therefore, a valid one?
Perhaps you think some people are being inconsistant, I feel that althought that may sometimes be the case sometimes it may be a misinterpretation on your part, I sympathise to an extent as I realise that I, for one, ramble
(I hope you don't mind me second-guessing you JJ but I'm not sure unspecific is the word you're looking for.
From the context he's using it, I suspect JJ means that certain people in this thread (not you IMO) have a very general and simple view of the argument (either 'terrorists are bad therefore the US is right' or 'the US is bad and therefore anyone who sympathises with them is wrong') without taking into account the actual specifics of a particular situation. i.e. they don't accept that you could agree with the US foreign polciy on some issues and not on others.
I just find it practically impossible to have a discussion with him since he focuses on specifics where I am talking about generalities, mainly.
many, 'democratic' countries are as cynical, however the important aspect here is that America is more powerful, and when it acts internationally it acts as one, which makes it militarily more powerful than the 'unified' Europe.
My point was not that Europe could try to stand up to America, the point was that America was showing that it was quite happy to risk it to possible incur it, there are many other trading partners in the world that america can turn too.....the worlds would never treat america like vietnam or cuba or iraq in terms of actual practical actions of censure (OK admitedly the same applies to china how could capitalists of the world, turn down such a big, 'ripe for exploitation' virgin?)
No the point here was that the US is showing with G Bay that
"their enemies cannot rely on Americas 'fear of criticism for not abiding by the rules' to deter them from brutal action"
(The US might validly argue (If they deny cause and effect) that their enemies are not shackled by such rules so how can they fight their enemies with their hands tied (The main reasons that people have been arguing with you are based on the fact there is cause and effect and the US with all its text and literacy should be more aware of this than they 'appear' to be.
People also disagree with you because the arguement that the US wants to fight with its enemies on a level playing field (neither abiding by the rules) is flawd because of the disparity in military resource and control of media.
People are also objecting because, If you are the biggest richest strongest with the biggest bombardment capability and biggest influence in the world and the most resource and the most reserves then if you above all others cant behave MORE civilised, then you are surely dooming the world to the lesson of.......hey you dont get to be number one without being brutal....and being no 1 and the biggest is best (hollywood/mtv ensures this is a global message)
With power should come responsibility, and maybe a little humility, more than you would expect from others.....I dont know why you think France provides justification......did you know the muslim population of france is twice that of the UK's? yet their overall population is less? I guess so, whats the point you were making about France? Yes they may have helped Sadaam, as the UK did. I believe that it was France and the UK that drew a lot of the middle eastern borders and maps....you can tell from the straightness of borders. Incidentally during the Iran/Iraq war that occured before the first 'gulf conflict' which lasted nearly a decade, most of the west tended to favour Iraq over the religeous Iranian regime (the one that deposed the old shah) bizarrely due to our military sales policy, this meant that revolutionary Iranian forces were equiped with the 'Shir Iran' tank (an advanced cheiften tank) which was superior to the standard chieftens that our own forces played around with on luneberg heath (Of course the Challenger is the modern far more superior chariot.
Anyway despite not resupplying that item I noticed that it still would have required unscrupulous supply or licencing to the sides to ensure that each side had supplies for their 'Chinese, Russian, American, French and British' weoponary.....I mean like both sides had all these and were resupplied, other suppliers too but these are the big ones Britain was favourable to Iraq during this period, I cannot recollect any Western government making official complaints when (previous to the gulf conflicts) Kurds were nerve gassed in their homes.
Interestingly a huge 'victory' statue was commisioned by Sadaam.....it was two gigantic metal forerms holding swords crossed over a roadway, either the arms/swords or the bases we comprised of Iranian helmets....this was forged in basingstoke.
So I dont think it is relevent to use France's apparent closeness to Iraq as an example of 'wrongness' Sadaam has been courted by some UK people too. Apparently his behavior only becomes bad enough once he crosses a straight line dran on a map.
So I am puzzled as to why you think France justifies the US.....dont get me wrong....it is lonely to know you are the biggest and most powerful, it is difficult.....you then have to make the decisions, you are responsible, but you can make a difficult and bad thing worse.
JJ tell me why you think America went into Afghanistan?
Also why did America go into Iraq?
Also why did the 'allies' stop persuing the Iraqi forces during the first gulf conflict? Why did they allow the Iraqui forces to learn lessons, take reprisals and nearly destroy any hope of a grateful opposition to Sadaam the second time round, why did America not defend the Kurds? previously? is it because Turkey are a more attractive freind....because they are powerful? are only the powerful attractive freinds? You see, you could try to argue oh the Europeans didnt do anything but that makes no difference, I know why the European armed forces ar enot as effective, they arnt as unified as the americans.
I also think your argument about the Amricans helping out Europe in Bosnia etc ws silly....I mean think about it, Bosnia also posed no threat to me in my little semi in birmingham, yet I seem to remember that the UK got involved too......you are seeing this as a kind of tit for tat argument.....which is what many americans argue....it isnt....I wont say anymore cause we dont want to go where the reasons for intervention in Bosnia lie. But this is all a shame, cos we're probably not enemies at all, but I think you are confused, you seem to think that a consistant valid arguement must consist of those peddled by an existing political party or something, had it not occured to you that mostly parties are wrong.....occassionally they may hit on being right and then I may agree with them, but I believe that I am right and it is normally them that are wrong, as are you, and anyone else who disagrees with me etc etc arf arf, if you dont agree with me now I will ramble at you some more......this is my political trumpo card, my weopon of attrition, no-one will be able to resist they will all wilt with boredom
michael moore *has* been taken seriously in the past. The use of the name isn't really the point of what Creaky's saying, simply an example of what he's talking about.
To respond to that comment with a fippant tangent about Moore is is disingenuos to his argument, which is clearly: Popular commercial media would seem to be the only voice against the establishment left in the US.
Do you agree with that?
Some big posts here
I don't claim to know much about much, and I fully expect my views to be shot down (which is cool, if it's justified). But what I will say is this:
In order for Western capitalism/ideology to thrive it needs an opposing force. It was facism in the 30s and 40s, communism from then through to 1989 and now it's 'enemy' is based upon religious belief. Capitalism outgrew national boundaries long ago, and the Middle East is merely the latest in a line of cultures to be targeted for conversion
We pretty much all know this already
But what the West is trying to do this time round is to convert centuries upon centuries of tradition and religion. With previous targets, it was achievable as they were reacting against newly established political systems
Where do people expect this to go? I'm interested to see how people think the long term effects of Western influence in the Middle East will pan out. I really can't see any end to this clash of cultures, but considering the nature of Western ideology and it's past of spreading like some cultural disease across the globe, I'm genuinely more concerned about the potential ramifications of this then I ever thought I would be
If Fukuyama believed history ended in 1989, the argument that it started all over again on 9/11 is pretty compelling
bad apostrophe use. Also, I sound like a bit of a wanker in that post
Especially your point about India/China forming a kind of anti-American coalition (in terms of capital, at least)
Which makes me think. Would the West really be that bothered by a resurgent, profitable East? Obviously the Pacific Rim has possessed economic clout for years now, but we're on the verge (in the process of?) it going off on a huge scale. Do you think this will effect 'us' in any way? Surely more positives than negatives can be drawn from such competition
I'm hugely interested in whether or not the East (I'm aware I'm generalising with these terms) manage to gain their share of influence over the world's media. Would the West be quick to dismiss this? Or have we reached an age where people (on the whole) are far more prepared to seek their most suitable version of events?
If this was to happen and say, a Chinese equivalent of News International emerged (for example) I can't see this doing anything but rapiding increasing any form of East/West cultural convergence that lies ahead
Without getting too Blade Runner on ya ass, I'd love to know how international ideologies morph and merge over the next 50 years
i've not read all the new posts but India isn't likely to form an anti-American alliance with anybody.
no, i was referring to Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna. Two British citizens who were kidnapped in Banjul, rendered to Kabul and Tashkent before being dumped in GB.
does anyone know anything about the men who killed themselves? i appreciate there are plenty of people in guantanamo bay being detained on the flimsiest of evidence but it still seems wrong to jump to conclusions about this