German American Friendship

[Franconicus]

After the statements of the German government it is now clear:
US authorities kidnapped, imprisoned and tortured a German citizen without a trial or something similar. He was captured in Europe, had no weapons and no intention to attack anybody. After several months they released him because they realized they had the wrong man. German ministers were informed after the release. The US told them that they paid the victim a compensation.

German government also admitted that German officers took part at questioning another person at Gitmo. It is still not clear who ordered this.

So it seams to be proven:
that the US authorities kidnapp imprison and torture people
that they do not respect the rights of a German citizen
that German ministers did not inform the parliament about it
that Germans took part in questioning at Gitmo.

I think that the new German government shoud demand G.W. Bush to apology for that incident, promise to punish those who did it and guarantee that this will never happen again. Furthermore the Americans should dissociate from any kind of torture.

If they will not, Germany should take consequenzes.

[English assassin]

Act of war, kidnapping and torturing a citizen of another state...

[Lazul]

Thats just bloody disgusting. Wish the EU politicans could grow some balls and give the US administration the finger unless they stop with the whole torture thing.

[Brutus]

Shouldn't memebers of the former German government apologize as well? They, afer all, did know about it, but said nothing. I believe one of the members of your current (as well as former) government is already on hot coal? (is that last even an English expression?)

Anyway, seems clear to me what the CIA will now remember what to do to innocent people they wrongly captured, imprisoned and tortured: kill them instead of releasing them. Dead people don't complain to the international media.:san_angry:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Anyway, seems clear to me what the CIA will now remember what to do to innocent people they wrongly captured, imprisoned and tortured: kill them instead of releasing them. Dead people don't complain to the international media.:san_angry:

That might work in the short term, but if they get a leak, there will be more mass media storm than in this case. Releasing innocent prisoners might be a sign that the American leadership hasn't gone too far in their development towards power abuse which we've seen different signs of since ww2, but it might also be that they're simply thinking strategically. The news of formerly innocent prisoners being killed because of the fear of letting the public know of the incident, would be truly devastating, whereas this event will most likely be forgotten by most people in a few weeks. Furthermore, it's even acting as good publicity for the American government, as the incident clearly says that: "the American government corrects is mistakes and releases people who turned out to be innocent", which takes away the eyes of the world from Guantanamo, where people against whom there's no official proof of guiltiness, not even an official charge, are still sitting without having recieved trials or any information of for how long their sentences will last.

The German government is of course also making a mistake. The question is whether it's cowardice to stand up for their opinion against the USA, or if it's simply that they're supporting the actions of the USA, even against their own citizens. But there's a lot of hidden racism in many European governments - because the victim wasn't white the government didn't care as much as they would have otherwise.

[PanzerJaeger]

Act of war, kidnapping and torturing a citizen of another state...

I think we learned an important lesson the first two times. :san_shocked:

[Kanamori]

I want America's war on terror to fail, and I want the terrorists to win.

[Lemur]

Why do you hate freedom, Kanamori?

[Adrian II]

Why do you hate freedom, Kanamori?Must be the European blood of his ancestors speaking. Me too, I hate America. I hate freedom. I love terrorism. I want to die quickly. I am insecure. I am bisexual so my love life is a disaster. I walked out on my wife and kids, let the state take care of them. I love robbing liquor stores and blaming society for it. I am decadent, I never put in a decent day's work all my life. I smoke pot. I hate myself. I want to be oppressed. Hit me.
:san_kiss:

[Byzantine Prince]

Hey Adrian, the balkan in me is taking over.
I too hate freedom, I hate America, I love Hollywood, I love immorality, I hate people, I hate religion, I hate nature, I hate food, I love to watch obscene pornography, I hate society in general. What are you going to do about it?:san_angry:

[Adrian II]

Hey Adrian, the balkan in me is taking over.
I too hate freedom, I hate America, I love Hollywood, I love immorality, I hate people, I hate religion, I hate nature, I hate food, I love to watch obscene pornography, I hate society in general. What are you going to do about it?:san_angry:Sit in a corner and sulk about my low welfare allowance. Complain that nobody understands me. Post threads saying 'I knew it, I told you so' every time something goes wrong. Laugh at other peoples' misery. Read pornography, abuse children. Be a rat to my friends. Be as European as I can.
:san_kiss:

[Samurai Waki]

I remain completely neutral on this issue. I believe both sides should apologise, shake hands, and then synonamously jab a rusty pointed dagger into each others back's. Issue resolved.

[English assassin]

Act of war, kidnapping and torturing a citizen of another state...



I think we learned an important lesson the first two times. :san_shocked:

So did we. Next time we want the Germans on OUR side.

[Ja'chyra]

So did we. Next time we want the Germans on OUR side.

Especially as they make most of our small arms :san_wink:

[KafirChobee]

So, it's a funny thing? Is OK for the CIA to kidnap innocent people amd torture them? Is a good thing really - makes the EU and USA closer.

Whoa. Who'ld a guessed?

Germany of all nations, I would have believed, might be super-sensative about secret police and torture. Sure is good to hear that Bushy and his minions are on the same page as y'all. Makes it alot easier when our CIA snatches the next person on the the bequest of or information provided by your government. Face up, it was the German intelligence agencies that gave the go on snatching the person in the first place. Is hard to imagine a US agency could possibly infiltrate a European nation and kidnap one of their citizens without the aid of that nations own secret police. Or, is the CIA the new improved James Bond version of the 60's reborn?

Get real. We take the blame for other nations foul-ups, because they are unwilling to step up to the plate on terrorists. Wouldn't want to offend anyone, would we? And, since Bush already has? Why not just push it off on him? Seems reasonable to me.

Just, pleaseeeeeeee, stop trying to take the high road on these things. The EU really doesn't have one - where terrorists is concerned (they just turn the nasty stuff over to others). All the units of it are more than willing to let the US take the brunt of abuse, while pointing the finger at the next innocent person they want us to take (or investigate with extrodinary means).

Shame on y'all.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Simple answer - don't take them, then blame the German government for not taking them, if they turn out to be terrorists. Or take them, but don't use torture. But a small team following the guy and ready to interfere with the him if he seems to be doing terrorism, instead of capturing and torturing him. Then you don't get any official shame, because you simply haven't done anything unethical.

[Geoffrey S]

Thats just bloody disgusting. Wish the EU politicans could grow some balls and give the US administration the finger unless they stop with the whole torture thing.
I wish EU politicians would admit that on the one hand they publically criticise the US and their war on terror, yet on the other hand manage to profit from the intelligence gained through the US' methods and appararently actively participate in torture. And politicians can only keep this up because of the general apathy of the population.

Simple answer - don't take them, then blame the German government for not taking them, if they turn out to be terrorists. Or take them, but don't use torture. But a small team following the guy and ready to interfere with the him if he seems to be doing terrorism, instead of capturing and torturing him. Then you don't get any official shame, because you simply haven't done anything unethical.
Manpower would be a problem for that, particularly if it's kept up for a longer period of time.

[solypsist]

i didnt see a single news or source link in this entire thread so far.

[Redleg]

YAWN

The hypocrisy of Europe is just amazing..

[Rodion Romanovich]

Manpower would be a problem for that, particularly if it's kept up for a longer period of time.

Yes, if you make an entire nation like Iraq potential terrorist material by attacking them and handling it so carelessly, then you need much manpower to guard all potential future terrorists.

[Rodion Romanovich]

YAWN

The hypocrisy of Europe is just amazing..

Yeah, it's Europe being hypocritical when they give USA information they requested. Bush said, you might remember, "either you're with me or against me", and thereby tried to force all countries to change policy and report any signs of terror-like activity to the USA. Of course it's the fault of the Europeans that Americans abuse that information, which they requested in a very threatening way, for torture.

Europe is not perfect, but they're apprently better than a certain nation which commits torture and murder, and holds people in a concentration camp in Cuba without trial, then blaming it all on European hypocricy.

[Tribesman]

YAWN
the hypocracy of the war on terror is absolutely incredible .

[Redleg]

Yeah, it's Europe being hypocritical when they give USA information they requested. Bush said, you might remember, "either you're with me or against me", and thereby tried to force all countries to change policy and report any signs of terror-like activity to the USA. Of course it's the fault of the Europeans that Americans abuse that information, which they requested in a very threatening way, for torture.

Europe is not perfect, but they're apprently better than a certain nation which commits torture and murder, and holds people in a concentration camp in Cuba without trial, then blaming it all on European hypocricy.

You might want to check into how much the European Governments have a hand in the kidnaping and torture of their own citizens. Its greater then your comment here suggests.

Again Yawn

Would you care to see the articles in the media on it?

[Redleg]

YAWN
the hypocracy of the war on terror is absolutely incredible .

There is no hypocrisy in war. Its amoral and doesn't care what the truth is - only that one wins the war in which they are engaged in.

Something you Europeans - especially those from Ireland - have seem to have forgotten.

[Rodion Romanovich]

There is no hypocrisy in war. Its amoral and doesn't care what the truth is - only that one wins the war in which they are engaged in.

Something you Europeans - especially those from Ireland - have seem to have forgotten.

Only that the fighting terrorism isn't a war. With Bush's way of looking at things, everything can be a war. This debate can be a war. The "war on disagreeing posters" must be won, no matter what the truth is. Bleh, hypocrisy. What you're saying is simply that if you call something a war you're relieved of all moral responsibilities.

[Redleg]

Only that the fighting terrorism isn't a war.

Actually it is - I can name several of them not involving the United States.

http://www.intifada.com/palestine.html



With Bush's way of looking at things, everything can be a war. This debate can be a war. The "war on disagreeing posters" must be won, no matter what the truth is. Bleh, hypocrisy.

The difference is that you only want to see the hypocrisy of the United States - without looking at the hypocrisy of your own government.

If you think the governments of the majority of European nations are not in the middle of this issue - just less so then the United States - then you are turning a blind eye to the issue.

Its easier to blame the United States -then it is to look at what is actually going on within your own borders.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Tribesman]

There is no hypocrisy in war. Its amoral and doesn't care what the truth is - only that one wins the war in which they are engaged in.


Red there is plenty of hypocracy in the war on terror , the basic fact that it is against terrorists and regimes who used to be your friends before they became your enemies and is replacing them with terrorists who used to be your enemies but are alledgedly your friends , but will soon be your enemies again .
Then it cannot be won can it .

Edit to add The difference is that you only want to see the hypocrisy of the United States - without looking at the hypocrisy of your own government.

Hmmmm.....windmills again is it ?
The German government is of course also making a mistake.

Europe is not perfect
Shouldn't memebers of the former German government apologize as well?
that German ministers did not inform the parliament about it
that Germans took part in questioning at Gitmo.

I believe both sides should apologise
there's a lot of hidden racism in many European governments
Wish the EU politicans could grow some balls
I wish EU politicians would admit that on the one hand they publically criticise the US and their war on terror, yet on the other hand manage to profit from the intelligence gained through the US' methods and appararently actively participate in torture.
Yep , definately an absence of criticism of europe .
Hey you did exactly the same in the CIA flights topic , are you having difficulty reading lately ?

[Redleg]

There is no hypocrisy in war. Its amoral and doesn't care what the truth is - only that one wins the war in which they are engaged in.


Red there is plenty of hypocracy in the war on terror ,

I see more hypocrisy in your posts then I see anywhere else in the world. Again war is amoral - no hypocrisy is possible when one fights to win the war. I guess you would not like what the allies did to win WW2 against Germany and Japan either?



the basic fact that it is against terrorists and regimes who used to be your friends before they became your enemies and is replacing them with terrorists who used to be your enemies but are alledgedly your friends , but will soon be your enemies again

You got the doublespeak of a government agent down very well - maybe you should run for office



Then it cannot be won can it .

With people like you - it can never be won - but it seems your own country has shown that your words are false. Or is the IRA rearming itself as we type?

[Tribesman]

Or is the IRA rearming itself as we type?

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
No they are waiting for the British to organise a couple more massive shipments of guns and explosives for them , just like last time .Probably try N.Korea this time as eastern Europe is too expensive for the British taxpayer now . It is important to get value for money when you are murdering your own citizens .
Then they will wait for britain to recruit loads of "terrorists" to go round bombing british cities and killing british soldiers , just like last time .

So I take it from your statment that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there Red .

[Byzantine Prince]

So I take it from your statment that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there Red .
Has he ever known what he was talking about?

It must be that ex-soldier arrogance.

[Redleg]

Or is the IRA rearming itself as we type?

~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
No they are waiting for the British to organise a couple more massive shipments of guns and explosives for them , just like last time .Probably try N.Korea this time as eastern Europe is too expensive for the British taxpayer now . It is important to get value for money when you are murdering your own citizens .

Sure - .:san_shocked:



Then they will wait for britain to recruit loads of "terrorists" to go round bombing british cities and killing british soldiers , just like last time .


Sure they will :san_rolleyes:



So I take it from your statment that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there Red .

Just like you have no idea what you are talking about.:san_grin: :san_tongue:

[Redleg]

Has he ever known what he was talking about?

It must be that ex-soldier arrogance.

Sure I do - just like the time I pointed out one of your hero's philosophies was used by the Nazi's. Still wish to be a superman? ~:wacko:

[A.Saturnus]

You might want to check into how much the European Governments have a hand in the kidnaping and torture of their own citizens. Its greater then your comment here suggests.

They had a hand? Let´s see. The German secret service gathers some information about a German citizen. They may do that, that´s their job. Then the CIA askes them "can we have some info on people you observed?" They give that information. The CIA then confuses the name of said person with a potential terrorist, kidnaps him, tortures him and after finding out it was all a mistake, releasing him and telling the German Government "oops, we wrongfully kidnapped one of your citizens. And we tortured him a bit. But please don´t tell anyone".
Are you saying that the German government is hypocritical because they should have known that the CIA is not only malicious but also incompetent, before giving them information?


Is hard to imagine a US agency could possibly infiltrate a European nation and kidnap one of their citizens without the aid of that nations own secret police. Or, is the CIA the new improved James Bond version of the 60's reborn?

If they have infiltrated anything then it was Macedonia. That´s where al Mazri was kidnapped. Yes, I guess the German authorities should have been more inquisitive about what the CIA does in Macedonia, it´s our fault.

[Redleg]

They had a hand? Let´s see. The German secret service gathers some information about a German citizen. They may do that, that´s their job. Then the CIA askes them "can we have some info on people you observed?" They give that information. The CIA then confuses the name of said person with a potential terrorist, kidnaps him, tortures him and after finding out it was all a mistake, releasing him and telling the German Government "oops, we wrongfully kidnapped one of your citizens. And we tortured him a bit. But please don´t tell anyone".

Not at all - the hyprocrisy is that they allowed their citizen to be removed from their terrority. If you think the CIA went into Germany and kidnapped a German citizen without your government knowning what was going on - I have some nice swampland in the middle of the California/Neveda Desert to sell you. Its obvious from the second part of you post - that the individual in question was not kidnapped from Germany - but the point is valid.



Are you saying that the German government is hypocritical because they should have known that the CIA is not only malicious but also incompetent, before giving them information?


Nope - saying they are hypocritical for screaming foul after providing assistance to the act. How to you suppose the CIA knew where the individaul was?

[Adrian II]

If you think the CIA went into Germany and kidnapped a German citizen without your government knowing In Macedonia. Ma-ce-do-nia.

[Tribesman]

Sure :san_shocked:
Sure they will :san_rolleyes:
Which just shows that you know bugger all about the subject Red .

[Redleg]

In Macedonia. Ma-ce-do-nia.

Which is in Europe......:san_laugh: How do you suppose that they knew to pick him up at the border. Oh wait the CIA was onto him and not the German Secert Police?

Lets see picked up in Macedonia after being watched by the Germans. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out - but it seems that there are several members at the org that are having problems figuring out the hypocrisy of the German government in this particlur instance.

Or are you supposing that the CIA watchd him get on the train and were secertly dressed as border guards in Macedonia to kidnap a German citizen who was born in Kuwait.

Where is the tinfoil hats - the CIA is tuning onto my brain waves....:san_cheesy:

[Redleg]

Sure :san_shocked:
Sure they will :san_rolleyes:
Which just shows that you know bugger all about the subject Red .

Kind of like what you know about Iraq isn't? :san_laugh:

What a bitter and self-loathing human being you seem to be Tribesman, having problems seeing the smilies now are we?

Oh I forget only you can play little word games.:fishbowl:

edit: Never mind - the comment will only get me a moderator warning and isn't worth it.

[Soulforged]

Red: The USA has helped even strange agencies to kidnap people. They helped their jewish friends to kidnap exiled nazis here, what makes you think that they cannot do it again? It's a real problem to let your state grow so much power behind your back isn't it?

[Redleg]

Red: The USA has helped even strange agencies to kidnap people. They helped their jewish friends to kidnap exiled nazis here, what makes you think that they cannot do it again? It's a real problem to let your state grow so much power behind your back isn't it?

Do I really care in the instance of Nazi's, some of them who insured the deathes of countless Jews in concentration camps across Germany and Poland. Not at all - those individuals should never be allowed to escape human justice along with God's justice.

Again if you think that this individual was kidnapped without the aid, assistance, and the tactic appoval of someone within the German government - I have some swampland in the California/Neveda desert for sale.

[Soulforged]

Do I really care in the instance of Nazi's, some of them who insured the deathes of countless Jews in concentration camps across Germany and Poland. Not at all - those individuals should never be allowed to escape human justice along with God's justice.
Well I'll not enter that discussion, just a little comment on your post: if you think that that's justice, then you don't know what justice is. There's a procedure that must be uphold to sentence a man, wich wasn't respected, not even the detention wich violated our national laws. But as I said that's all I'll say about that.
About the assisntence of european governments, well if you say so I'll take your word for now. However you've to admit that the CIA and other inteligence agencies, are more than capable of overruling local sovereignety and keep up with their agenda. I'm pretty sure that the CIA specially has a lot more of success in that.

[Byzantine Prince]

Sure I do - just like the time I pointed out one of your hero's philosophies was used by the Nazi's. Still wish to be a superman? ~:wacko:
Yes, and even if Hitler was Nietzsche in disguise he would still be my hero. Still think you made some sort of point to me?

PS: Don't bother Soulforged. Our laws are nothing in comparison to his "God"'s laws. You know, like the ones that the representatives of Vatican ignored when the Nazis were doing there "work". :san_rolleyes:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Any chance of a link, Franc? I haven't heard of this.

[Redleg]

Well I'll not enter that discussion, just a little comment on your post: if you think that that's justice, then you don't know what justice is.

Oh I know a little about justice



There's a procedure that must be uphold to sentence a man, wich wasn't respected, not even the detention wich violated our national laws. But as I said that's all I'll say about that.

Nazi criminals who flee justice - get what they deserved.



About the assisntence of european governments, well if you say so I'll take your word for now. However you've to admit that the CIA and other inteligence agencies, are more than capable of overruling local sovereignety and keep up with their agenda. I'm pretty sure that the CIA specially has a lot more of success in that.

Your beginning to see the point - the CIA could not of acted without the assistance of the Intelligence agencies of the German government.

[Redleg]

Yes, and even if Hitler was Nietzsche in disguise he would still be my hero. Still think you made some sort of point to me?

So you condone the mass murder of jews because of who they are. How nice of you



PS: Don't bother Soulforged. Our laws are nothing in comparison to his "God"'s laws. You know, like the ones that the representatives of Vatican ignored when the Nazis were doing there "work". :san_rolleyes:

Actually man's laws are based upon many things - some being the works of different religions to include the Christian Religion. To bad you have lost the ability to understand that with your worshipping of nazism.

Edit:
BTW the vactian is an organization of men who manage a church, they are no more representive of Christianity as a whole then Stalin was of communism.

BTW God still loves you even if you don't love yourself.

[Byzantine Prince]

So you condone the mass murder of jews because of who they are. How nice of you
You keep proving your ignorance. Jews weren't the only people that were persucted, there were representatives from every country, ethnicity, sexual or political orientation, including my own grandfather in those death camps.



Actually man's laws are based upon many things - some being the works of different religions to include the Christian Religion. To bad you have lost the ability to understand that with your worshipping of nazism.
There are no Man's Laws... each country has their own specific and unique laws, that are based on whatever the leaders of that country deam appropriate. You can keep living in that fantasy world where God gives you the laws somehow, feel free to. Fool.

[Soulforged]

Oh I know a little about justice
Nazi criminals who flee justice - get what they deserved.As I said not getting into this discussion.

Your beginning to see the point - the CIA could not of acted without the assistance of the Intelligence agencies of the German government.Then you didn't see my point. Perhaps in this particular situation they got the help. But my point is that they don't need it in principle.
PS: You should distrust every word I say about this topic, I dislike government agencies like the same devil and I dislike them even more if they're secret, if that's even possible.

[Tribesman]

What a bitter and self-loathing human being you seem to be Tribesman, having problems seeing the smilies now are we?

Imaginary Windmills again Donkey Oaty .
The bitterness is towards a government that supplies arms to terrorists so they can murder that governments own civlians and soldiers , the loathing is about a government that pays people to be terrorists so they can murder people .
If you percieve the loathing as being inward then that says a lot about yourself , perhaps all the loud bangs in the artillery have shaken your brain up too much . It may explain your difficulty with reading and comprending what is written .

[Soulforged]

If you percieve the loathing as being inward then that says a lot about yourself , perhaps all the loud bangs in the artillery have shaken your brain up too much . It may explain your difficulty with reading and comprending what is written .
I really think that we should drop it. Insults and ad hominem comments are going too far, and the topic is getting behind. Yes it's even distateful to me :san_wink: .

[Ser Clegane]

I think this discussion could benefit from a link to an article that gives abit of background:
Cooperation and Concern from Berlin (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,390084,00.html)

Redleg, the German secret service does neither seem to have had part in the decision to abduct al-Masri nor in the abduction itself (why should the CIA need German intelligence to find out about al-Masri crossing the Serbian-Macedonian border? They have their own people on the ground)

However, considering recent statements of our minister of interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, you are to some extent correct when you mention the hypocrisy of German politicians. While Schäuble makes clear that Germany should not use torture to get information, he has less qualms about using information, that was gained via torture, in court against terrorist-suspects.
This is indeed hypocrisy at its best. :no:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually it is - I can name several of them not involving the United States.

Well, why not make the fighting crime a war too? It after all kills more than 3 times as many American citizens as the terror does. Let's give the police orders to shoot or torture anyone who seems the least suspect. Anyone can be a murderer! Increase surveillance, torture all American citizens. Hopefully someone will reveal where the next murderer is. In war, innocent people die. In the fight for freedom and justice, you shouldn't question what the authorities do. Why do you hate freedom?

The war on terror is a piece of BS. You can't fight a war against anything than nations, the way the world looks today. If the causality of the "problem" you want to fix isn't the nationality of the people you fight, then war can't solve it. Only "problems" such as "Iraq owns a piece of land we want" or "Iraq has oil we want" can be solved by war. Terrorism against your nation isn't fought by abusing power and making people suffer while at the same time taking away their abilities to fight a normal war by blockades and similar. Terrorism is the only way a subdued man can fight, until he regains the strength. You might have heard of the so-called Christian terrorists that fought the roman empire for a while, until the romans hijacked Christianity. I admit that sometimes these terrorists/freedom fighters go to far when they end up getting power, but they can be kept under control by giving them justice while you still have more power than them. Then you have an ability to defend yourself if they step over the line. If you refuse to give them justice until you lose power, then you can go figure what they'd do. You know how brutal, extremistic and fundamentalistic they are.

What you see today is the result of American foreign policy since ww2. Usama bin Laden and his Mujaheddin were trained by the CIA, for example. If you look at some old movies, like a certain Bond movie, it even features the Mujaheddin as heroes, because they at that time were nice and fought the Soviets for the American government. I bet it was quite difficult for propaganda to so suddenly turn such deeply loved heroes into cruel, genocidal terrorists.

There are also a few terrorists such as the Baader-Meinhof gang and others who are simply trying to get an unwanted, extremist ideology to win, but they're remarkably few in comparison to the freedom fighters, as most extremists realize that the way to make their extremism win isn't by terrorism, but by being elected as republican leader.



The difference is that you only want to see the hypocrisy of the United States - without looking at the hypocrisy of your own government.


I'm not closing my eyes to any hypocrisy. I admit all hypocrisy done by European governments. The problem is that some Americans apparently seem to close their eyes to American hypocrisy, though. And if that isn't hypocrisy, I think I'll add an English dictionary to my Christmas wish list.

A little story to test ehics/morals:
A police officer comes forward to a man and says:
- We're on a razzia. Either you're with us or against us. We want information on any criminals nearby.
- Well, that man over there carried some metal item. Could be a gun, but I'm not sure.
Police goes forward to the man, and starts beating him. When the man lies on the ground, he's kicked for several minutes by the policeman. Then the policeman checks the clothes of the man for weapons, but finds nothing. Later, there's an inquiry. The policeman and the civilian are brought.

question 1. who is responsible for the beating of the man?
question 2. the civilian says "I'm innocent", and the policeman replies "no, I'm innocent, it's his fault because he told me the man had a gun". Who's more hypocritical?

[Tribesman]

While Schäuble makes clear that Germany should not use torture to get information, he has less qualms about using information, that was gained via torture, in court against terrorist-suspects.

This is indeed hypocrisy at its best.
YAWN
Why do you Europeans always blame America :san_laugh:

[Abokasee]

YAWN

this post has a:YAWN

this post has a:YAWN

this post has a:YAWN

this post has a:YAWN

because in all wars they say "we won the war" when in truth europeons did most the fighting

i dont like the idea of europeon union since it enforces euro-peons for armecia

[Redleg]

You keep proving your ignorance. Jews weren't the only people that were persucted, there were representatives from every country, ethnicity, sexual or political orientation, including my own grandfather in those death camps.

Oh like the gyspies, homosexuals, slavs, russians, political prisoners, and about a dozen other ethnic groups. The one proving their ignorance is not I, but someone else. You wanted to play a little word tag - and it seems you can not handle it.




There are no Man's Laws...

Sure there is - every law made in the law codes of any nation were made by man - unless you wish to concide that a higher power dicated the law to man.



each country has their own specific and unique laws, that are based on whatever the leaders of that country deam appropriate.

And there you just go and prove that man's laws exist.



You can keep living in that fantasy world where God gives you the laws somehow, feel free to.

Actually there are only a few moral codes that God has stated - the rest of the laws were made by man.



Fool.

Oh look name calling - how very adult of you. LOL :san_laugh:

[Redleg]

As I said not getting into this discussion.
Then you shouldn't of brought it up should you?



Then you didn't see my point. Oh I saw it - and countered it.



Perhaps in this particular situation they got the help. But my point is that they don't need it in principle.

No they don't need it in principle - but it doesn't work in principle without the help of others, be it nationals in the country, or members of the government.



PS: You should distrust every word I say about this topic, I dislike government agencies like the same devil and I dislike them even more if they're secret, if that's even possible.

Then we have something in common - I dislike all spooks, having been around a few.

[Redleg]

What a bitter and self-loathing human being you seem to be Tribesman, having problems seeing the smilies now are we?

Imaginary Windmills again Donkey Oaty

Not at all - the amount of time you automatically jump to ad homien comments go to prove the point.



The bitterness is towards a government that supplies arms to terrorists so they can murder that governments own civlians and soldiers , the loathing is about a government that pays people to be terrorists so they can murder people .

So you take it out on posters on this board - how lovely a person that makes you.



If you percieve the loathing as being inward then that says a lot about yourself , perhaps all the loud bangs in the artillery have shaken your brain up too much . It may explain your difficulty with reading and comprending what is written .

Oh look more personal attacks - well I deserve that one for pointing out how self-loathing you are of yourself as evident by the number of post you make using ad homien on others when they disagree with your points. But the point has been made and you demonstrate it on a constant basis by attempting to ridicule any who you disagree with.

Loud bangs of artillery is not correct - artillery does not bang - it booms. :san_laugh: Goes to show how much you know on the subject.:san_rolleyes:

[Redleg]

Well, why not make the fighting crime a war too?

Oh they have - ever hear of the War on Drugs....



It after all kills more than 3 times as many American citizens as the terror does. Let's give the police orders to shoot or torture anyone who seems the least suspect. Anyone can be a murderer! Increase surveillance, torture all American citizens. Hopefully someone will reveal where the next murderer is. In war, innocent people die. In the fight for freedom and justice, you shouldn't question what the authorities do. Why do you hate freedom?



I must ask you the same question - why do you hate freedom?



The war on terror is a piece of BS. You can't fight a war against anything than nations, the way the world looks today.

Actually there are several wars going on in several nations between ethnic groups that has spilled across national boundries several times.



If the causality of the "problem" you want to fix isn't the nationality of the people you fight, then war can't solve it. Only "problems" such as "Iraq owns a piece of land we want" or "Iraq has oil we want" can be solved by war.

Iraq however is a bad examble of what your attempting to state. Iraq was an ongoing conflict that has been re-initated into hostilities. Did Bush use terrorism as a partial reason for going to war? the answer is yes but there were also other reasons steming from the earlier conflict in 1991.



Terrorism against your nation isn't fought by abusing power and making people suffer while at the same time taking away their abilities to fight a normal war by blockades and similar. Terrorism is the only way a subdued man can fight, until he regains the strength. You might have heard of the so-called Christian terrorists that fought the roman empire for a while, until the romans hijacked Christianity. I admit that sometimes these terrorists/freedom fighters go to far when they end up getting power, but they can be kept under control by giving them justice while you still have more power than them. Then you have an ability to defend yourself if they step over the line. If you refuse to give them justice until you lose power, then you can go figure what they'd do. You know how brutal, extremistic and fundamentalistic they are.

When the terrorists call for the complete destruction of your way of life - I don't have a problem with giving them a taste of the destruction in which they are craving for me.



What you see today is the result of American foreign policy since ww2.

Oh I was waiting for the blame America First statement. THe middle-east was the ballpark of Europe for many decades after WW2, Where is the mentioning of the failed British and Frence Policies, or the USSR.



Usama bin Laden and his Mujaheddin were trained by the CIA, for example. If you look at some old movies, like a certain Bond movie, it even features the Mujaheddin as heroes, because they at that time were nice and fought the Soviets for the American government. I bet it was quite difficult for propaganda to so suddenly turn such deeply loved heroes into cruel, genocidal terrorists.

THe Muhaheddin was led by Usama Bin Laden - interesting. Since he was not.



There are also a few terrorists such as the Baader-Meinhof gang and others who are simply trying to get an unwanted, extremist ideology to win, but they're remarkably few in comparison to the freedom fighters, as most extremists realize that the way to make their extremism win isn't by terrorism, but by being elected as republican leader.


Agreed



I'm not closing my eyes to any hypocrisy. I admit all hypocrisy done by European governments. The problem is that some Americans apparently seem to close their eyes to American hypocrisy, though. And if that isn't hypocrisy, I think I'll add an English dictionary to my Christmas wish list.


Oh I don't have a problem with pointing out both the hypocrisy of Europe and the United States.



A little story to test ehics/morals:
A police officer comes forward to a man and says:
- We're on a razzia. Either you're with us or against us. We want information on any criminals nearby.
- Well, that man over there carried some metal item. Could be a gun, but I'm not sure.
Police goes forward to the man, and starts beating him. When the man lies on the ground, he's kicked for several minutes by the policeman. Then the policeman checks the clothes of the man for weapons, but finds nothing. Later, there's an inquiry. The policeman and the civilian are brought.

question 1. who is responsible for the beating of the man?
question 2. the civilian says "I'm innocent", and the policeman replies "no, I'm innocent, it's his fault because he told me the man had a gun". Who's more hypocritical?

THe individual who did the beating of course.

Both are equally hypocritical.

[Redleg]

I think this discussion could benefit from a link to an article that gives abit of background:
Cooperation and Concern from Berlin (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,390084,00.html)

Redleg, the German secret service does neither seem to have had part in the decision to abduct al-Masri nor in the abduction itself (why should the CIA need German intelligence to find out about al-Masri crossing the Serbian-Macedonian border? They have their own people on the ground)

Do you realize how hard it is to find and track one individual in a country without the cooperation of the nation in which the individual lives in.



However, considering recent statements of our minister of interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, you are to some extent correct when you mention the hypocrisy of German politicians. While Schäuble makes clear that Germany should not use torture to get information, he has less qualms about using information, that was gained via torture, in court against terrorist-suspects.
This is indeed hypocrisy at its best. :no:

Yes indeed


Edit: The article you linked Ser Clegane goes to show exactly part of the scenerio I am attempting to paint as part of the cooperation and the hypocrisy of Europe in regards to these instance.


German intelligence officials estimate that more than 100 CIA officials are currently working in Germany, although only the Americans know the exact number. They work at the US Embassy in Berlin, but also in Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg and, together with German intelligence agencies, at the German counterterrorism center in Berlin. Some of their work is as mundane as writing reports and discussing analyses, but they also recruit sources and observe suspects. And whenever the US agents, operating in Germany under the title "Joint Intelligence Services," become too conspicuous, German officials don't seem to have any qualms about looking the other way. "When these kinds of problematic cases land on our desks," says an interior minister of one of Germany's states, "we keep one eye tightly shut, so that we don't end up having to do something that would be very embarrassing."

[Ser Clegane]

Do you realize how hard it is to find and track one individual in a country without the cooperation of the nation in which the individual lives in.
If this individual is living an ordinary life it shouldn't be that difficult. I don't think that the CIA would have much trouble keeping track of me, once they know my address (and once they are aware of my name, finding out my address does not require much of an effort either)

[Strike For The South]

I am bisexual


really:san_shocked:

[A.Saturnus]

German intelligence officials estimate that more than 100 CIA officials are currently working in Germany, although only the Americans know the exact number. They work at the US Embassy in Berlin, but also in Frankfurt, Munich and Hamburg and, together with German intelligence agencies, at the German counterterrorism center in Berlin. Some of their work is as mundane as writing reports and discussing analyses, but they also recruit sources and observe suspects. And whenever the US agents, operating in Germany under the title "Joint Intelligence Services," become too conspicuous, German officials don't seem to have any qualms about looking the other way. "When these kinds of problematic cases land on our desks," says an interior minister of one of Germany's states, "we keep one eye tightly shut, so that we don't end up having to do something that would be very embarrassing."

Well, if I wouldn´t know that the CIA uses to kidnap and torture innocent people then I´d think that letting their agents work here is a good thing. Again, the mistake the German officials made was to think we can cooperate with our "friends" of the CIA. Big mistake.


If this individual is living an ordinary life it shouldn't be that difficult. I don't think that the CIA would have much trouble keeping track of me, once they know my address (and once they are aware of my name, finding out my address does not require much of an effort either)

They wouldn´t even need your address. They only need to check your passport when you enter Macedonia.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I must ask you the same question - why do you hate freedom?

Have you heard of something called brainwashing? With the same logic you're using, I might as well ask you a completely random question like: why do you hate mars people? or Why do you eat rice? or Why do you support oppression of purple elephants?



Actually there are several wars going on in several nations between ethnic groups that has spilled across national boundries several times.

They're civil war, revolutions, revolts, risings or riots. There's a clear distinction between what each term means.



Iraq however is a bad examble of what your attempting to state. Iraq was an ongoing conflict that has been re-initated into hostilities. Did Bush use terrorism as a partial reason for going to war? the answer is yes but there were also other reasons steming from the earlier conflict in 1991.

yes, perhaps the American foreign policy which led Saddam to send gene gas against curds and shias, or the American foreign policy during the Iraq-Iran war where they tried, by weapons trades, to balance both sides evenly so as many as possible on both sides would die.



When the terrorists call for the complete destruction of your way of life - I don't have a problem with giving them a taste of the destruction in which they are craving for me.

Isn't that what you already did, that made them terrorists? They have nothing to lose. Just look at how they're willing to commit suicide and become martyrs for their cause. You can't fight martyrs by terror and scare tactics.



Oh I was waiting for the blame America First statement. THe middle-east was the ballpark of Europe for many decades after WW2, Where is the mentioning of the failed British and Frence Policies, or the USSR.



Oh I don't have a problem with pointing out both the hypocrisy of Europe and the United States.


Of course Europeans always did bad things. But do you really consider it sane to, every time telling something America did wrong, list all old atrocities of Europe? We might as well start with the hittites. You do realize that it's perfectly possible for educated men to discuss the faults of one acteur without having to list all atrocities that have ever been committed. It's not like I'm by critisising American policy think all Americans should be killed or lose their abilities to defend themselves against attacks. I'm simply saying that America should stop 1. power abuse, 2. stupidity in politics which results in them hurting both the American people and innocent civilians of other countries. The war in Iraq is causing new terrorism, which will be directed against the American people. May God have mercy on America when the results of the Iraq war comes, despite what Bush has done. May the terrorists realize, when they win, that only a handful of Americans ever supported those criminal immoral acts of terror committed by George Bush, and have mercy on our children, when they in the end face the inevitable defeat. May the terrorists have mercy on the powerless civilians, and direct their wrath to the truly guilty, the leaders.



THe Muhaheddin was led by Usama Bin Laden - interesting. Since he was not.


The talibans were part of Mujaheddin.



Both are equally hypocritical.

san_shocked: ok, ehm...? :san_huh: you're entitled to your opinion, I guess

[Meneldil]

Do you realize how hard it is to find and track one individual in a country without the cooperation of the nation in which the individual lives in.


Sure it is, you at least have to give a few calls here and there, have a look at a telephone directory, and that's it. Really a lot of work, as it must take about 5 minutes to track someone officially living in some country.

[Redleg]

If this individual is living an ordinary life it shouldn't be that difficult. I don't think that the CIA would have much trouble keeping track of me, once they know my address (and once they are aware of my name, finding out my address does not require much of an effort either)

If you were living an ordinary life they would not be interested in you.

However to track someone across international boundries - takes effort.

[Redleg]

Have you heard of something called brainwashing? With the same logic you're using, I might as well ask you a completely random question like: why do you hate mars people? or Why do you eat rice? or Why do you support oppression of purple elephants?

Who do you know that has been brainwashed? Is it possible to brainwash people to hate freedom? Again you asked what I have agaisnt Freedom - well the answer is nothing. You are expessing your thoughts and I am expressing my thoughts - the ultimate form of freedom is the ability to argue and express your opinion.

So what do you have against Freedom?




They're civil war, revolutions, revolts, risings or riots. There's a clear distinction between what each term means.


Not once they spill across a border - the distinction becomes very muddy. Just ask the Viet Cong on that one.



yes, perhaps the American foreign policy which led Saddam to send gene gas against curds and shias, or the American foreign policy during the Iraq-Iran war where they tried, by weapons trades, to balance both sides evenly so as many as possible on both sides would die.


And the issue is what - that we wanted both countries to bled themselves dry so that the balance of power in the Middle-East remains the same. You might want to check out the equipment used by both sides - more then just the United States were playing that game.



Isn't that what you already did, that made them terrorists? They have nothing to lose. Just look at how they're willing to commit suicide and become martyrs for their cause. You can't fight martyrs by terror and scare tactics.

Then you give them more of the same - violence leads to violence - when one starts using violence to settle their politicial opinions - they lead themselves to reap what they have sowed. Its a vicious little circle - but its a true one. Oh by the way the United States did not make them into terrorists - they made themselves into terrorists because of thier own decisions.




Of course Europeans always did bad things. But do you really consider it sane to, every time telling something America did wrong, list all old atrocities of Europe?

Only when the Europeans are ignoring thier own part in the problem - Europe had more dealings in the Middle-East then the United States. Most of the current situations in the countries in the Middle-East stem from more European influence then the United States - Europe includes the USSR.



We might as well start with the hittites. You do realize that it's perfectly possible for educated men to discuss the faults of one acteur without having to list all atrocities that have ever been committed.

Sure we can - that is why I mention the hypocrisy of Europe on this issue. Many European national governments turn a blind eye to what is going on, some are even activitly particapating in the events.



It's not like I'm by critisising American policy think all Americans should be killed or lose their abilities to defend themselves against attacks. I'm simply saying that America should stop 1. power abuse, 2. stupidity in politics which results in them hurting both the American people and innocent civilians of other countries.

Oh I don't have a problem with people criticizing the United States - its important for a Free Society and its government to have the ability to criticize the government. But once you begin to argue and critize - one must be prepared to argue their case. Constructive criticism of the government is important - un-constructive criticism and ignoring all the aspects of the situation is not important.



The war in Iraq is causing new terrorism, which will be directed against the American people. May God have mercy on America when the results of the Iraq war comes, despite what Bush has done. May the terrorists realize, when they win, that only a handful of Americans ever supported those criminal immoral acts of terror committed by George Bush, and have mercy on our children, when they in the end face the inevitable defeat. May the terrorists have mercy on the powerless civilians, and direct their wrath to the truly guilty, the leaders.

Well we all know that terrorists never strike at the government, they only target civilians that can not defend themselves. However I see you are spouting the jargon of the jihadist here. So I guess you do support the terrorist in thier efforts in using violence? Since that is what this little paragraph seems to say.




The talibans were part of Mujaheddin.


But not lead by OBL - neither was he a major leader of the Mujaheddin.



san_shocked: ok, ehm...? :san_huh: you're entitled to your opinion, I guess

If you don't like the answer - don't ask the question. :san_shocked:

[Redleg]

Sure it is, you at least have to give a few calls here and there, have a look at a telephone directory, and that's it. Really a lot of work, as it must take about 5 minutes to track someone officially living in some country.

Try it sometime - you will be surprised how hard and simple it is.

[Ser Clegane]

If you were living an ordinary life they would not be interested in you.

It seems al-Masri led a rather ordinary life as well ... until he was taken on a trip to Afghanistan...

[Redleg]

It seems al-Masri led a rather ordinary life as well ... until he taken on a trip to Afghanistan...

Yep - and the failure of both the American Intelligent Services (primarily the CIA, but I will assume others are involved) and the failures of the German Intelligence Services are evident in his case. The hypocrisy of both are just as revelant for anyone that wants to see it.

[Adrian II]

I am bisexual
really:san_shocked:We all are. :san_kiss:

[Tribesman]

Oh by the way the United States did not make them into terrorists - they made themselves into terrorists because of thier own decisions.

True , they made them into freedom fighters not terrorists , you see the difference don't you .
They only become terrorists when ...well ....when they become terrorists , wait a short while and they will be freedom fighters again .

[Ser Clegane]

and the failure of both the American Intelligent Services (primarily the CIA, but I will assume others are involved) and the failures of the German Intelligence Services are evident in his case.

Well, a major difference is that the German IS corrected their assessment before torturing al-Masri.

[Redleg]

Well, a major difference is that the German IS corrected their assessment before torturing al-Masri.

And the United States corrected their assessment by releasing him....

[Redleg]

Oh by the way the United States did not make them into terrorists - they made themselves into terrorists because of thier own decisions.

True , they made them into freedom fighters not terrorists , you see the difference don't you .

Probably better then most --



They only become terrorists when ...well ....when they become terrorists , wait a short while and they will be freedom fighters again .

Their actions against civilians made them terrorists. FIghting against a foreign occupation or government troops makes one a Freedom fighter.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Must be the European blood of his ancestors speaking. Me too, I hate America. I hate freedom. I love terrorism. I want to die quickly. I am insecure. I am bisexual so my love life is a disaster. I walked out on my wife and kids, let the state take care of them. I love robbing liquor stores and blaming society for it. I am decadent, I never put in a decent day's work all my life. I smoke pot. I hate myself. I want to be oppressed. Hit me.
:san_kiss:
Sad thing is, I'd beleive that.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Who do you know that has been brainwashed? Is it possible to brainwash people to hate freedom? Again you asked what I have agaisnt Freedom - well the answer is nothing. You are expessing your thoughts and I am expressing my thoughts - the ultimate form of freedom is the ability to argue and express your opinion.

So what do you have against Freedom?


You perhaps? You sound very much like a Bush administration puppet. "Why do you hate freedom?" for instance. What has that got to do with my post? My reference to "why do you hate freedom" was of course a reference to Bush administration behavior. Now I wonder why you ask me the question "why do you hate freedom?" when I express hatred towards atrocities of war. Well, perhaps it's a kind of freedom to allow oneself to start wars and genocide. If we're talking about freedom of moral obligations, then I hate freedom. If we speak of freedom of the people of sovereign states, then I like freedom.



Not once they spill across a border - the distinction becomes very muddy. Just ask the Viet Cong on that one.

That's when it turns into a war. There's no difficulty in distinguishing them from each other.



And the issue is what - that we wanted both countries to bled themselves dry so that the balance of power in the Middle-East remains the same.

Ha! That's by far the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard. BTW from ww2 there's a quote where US officials say something like: "good that Germany attacked USSR, hopefully as many as possible will die on both sides". The US strategy to try to get people to kill each others as much as possible has been used on several occasions, while failing to recognize that most these combattants that die are innocent forced recruits, just like I consider you innocent of the war crimes of Iraq even if you've been there, unless you defend these acts of terror against the Iraqi people, which hurts the American people in the long run.



You might want to check out the equipment used by both sides - more then just the United States were playing that game.


That is true, but again I ask you - do I every time I critisize American atrocies and mistakes have to critisize all atrocies ever committed in Europe? Should I start with the romans?



Oh by the way the United States did not make them into terrorists - they made themselves into terrorists because of thier own decisions.

Ok, so giving them training and incentive to become terrorists isn't making them terrorists? Well, I hope your disagreement to this point only has to do with our different ways of defining the words. If you're denying that the US gave incentive and training then you're a really serious denier.



Only when the Europeans are ignoring thier own part in the problem - Europe had more dealings in the Middle-East then the United States. Most of the current situations in the countries in the Middle-East stem from more European influence then the United States - Europe includes the USSR.


That's why terror also strikes European countries whose governments were guilty of such atrocies. Just look at Spain, the UK and Russia.



Sure we can - that is why I mention the hypocrisy of Europe on this issue. Many European national governments turn a blind eye to what is going on, some are even activitly particapating in the events.


That's good to hear. Europe has an active part in it, but it's not a very important role. If only the US would make different decisions, the entire incidents would stop happening. However, if only Europe changed their decisions and got rid of the hypocrisy, by being brave standing up against Bush's threats of non-cooperation leading to transgression or even war, the incidents would still continue. It's true that the European governments are cowards, but it's humane cowardice. The American government is in an uncontrolled, irrational panic and are driven by greed, because they are neurotic persons. Many Americans are aware of alternative, rational strategies for sorting out terrorism, which would grant the safety of the American people, and justice in the world.



Oh I don't have a problem with people criticizing the United States - its important for a Free Society and its government to have the ability to criticize the government. But once you begin to argue and critize - one must be prepared to argue their case. Constructive criticism of the government is important - un-constructive criticism and ignoring all the aspects of the situation is not important.


Indeed, that's why I'm speaking in favor of increasing democratic rights of the American people, so that they have the power to prevent war-mongering presidents from getting to power. And why I'm suggesting they end torture and unprovoked wars. They also need to communicate more. They need to apologize for the atrocities committed by US presidents since ww2, and try to repair the damage. When they feel threatened, they should speak to those they feel threatened by and demand that they show proof of not planning hostilities, and if they recieve such results, such as the UN inspection of Iraq revealed there were no WMDs in Iraq, they should settle with it, and not be driven by popular opinion among the most greedy and powerful American corporations, who expected Bush to continue with a war. They should use ultimatums, not strike first whenever they feel threatened - the latter is to make nations and groups who were no threat before into a threat. They should stop threatening European countries in ways like "either you're with us or against us". Every person and nation has a right to neutrality, if not in the conflict in total, at least to get time to think, so they can later make an accurate decision about which side to support. The US should also stop using torture. You don't have to be very clever to realize that very few suicidal terrorists unafraid of death would start speaking because of fear of death and torture. Those who do would probably start speaking even without torture, and the few that start speaking that wouldn't have otherwise, are so few that the price of torturing innocents is too high. Lenin has been quoted for saying: "it's better to kill 100 innocents than letting 1 guily escape" - it seems like the USA is gradually adopting that idea, which is one of the reasons why the communist dictatorships were so hated, and fell. Finally, the US should close the concentration camp on Cuba called Guantanamo, and give all prisoners there a proper trial. If some are found to not be guilty, they should, as is the case for innocents accidentally put in jail, be given money for the damage, at least three times the amount of what a normal prisoner gets, due to the inhumane standards in the camp. Bush should fire his incompetent and brutal advisors, and stand up for his own beliefs. He's said to be a deep Christian who was enlightened and thanks to God managed to quit alcoholism. He should form the USA into a Christian state based on the commandments such as "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal". But USA is a too fear based society with too much power in the hands of people unworthy of holding such power, and perhaps the bravery needed for the last few parts of this paragraph would require and inhumane bravery. But it's still possible for Bush to avoid wars, to veto all such plans of atrocies and crimes, even if he can't go as far as to critisize them and debate against such ideas. He can always choose neutrality. And finally, for the sake of the American people, who have so far been the targets of the terrorists, he should fight terrorism by eliminating it's cause, not by creating new terrorists.



Well we all know that terrorists never strike at the government, they only target civilians that can not defend themselves. However I see you are spouting the jargon of the jihadist here. So I guess you do support the terrorist in thier efforts in using violence? Since that is what this little paragraph seems to say.

The persons that are now terrorists can redirect their actions against those they consider guilty - hopefully towards those who aren't only considered, but also in reality are, guilty. After all if you're guilty and refuse to apologize and repair your damage, you're not regretting your sins, and are still the same person who committed the acts, and can still be held responsible for them. If they're honorable, they would accept an apology and a program to repair the damages. If they do not accept the apology and abuse the gifts the repairation programs give for attacking Americans, then they have clearly shown themselves as real terrorists, and it's ok to fight them.

If the terrorists would redirect their efforts towards the guilty, it would gain both the American people, the citizens of Europe, and the people the terrorists represent. Very few Europeans and Americans support the massmurder of Iraqi civilians for no real purpose. Such a development is not impossible. For example the Mujaheddin talibans were once heroes serving the USA, later to become terrorists. These same men could redirect their efforts and change strategy once again. I do not support terrorism or violence. But when people are exposed to oppression and violence, if own violence can save them from that, if their own violence can destroy the cause of the violence directed towards them, so that the total amount of violence is decreased, and unworthy, trigger-happy leaders can be relieved of their responsibilities as leaders, then that violence can have good effects. Of course I would rather support a peaceful solution. But Bush refuses to cooperate with attempts to make the American system of election more fair and democratic, for instance. Bush refused to discuss with Saddam before the Iraq war. Bush has officially declared American policy to be "full spectrum dominance", not cooperation, freedom and justice. In order for a peaceful just solution to be possible, both parts have to cooperate.

I'm neither a supporter of the freedom fighters, nor of the anti-terrorist fighters. I'm a supporter of peace and avoiding of a conflict that is most unnecessary, and only gains a few greedy and scared western country leaders, while hurting the people of all nations involved. It would probably be a development towards peace if the terrorists redirected their strikes towards guilty only. Similarly, the USA would gain more popular support by striking people guilty of extremistic terrorism only, and try to repair the damage they once did on innocent freedom fighter terrorists.



But not lead by OBL - neither was he a major leader of the Mujaheddin.


Exactly, which is why I never said so.



If you don't like the answer - don't ask the question. :san_shocked:

I liked the answer, as it gives me insight in your way of defining the word "hypocrisy". As your very definition is somewhat different from mine, what you're saying becomes more understandable.

[Redleg]

You perhaps? You sound very much like a Bush administration puppet.

Well its better then sounding like a jihidist as several of your comments lead to.



"Why do you hate freedom?" for instance. What has that got to do with my post? My reference to "why do you hate freedom" was of course a reference to Bush administration behavior. Now I wonder why you ask me the question "why do you hate freedom?" when I express hatred towards atrocities of war. Well, perhaps it's a kind of freedom to allow oneself to start wars and genocide. If we're talking about freedom of moral obligations, then I hate freedom. If we speak of freedom of the people of sovereign states, then I like freedom.

Sounds good on the surface




That's when it turns into a war. There's no difficulty in distinguishing them from each other.


Ah but its not as simple as you first stated now is it?



Ha! That's by far the most ridiculous explanation I've ever heard.

Good you recognized it for what it was.



BTW from ww2 there's a quote where US officials say something like: "good that Germany attacked USSR, hopefully as many as possible will die on both sides". The US strategy to try to get people to kill each others as much as possible has been used on several occasions, while failing to recognize that most these combattants that die are innocent forced recruits, just like I consider you innocent of the war crimes of Iraq even if you've been there, unless you defend these acts of terror against the Iraqi people, which hurts the American people in the long run.

Politics of war goes beyond concern for the individual. You ever think that if the forced particpants get tired of war that they revolt. Ever here of the French Munity or the October Revolution in Russia durring WW1.




That is true, but again I ask you - do I every time I critisize American atrocies and mistakes have to critisize all atrocies ever committed in Europe? Should I start with the romans?

No problem with critisizing the United States for its actions - but in the big picture of the Middle-East more then the United States is involved in causing the problem now isn't there? Just like in the instance of this topic header more then just the United States is involved. A little of the German Intelligence Service, a bit of the Macedonia government, and a major role played by the United States. If you only address the micro part of the equation you are not addressing the whole issue.



Ok, so giving them training and incentive to become terrorists isn't making them terrorists? Well, I hope your disagreement to this point only has to do with our different ways of defining the words. If you're denying that the US gave incentive and training then you're a really serious denier.


Not a difference in defining words at all - does society make the individual a criminal or does the decision of the individual make them a criminal. Fighting against a foreigh occupation or a repressive government by attacking the forces of that government makes one a Freedom Fighter. Attacking civilians to cause terror is terrorism. Big difference, not one of just definitions.

The United States gave assistance, incentive, and training to freedom fighters fighting Soviet agression into Afganstan.



That's why terror also strikes European countries whose governments were guilty of such atrocies. Just look at Spain, the UK and Russia.


There you go - see the big picture not the micro.



That's good to hear. Europe has an active part in it, but it's not a very important role.

Oh you are incorrect in that. How much support is actually coming from Europe to assist the Palenstine Infitada? How much money is coming out of Europe to help terrorist have a world wide network. Any part of the system is important. In either fighting against terrorism or supporting it.



If only the US would make different decisions, the entire incidents would stop happening.

I seperated these two sentence for a reason. The decisions of the United States does not equate to the cause of Terrorism. Changing our decisions would not equate to stoping terrorism. Remember what most of the jihadists are after is not something easily changed.



However, if only Europe changed their decisions and got rid of the hypocrisy, by being brave standing up against Bush's threats of non-cooperation leading to transgression or even war, the incidents would still continue. It's true that the European governments are cowards, but it's humane cowardice. The American government is in an uncontrolled, irrational panic and are driven by greed, because they are neurotic persons. Many Americans are aware of alternative, rational strategies for sorting out terrorism, which would grant the safety of the American people, and justice in the world.

A poor generalization. So I am a neurotic person driven by panic and greed - tsk tsk - generalizations are the downfall of logic.




Indeed, that's why I'm speaking in favor of increasing democratic rights of the American people, so that they have the power to prevent war-mongering presidents from getting to power. And why I'm suggesting they end torture and unprovoked wars. They also need to communicate more. They need to apologize for the atrocities committed by US presidents since ww2, and try to repair the damage.

THe only part you have right in my opinion is the President needs to communicate more. I tell you what when England and France apologize for their mismanagement of the Middle-East after WW1, when Japan apologizes for WW2, then maybe the United States should take this course - but apologizing for the past by people who were not involved is ridiculous and solves nothing.



When they feel threatened, they should speak to those they feel threatened by and demand that they show proof of not planning hostilities, and if they recieve such results, such as the UN inspection of Iraq revealed there were no WMDs in Iraq, they should settle with it, and not be driven by popular opinion among the most greedy and powerful American corporations, who expected Bush to continue with a war.

So 12 years of failed inspections, failure to comply with the United Nations inspections, means absolutely nothing. Frankly the United States should of went back to war in 1992 when the Cease Fire was first broken - but the United States was cowardly along with the rest of the world.



They should use ultimatums, not strike first whenever they feel threatened - the latter is to make nations and groups who were no threat before into a threat.

An ultimation is no good if you don't have the power to follow through.



They should stop threatening European countries in ways like "either you're with us or against us". Every person and nation has a right to neutrality, if not in the conflict in total, at least to get time to think, so they can later make an accurate decision about which side to support.

Agreed - but political rethoric is political rethoric



The US should also stop using torture. You don't have to be very clever to realize that very few suicidal terrorists unafraid of death would start speaking because of fear of death and torture. Those who do would probably start speaking even without torture, and the few that start speaking that wouldn't have otherwise, are so few that the price of torturing innocents is too high.

Oh I have a problem with torture - but I don't have a problem with proper intergotation techniques.



Lenin has been quoted for saying: "it's better to kill 100 innocents than letting 1 guily escape" - it seems like the USA is gradually adopting that idea, which is one of the reasons why the communist dictatorships were so hated, and fell.

Not at all - communist dictatorships are hated and fell because they do not serve the interest of the people.



Finally, the US should close the concentration camp on Cuba called Guantanamo, and give all prisoners there a proper trial. If some are found to not be guilty, they should, as is the case for innocents accidentally put in jail, be given money for the damage, at least three times the amount of what a normal prisoner gets, due to the inhumane standards in the camp. Bush should fire his incompetent and brutal advisors, and stand up for his own beliefs.

Gitmo should stay - run it like a prison - but it stays to hold the individuals that it holds. Remember most of the prisoners at Gitmo by the Hague Convention definition can recieve summary court martials on the field of battle. You might want to check out what that means.



He's said to be a deep Christian who was enlightened and thanks to God managed to quit alcoholism. He should form the USA into a Christian state based on the commandments such as "thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt not steal". But USA is a too fear based society with too much power in the hands of people unworthy of holding such power, and perhaps the bravery needed for the last few parts of this paragraph would require and inhumane bravery. But it's still possible for Bush to avoid wars, to veto all such plans of atrocies and crimes, even if he can't go as far as to critisize them and debate against such ideas. He can always choose neutrality. And finally, for the sake of the American people, who have so far been the targets of the terrorists, he should fight terrorism by eliminating it's cause, not by creating new terrorists.


Anyone that bases their comments on fear based society really has no clue about which they speak. People who are unwilling to fight for what they believe in - are doomed to failure.



The persons that are now terrorists can redirect their actions against those they consider guilty - hopefully towards those who aren't only considered, but also in reality are, guilty. After all if you're guilty and refuse to apologize and repair your damage, you're not regretting your sins, and are still the same person who committed the acts, and can still be held responsible for them. If they're honorable, they would accept an apology and a program to repair the damages. If they do not accept the apology and abuse the gifts the repairation programs give for attacking Americans, then they have clearly shown themselves as real terrorists, and it's ok to fight them.

And the problem with your postion is that most terrorists have demonstrated by their first act that they are terrorists.



If the terrorists would redirect their efforts towards the guilty, it would gain both the American people, the citizens of Europe, and the people the terrorists represent. Very few Europeans and Americans support the massmurder of Iraqi civilians for no real purpose. Such a development is not impossible. For example the Mujaheddin talibans were once heroes serving the USA, later to become terrorists. These same men could redirect their efforts and change strategy once again. I do not support terrorism or violence. But when people are exposed to oppression and violence, if own violence can save them from that, if their own violence can destroy the cause of the violence directed towards them, so that the total amount of violence is decreased, and unworthy, trigger-happy leaders can be relieved of their responsibilities as leaders, then that violence can have good effects. Of course I would rather support a peaceful solution. But Bush refuses to cooperate with attempts to make the American system of election more fair and democratic, for instance. Bush refused to discuss with Saddam before the Iraq war. Bush has officially declared American policy to be "full spectrum dominance", not cooperation, freedom and justice. In order for a peaceful just solution to be possible, both parts have to cooperate.

Your speaking without knowledge on the election system of the United States. The President does not control the election process - its in the constitution and takes a constitutional amendment to change it. THe system is about as fair and democratic as it can be for a constitutional republic.



I'm neither a supporter of the freedom fighters, nor of the anti-terrorist fighters. I'm a supporter of peace and avoiding of a conflict that is most unnecessary, and only gains a few greedy and scared western country leaders, while hurting the people of all nations involved. It would probably be a development towards peace if the terrorists redirected their strikes towards guilty only. Similarly, the USA would gain more popular support by striking people guilty of extremistic terrorism only, and try to repair the damage they once did on innocent freedom fighter terrorists.


Good to know - it helps clarify some of the jihidist rethoric I see in your posts.




I liked the answer, as it gives me insight in your way of defining the word "hypocrisy". As your very definition is somewhat different from mine, what you're saying becomes more understandable.

Big picture is what I try to see - not always successfully.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Ah but its not as simple as you first stated now is it?

For everything there is a word. Which word is used for the concept matters little when you discuss ethics, but much when discussing law. Many reality cases are combinations of concept that have different terms.



Politics of war goes beyond concern for the individual. You ever think that if the forced particpants get tired of war that they revolt. Ever here of the French Munity or the October Revolution in Russia durring WW1.


Yes, but if the individuals are scared of punishment for mutiny and not obeying orders, they don't dare. In an Iraq war where American dead are estimated around only 2000, it's much less scary to kill some Iraqis with a mortar/M1Abrams platoon than refusing to follow orders. And war doesn't go beyond concern for the individual in the long term. War is, except in cases of greedy leaders, used to achieve peace and safety in the future. Often this struggle for safety is a result of misunderstandings. Many countries in history have been attacked because the attackers felt they could become a threat in the future. More communication can solve all these problems. Once a war has started, it's difficult to adapt strategy and tactics to minimize suffering of civilians in most cases, but what I'm mainly referring to is finding ways of avoiding the war by solving the same problems with peaceful methods such as proper communication.



No problem with critisizing the United States for its actions - but in the big picture of the Middle-East more then the United States is involved in causing the problem now isn't there?


I agree.



The United States gave assistance, incentive, and training to freedom fighters fighting Soviet agression into Afganstan.

The same groups who then became Al Qaeda members.



Oh you are incorrect in that. How much support is actually coming from Europe to assist the Palenstine Infitada?

Remember that there are many Palestinian refugees in Europe, who, afaik, does most of that paying.



Any part of the system is important. In either fighting against terrorism or supporting it.

True, but the will to fight is the key part. Just look at the terrorists, and their arsenal. It's ridiculously weak in comparison to what the USA and Europe has got. Still, they fight. They make home made bombs and sacrifice their own lives, most attacks are suicide attacks.



I seperated these two sentence for a reason. The decisions of the United States does not equate to the cause of Terrorism. Changing our decisions would not equate to stoping terrorism.

I would like to point out examples such as the failed promises to the curds and shias in Iraq. The USA shouldn't have promised air support to the curdic and shia rebellion attempts vs Saddam in the first place, if they in the end withdrew it. The curds and shias had both planned their rebellion in secret. When launching the first attacks, the entire thing would be revealed, and Saddam would start counter-actions. With American air support, the curds and shias would however be able to win and overthrow Saddam. But after the attacks had started, and the plans had been revealed to Saddam, the air support promise was withdrawn. This allowed Saddam to carry out the infamous massacres with gene gases which is probably the greatest war crime he ever committed. If this type of behavior from the USA had happened once, then it might have been forgiven without a formal apology. But it happened twice. Once for the curds, and once for the shias. The USA showed that they don't keep promises even in cases where the results are the deaths of thousands of allies of the American cause.



THe only part you have right in my opinion is the President needs to communicate more. I tell you what when England and France apologize for their mismanagement of the Middle-East after WW1, when Japan apologizes for WW2, then maybe the United States should take this course - but apologizing for the past by people who were not involved is ridiculous and solves nothing.

Of course he should only apologize for actions that the USA have committed, like the failed promises to curds and shias.



So 12 years of failed inspections, failure to comply with the United Nations inspections, means absolutely nothing.

There were real inspections shortly before the American attack. In fact, under the threat of war, Saddam started to cooperate. It's a good example of the power of an ultimatum - America achieved what they wanted by threatening about war. Unfortunately, they proceeded with attacking Iraq even despite that, turing a possibly very successful ultimatum into another example of failed promises. You can't effectively use an ultimatum unless you guarantee you won't attack in the case where the other part cooperates and communicates.



An ultimation is no good if you don't have the power to follow through.

That's why the USA can use ultimatum so effectively, because they have the strongest army in the world at the moment.



Agreed - but political rethoric is political rethoric


Yes, but Bush should have been more careful. That particular statement of his is not exactly creating safety and understanding. It's a good example of bad communication, creating uncertainty and fear.



Oh I have a problem with torture - but I don't have a problem with proper intergotation techniques.


I agree.



Not at all - communist dictatorships are hated and fell because they do not serve the interest of the people.


Exactly.



Gitmo should stay - run it like a prison - but it stays to hold the individuals that it holds. Remember most of the prisoners at Gitmo by the Hague Convention definition can recieve summary court martials on the field of battle. You might want to check out what that means.


I have no problem with Guantanamo if it's run like a prison. Still, as there's no war going on anymore - the riots and disorder in Iraq now is terrorism according to the USA, these men can now recieve a proper trial. And even if that wouldn't be necessary by laws, it is, by moral, unwritten laws. And even if you have no moral, it's not doing anyone any good to keep people in a prison under such harsh circumstances. A prison must allow people to:
1. have an own personal cell with window, somewhere to wash, a toilet, a soft bed, and walls, roof and floor.
2. recieve proper food
3. be able to move freely in their cell always with no handcuffs or similar restricting them, and be allowed a gym and an open courtyard for moving freely at least one two two hours per day
4. know for how long their sentences will last
5. have a right to ask for release and new trial. If necessary for practical reasons, perhaps not more often than twice a year.

Bear in mind that there's ALWAYS a risk of capturing innocents (especially so when no proper trials are held), and only a barbarian would treat innocents the way prisoners are treated in Guantanamo at the moment. I don't care whether you as personal opinion support harsh sentences for criminals, or support mercifulness. In either case, the risk of striking innocents must be remembered.



Anyone that bases their comments on fear based society really has no clue about which they speak. People who are unwilling to fight for what they believe in - are doomed to failure.


You can believe in and fight for neutrality, and succeed very well. In fact neutrality, justice and freedom are the most successful struggles in the long run.



Your speaking without knowledge on the election system of the United States. The President does not control the election process - its in the constitution and takes a constitutional amendment to change it. THe system is about as fair and democratic as it can be for a constitutional republic.


A constitutional amendment should therefore be made. We have all seen how tragical consequences the current system has. I posted in another thread, I think, a possible alternative and more democratic system. The current system is actually even less democratic than the Weimar republic, in which Adolf Hitler was elected. So I'm sure we can agree that the system has weaknesses.



Good to know - it helps clarify some of the jihidist rethoric I see in your posts.


Please cut that BS. Everyone who doesn't support massmurder and killing of civilians in Iraq in order to fight terrorism in a way that in reality causes more terrorism that it eliminates isn't a jihadist or terrorist, as the Bush administration in it's rhetoric is trying to, without success, make it seem like.


Big picture is what I try to see - not always successfully.

The big picture is important, and also what I try to see. How fear, cowardice or irrationality can make leaders make wrong decisions that hurts their people. But we must also analyze different decisions in an isolated way, so that we know where we stand morally. It's not about judging the people carrying out the decisions, or judging who is the biggest villain, but finding out which decisions should be altered. Only if it turns out that the leaders are incapable of, or preventing, better decisions in these fields, one might consider ways of overthrowing them. Only in such a case is it interesting to ask - are the possible replacements more or less evil in total? While you seem to be directed towards action, I'm restricting myself to a mostly theoretical discussion, getting a bigger picture than just answers to "what should we do next?". Trying to get answers to what causes war, and why it isn't inevitable. Trying to answer how to change the system, so that it stops producing unworthy and immoral men, and stops them from becoming leaders over nations. One of the first steps is to define which actions are unworthy and immoral, and find alternative solutions.

[Adrian II]

Sad thing is, I'd beleive that.If you really believe that, I think that's rather funny actually.

[Redleg]

For everything there is a word. Which word is used for the concept matters little when you discuss ethics, but much when discussing law. Many reality cases are combinations of concept that have different terms.

Law is for the courtroom - morals and ethics is for this type of discussion.




Yes, but if the individuals are scared of punishment for mutiny and not obeying orders, they don't dare. In an Iraq war where American dead are estimated around only 2000, it's much less scary to kill some Iraqis with a mortar/M1Abrams platoon than refusing to follow orders.

Or its more scary to fight in combat then to refuse to follow orders - take it from one who has done both. Not following orders is a whole lot easier.



And war doesn't go beyond concern for the individual in the long term. War is, except in cases of greedy leaders, used to achieve peace and safety in the future. Often this struggle for safety is a result of misunderstandings. Many countries in history have been attacked because the attackers felt they could become a threat in the future. More communication can solve all these problems. Once a war has started, it's difficult to adapt strategy and tactics to minimize suffering of civilians in most cases, but what I'm mainly referring to is finding ways of avoiding the war by solving the same problems with peaceful methods such as proper communication.


Proper communication is well and good and should be used. However in the case of Iraq - we are talking about 12 years of failed communication by all sides. THere comes a point and time where communication is no longer an option - so its either fold your hand or show it. In the case of Iraq and Terrorism I prefer to show it.



I agree.


see its not painful to agree with an American.



The same groups who then became Al Qaeda members.


That they turned their efforts into terrorism to force idealogue changes on others is however not the fault of the United States. That is the fault of the individuals who decided that terrorism is the way to force change. They faught for a cause that was worthy in my opinion - to destroy Soviet aggression into their nation - what they did afterwards is soley on their heads - not the United States for assisting them in defeating a common enemy.



Remember that there are many Palestinian refugees in Europe, who, afaik, does most of that paying.

Why do you think I brought it up? It shows how important Europe is to the whole picture.



True, but the will to fight is the key part. Just look at the terrorists, and their arsenal. It's ridiculously weak in comparison to what the USA and Europe has got. Still, they fight. They make home made bombs and sacrifice their own lives, most attacks are suicide attacks.

Your getting close now - the will to fight is indeed the key part for both sides - if your unwilling to defend your life and your way of life - the terrorist wins.




I would like to point out examples such as the failed promises to the curds and shias in Iraq. The USA shouldn't have promised air support to the curdic and shia rebellion attempts vs Saddam in the first place, if they in the end withdrew it. The curds and shias had both planned their rebellion in secret. When launching the first attacks, the entire thing would be revealed, and Saddam would start counter-actions. With American air support, the curds and shias would however be able to win and overthrow Saddam. But after the attacks had started, and the plans had been revealed to Saddam, the air support promise was withdrawn.

No problem bringing it up - I have mentioned not only in this thread but others that I feel President Bush'41 took the cowards way out along with the rest of the world in not enforcing the cease fire back in 1992.



This allowed Saddam to carry out the infamous massacres with gene gases which is probably the greatest war crime he ever committed. If this type of behavior from the USA had happened once, then it might have been forgiven without a formal apology. But it happened twice. Once for the curds, and once for the shias. The USA showed that they don't keep promises even in cases where the results are the deaths of thousands of allies of the American cause.


The failure in 1992 showed more then the United States failure to keep promises - it showed the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. But people only like to point out the overwhelming failure of the United States - and avoid the overwhelming failure of the United Nations as well in this regard.



Of course he should only apologize for actions that the USA have committed, like the failed promises to curds and shias.


He can only aplologize for his own failures - what is past is past. What happened in 1992 was a cowardly act by not only President Bush'41 but the United Nations. I don't see you wanting the United Nations to apologize for its mistakes and failures.



There were real inspections shortly before the American attack. In fact, under the threat of war, Saddam started to cooperate. It's a good example of the power of an ultimatum - America achieved what they wanted by threatening about war. Unfortunately, they proceeded with attacking Iraq even despite that, turing a possibly very successful ultimatum into another example of failed promises. You can't effectively use an ultimatum unless you guarantee you won't attack in the case where the other part cooperates and communicates.

Ah but under President Bush's reasoning the inspections were a failure - Saddam and his regime did not come clean like the ultimatum stated. The Duefler Report shows the failure of both the Bush Adminstration and of Saddam's Regime in that regard.



That's why the USA can use ultimatum so effectively, because they have the strongest army in the world at the moment.


Again ultimatums are nothing if you don't have the power to fullfil them. Those ultimatums that you have asked for were carried out during the 1990's to no effect. Looking only at 2003 and avoiding the years between 1992 to 2003 avoids the number of strikes committed against Iraq to get them to partially comply with the resolutions - and even those strikes did not get Saddam or his regime to comply.



Yes, but Bush should have been more careful. That particular statement of his is not exactly creating safety and understanding. It's a good example of bad communication, creating uncertainty and fear.

Yep but remember President Bush is not the only one exhibiting bad communications - its just that he has the most influence.




I agree.

Exactly.


Careful now that three times you have agreed with me in one post - some might think your being converted to the dark side of my logic and reasoning. :san_cheesy:



I have no problem with Guantanamo if it's run like a prison. Still, as there's no war going on anymore - the riots and disorder in Iraq now is terrorism according to the USA, these men can now recieve a proper trial.

Sorry to seperate sentence from paragraphs again - occupation is part of war. The same rules apply until the occupation is over.



And even if that wouldn't be necessary by laws, it is, by moral, unwritten laws. And even if you have no moral, it's not doing anyone any good to keep people in a prison under such harsh circumstances. A prison must allow people to:

Careful now your about to thread into grounds that might define Gitmo as a prison.



1. have an own personal cell with window, somewhere to wash, a toilet, a soft bed, and walls, roof and floor.
They do have that - more are being built during the course of the conflict.


2. recieve proper food


Oh they do get proper food.



3. be able to move freely in their cell always with no handcuffs or similar restricting them, and be allowed a gym and an open courtyard for moving freely at least one two two hours per day

My understanding is that they get the same priveledges as any prisoner in this regards - except I do believe some are left cuff and restricted for movement. Which is also done in many prisons depending upon the nature of the prisoner.



4. know for how long their sentences will last
Now that is the issue is it not.



5. have a right to ask for release and new trial. If necessary for practical reasons, perhaps not more often than twice a year.

They are given a yearly tribunal to review their case.. And its my understanding that they can ask - but its often ignored.



Bear in mind that there's ALWAYS a risk of capturing innocents (especially so when no proper trials are held), and only a barbarian would treat innocents the way prisoners are treated in Guantanamo at the moment. I don't care whether you as personal opinion support harsh sentences for criminals, or support mercifulness. In either case, the risk of striking innocents must be remembered.

Better to arrest and hold in prison - then to execute them on the battlefield.




You can believe in and fight for neutrality, and succeed very well. In fact neutrality, justice and freedom are the most successful struggles in the long run.

Again read what I wrote - because you just repeated it and only changed it with neutrality.



A constitutional amendment should therefore be made. We have all seen how tragical consequences the current system has. I posted in another thread, I think, a possible alternative and more democratic system. The current system is actually even less democratic than the Weimar republic, in which Adolf Hitler was elected. So I'm sure we can agree that the system has weaknesses.

It balances the national population by giving weighted representation by the population of the states. I think its a fair system, very rarely does the president win with the electorical vote only. You should be to upset Clinton, FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, Washington, and a host of other decent to great presidents were elected under the same system. The system works just as well as a pure popular vote. The Issue comes from that the American Politic as developed to the point where only two parties have any influence. That my fine friend is not the design of the system - but the demographics of the nation. Constitutional amendments won't change that demographic.




Please cut that BS. Everyone who doesn't support massmurder and killing of civilians in Iraq in order to fight terrorism in a way that in reality causes more terrorism that it eliminates isn't a jihadist or terrorist, as the Bush administration in it's rhetoric is trying to, without success, make it seem like.


So its perfectly fine for you to use the rethoric BS but not for others. Care for me to point out the BS rethoric you have been using in most of your posts? Notice I post in the same manner in which you are. You post BS - I post BS, you post honest discourse - I post honest discourse. I wonder what you would call this statement of yours.



You perhaps? You sound very much like a Bush administration puppet

oh and there are others - but that one equats to the jihidist comment now doesn't?

If you don't like it in return - don't use it in the first place.




The big picture is important, and also what I try to see. How fear, cowardice or irrationality can make leaders make wrong decisions that hurts their people. But we must also analyze different decisions in an isolated way, so that we know where we stand morally. It's not about judging the people carrying out the decisions, or judging who is the biggest villain, but finding out which decisions should be altered. Only if it turns out that the leaders are incapable of, or preventing, better decisions in these fields, one might consider ways of overthrowing them. Only in such a case is it interesting to ask - are the possible replacements more or less evil in total? While you seem to be directed towards action, I'm restricting myself to a mostly theoretical discussion, getting a bigger picture than just answers to "what should we do next?". Trying to get answers to what causes war, and why it isn't inevitable. Trying to answer how to change the system, so that it stops producing unworthy and immoral men, and stops them from becoming leaders over nations. One of the first steps is to define which actions are unworthy and immoral, and find alternative solutions.

Agreed - but I am sure you won't like the outcomes of such a discussion either.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Or its more scary to fight in combat then to refuse to follow orders - take it from one who has done both. Not following orders is a whole lot easier.

It depends on the individual. You seem to have courage enough in the matter of refusing orders, but would you have courage enough to defend a radical and revolutionary standpoint you might be alone about having in the group where you are?



see its not painful to agree with an American.


:san_rolleyes: :san_laugh:



Your getting close now - the will to fight is indeed the key part for both sides - if your unwilling to defend your life and your way of life - the terrorist wins.

Defence against a freedom fighter and avenger is by apologizing and repairing the damage you've done on him and his people. Defence against a maniac is to be prepared to fight to death. Most of the combattants the US are facing are in the freedom fighter and avenger cathegory.



No problem bringing it up - I have mentioned not only in this thread but others that I feel President Bush'41 took the cowards way out along with the rest of the world in not enforcing the cease fire back in 1992.


Good that we agree on this point, which I consider one of the keys. It's unfortunate that the modern American president is the son of this Bush, which makes it socially difficult for the new president to give a proper apology and carry out a change of direction towards more cooperation and understanding.



The failure in 1992 showed more then the United States failure to keep promises - it showed the failure of the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. But people only like to point out the overwhelming failure of the United States - and avoid the overwhelming failure of the United Nations as well in this regard.

Yes, the UN have been pretty weak the last few years. Still, many of them still do a great job in some aspects, but I don't know if the UN has a future, the way it has been looking the latest decade(s).



He can only aplologize for his own failures - what is past is past. What happened in 1992 was a cowardly act by not only President Bush'41 but the United Nations. I don't see you wanting the United Nations to apologize for its mistakes and failures.

The problem with regime shifts is that it's still, in the eyes of other nations, the same nation unless apoligies and promises of change of strategy and repairing the damage, and a communication towards cooperation and understanding is made as an official statement by the new president. This is an example of the communication I'm talking about. If you want your nation cleaned from the blood stains created by earlier rulers, you must clarify, if it isn't clear enough, that you're another dynasty of leader, with a new ideology and policy. The European official apologies for many atrocities have served an important role in this matter, which is why Europeans today aren't seen as the same cruel colonialists that lived in the 19th century.



Yep but remember President Bush is not the only one exhibiting bad communications - its just that he has the most influence.


Exactly my opinion.



Careful now that three times you have agreed with me in one post - some might think your being converted to the dark side of my logic and reasoning. :san_cheesy:


:san_grin: Actually, I've held most of these opinions from the start of the debate, but I couldn't clarify them until you asked. I find that happening often in debates, it's very difficult to not misunderstand until enough questioning and debating has been carried out. It's always nice to see how the few remaining points of disagreements in opinion reduce to smaller issues as a discussion progresses.



Careful now your about to thread into grounds that might define Gitmo as a prison.


Oh, it was a full list of things a prison should have in order to be a prison of a civilized country. I know many of those things are actually fulfilled by Guantanamo, I just posted the entire list in one place for the sake of overview. So you can draw your conclusions about what is seen as inapropriate about Guantanamo - the things on this list that aren't yet fulfilled. It's positive that more real cells are being built.



Better to arrest and hold in prison - then to execute them on the battlefield.


Of course, that would be even worse barbary.



It balances the national population by giving weighted representation by the population of the states. I think its a fair system, very rarely does the president win with the electorical vote only. You should be to upset Clinton, FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, Washington, and a host of other decent to great presidents were elected under the same system. The system works just as well as a pure popular vote. The Issue comes from that the American Politic as developed to the point where only two parties have any influence. That my fine friend is not the design of the system - but the demographics of the nation. Constitutional amendments won't change that demographic.


The system still has obvious failures. As do almost all other democratic systems of the western world. The unworthy and power hungry have now truly found the weaknesses of the system. Democracy can perhaps not be a final, simple operation, but only a process. As the unworthy learn the loopholes in our systems, we must develop them one step further, to avoid maniacs from acquiring power.


If you don't like it in return - don't use it in the first place.


Fair enough



Agreed - but I am sure you won't like the outcomes of such a discussion either.

I think I would. There could be very little controversial in it, mostly a scientific discussion, I think. I wouldn't mind a thread about it at all.

[Tribesman]

Better to arrest and hold in prison - then to execute them on the battlefield.

What battlefield ?

occupation is part of war. The same rules apply until the occupation is over.

No they don't .

[Redleg]

Better to arrest and hold in prison - then to execute them on the battlefield.

What battlefield ?

Since most are from either Afganstan and Iraq - use your imagination



occupation is part of war. The same rules apply until the occupation is over.

No they don't .

Try looking at the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Notice that the Hague Convention covers occupation in the same agreement as warfare. Spouting they dont when the argeement covers the subject doesn't work.




Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Art. 44.
A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of territory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, or about its means of defense.

Art. 45.
It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power.

Art. 46.
Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

Art. 47.
Pillage is formally forbidden.

Art. 48.
If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was so bound.

Art. 49.
If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above article, the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory in question.

Art. 50.
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Art. 51.
No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a commander-in-chief.

The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as possible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in force.

For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors.

Art. 52.
Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.

Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.

Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.

Art. 53.
An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.

All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Art. 54.
Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.

Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.

Art. 56.
The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.

All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.



Listed in the same convention with all the other rules of war.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm

[Redleg]

It depends on the individual. You seem to have courage enough in the matter of refusing orders, but would you have courage enough to defend a radical and revolutionary standpoint you might be alone about having in the group where you are?

Yep - I have always tried to do what I believed to be the right thing - regardless of what others think.




:san_rolleyes: :san_laugh:


Rather amusing wasn't



Defence against a freedom fighter and avenger is by apologizing and repairing the damage you've done on him and his people. Defence against a maniac is to be prepared to fight to death. Most of the combattants the US are facing are in the freedom fighter and avenger cathegory.

If they are Iraqi in Iraq you would be correct. If they were Afganstani (SP) in Afganstan you would be correct. However there is more then a few who are not. Back to OBL his group fits the latter category, maniacs who must be fought to the death - either there's or yours.



Good that we agree on this point, which I consider one of the keys. It's unfortunate that the modern American president is the son of this Bush, which makes it socially difficult for the new president to give a proper apology and carry out a change of direction towards more cooperation and understanding.

Again no apology is needed. You don't apologize for things you don't committ, you don't apologize for other's pasts mistakes - its meaningless.



Yes, the UN have been pretty weak the last few years. Still, many of them still do a great job in some aspects, but I don't know if the UN has a future, the way it has been looking the latest decade(s).


Certain agencies within the United Nations do an outstanding job in their specfic tasks - but as a whole it as become a worthless organization.



The problem with regime shifts is that it's still, in the eyes of other nations, the same nation unless apoligies and promises of change of strategy and repairing the damage, and a communication towards cooperation and understanding is made as an official statement by the new president. This is an example of the communication I'm talking about. If you want your nation cleaned from the blood stains created by earlier rulers, you must clarify, if it isn't clear enough, that you're another dynasty of leader, with a new ideology and policy. The European official apologies for many atrocities have served an important role in this matter, which is why Europeans today aren't seen as the same cruel colonialists that lived in the 19th century.

You will have to link some of these apologies - not well versed on them. I don't image the French apologized for their actions in Africa and Indochina. I doubt the British apologized for many of their actions between WW1 and WW2 in the Middle-East. I doubt the Spanish apologized for their actions in the New World. Where are these apologies. And again the act of an apology in the instance your talking about is meaningless - the people who should apologize are dead - for the most part.



Exactly my opinion.
:san_cheesy:




:san_grin: Actually, I've held most of these opinions from the start of the debate, but I couldn't clarify them until you asked. I find that happening often in debates, it's very difficult to not misunderstand until enough questioning and debating has been carried out. It's always nice to see how the few remaining points of disagreements in opinion reduce to smaller issues as a discussion progresses.
:bow:




Oh, it was a full list of things a prison should have in order to be a prison of a civilized country. I know many of those things are actually fulfilled by Guantanamo, I just posted the entire list in one place for the sake of overview. So you can draw your conclusions about what is seen as inapropriate about Guantanamo - the things on this list that aren't yet fulfilled. It's positive that more real cells are being built.


What most fail to consider is that Gitmo did not have a prison prior to Afganstan.



Of course, that would be even worse barbary.


Yes indeed - but its well within the rules of warfare - referencing the Hague Conventions of 1907.



The system still has obvious failures. As do almost all other democratic systems of the western world. The unworthy and power hungry have now truly found the weaknesses of the system. Democracy can perhaps not be a final, simple operation, but only a process. As the unworthy learn the loopholes in our systems, we must develop them one step further, to avoid maniacs from acquiring power.


Agreed - but that is not the fault of the current election process in the United States. That is the fault of the population and the demographics that this country has arranged itself into.



Fair enough

:bow:



I think I would. There could be very little controversial in it, mostly a scientific discussion, I think. I wouldn't mind a thread about it at all.

Not scientific I am afraid - maybe logical and philosophical - if that is what you are meaning by scientific.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Again no apology is needed. You don't apologize for things you don't committ, you don't apologize for other's pasts mistakes - its meaningless.

Well, by apology I mean someting that is interpreted as an official statement that the nation has changed it's policy, and condemns the atrocities committed by earlier leaders of that nation. If you as a nation don't want to repair the damage and show that the nation doesn't stand by the atrocities previously committed, the nation as a whole remains hated for those atrocities. It's not something that has to do with my own opinions, but with the way things seem to be working. Without any official statement of that kind, it's impossible to see the nation as any different from what it was when the atrocities were carried out. If European countries hadn't apologized and sent aid to countries that were victims of the colonialism, I'd personally still see Europe as a bunch of countries of cruel colonialists, for example. Of course I understand there's fear involved in apologizing and sending aid to repair damages. If you have upheld a policy of never surrendering as long as you have the power, it can immediately be interpreted as a sign of weakness. The apologizing and change of policy must happen gradually and in a clever way. Changing in one day would be devastating - all aid money sent would probably end up in the hands of OBL and used for weapons used to strike Americans. A slow change, first to neutrality, then to aid, is preferable. Even though it would feel immoraly correct, you could say something like:
- we're changing policy, we condemn the atrocities carried out towards you
- if enough of you stop fighting now you'll recieve aid in five years from now. We can't put this new policy of repairing the damage our predecessors did, unless the fighting stops. Those you were fighting were the previos leaders, not the American nation. We promise to send aid and projects to repair the damage. But we can't do that as long as the fighting continues.
However, there's also the threat of extremistical anti-Americans gaining power in Iraq if you pursue this strategy. So how is that avoided? Well, by simply adding to the terms of aid that anti-Americanism, such as kidnapping or similar, will result in aid being stopped. There's one, single thing that America should also require from the Iraqi nation, and that is the cooperation against suspects of terrorism. These suspects should recieve official, normal trials, and in the usual matter recieve damage money if they turned out innocent. The key things is the communication in this case also. The official declaration of changed policy, for instance, is crucial in giving the locals and incentive to stop fighting. Trust, although difficult, and on the surface risky, must be applied. The Iraqi nation must be trusted to be able to handle it's own problems, the muslim faith must be trusted as not being a direct cause of extremism. The persian-muslim culture of the area must also be trusted. If you clearly define what your goal in Iraq are, and what you want from Iraq, it's very easy to see when those terms are broken. If the terms are broken, you can freely attack the nation, but before doing so clearly stating that (and keeping that promise as well as you can): "The attack is directed at overthrowing the leadership for not complying to the terms, not towards the Iraqi people. No combattants that surrender will be deliberately maltreated or tortured. The leaders will have to recieve trials and a few years of prison (in America, for the sake of avoiding rebellion with reinstallation of them), for what they did." And perhaps one of the terms could also be to allow American and/or UN soldiers to guard the border crossings into Iraq. Then trading blockades can be lifted, but weapons trades be intercepted. I'm sure someone who actually has power in the American government can work out the details of it. It's important that it's both fair, not limiting the future possibilities of the Iraqi people, and still guaranteeing the safety of the American people.

But I hope you understand the importance of clearly announcing that earlier actions are condemned, and clearly announcing exactly what will be done, and what the goals of the war are. The goals of the war, in the terror-fighting aspect, is clearly to impose some terms on whichever government will rule Iraq in the future. Those terms, I think, must be stated officially.



You will have to link some of these apologies - not well versed on them. I don't image the French apologized for their actions in Africa and Indochina. I doubt the British apologized for many of their actions between WW1 and WW2 in the Middle-East. I doubt the Spanish apologized for their actions in the New World. Where are these apologies.

Indeed, they also need to apologize. Our societies have changed a lot during the last few centuries, so it would be ridiculous to apologize for anything happening earlier than a few centuries ago, of course. I think we should draw a line somewhere, perhaps 1800? Or 1900? Or 1945? and then apologize (and with apologize I again mean making a statement that shows that the current leadership condemns such actions and that such actions are, with certainty, not part of the modern policy) for all major atrocities carried out. For the sake of communication, especially in the cases where the actions happened recently, where it's difficult to know whether the policy has changed or not.



Yes indeed - but its well within the rules of warfare - referencing the Hague Conventions of 1907.


A 1907 writing is too old to live up to modern standards. Around that time, for instance the French still had inhumane prisons with torture and labor camps in many of their colonies. A new writing is needed. What matters is however what people think of the facilities. If they're legal, that's a first good step, it's actually the only responsibility the government itself has. But if the laws are aged and don't agree with common opinion, they need to be renewed. Remember that prisons aren't for punishment, but for safe-keeping of people suspected of being dangerous. It's impossible even with all surveillance in the world, to know for sure whether a man is innocent. That's why you should treat them in a humane manner, thinking of all of them as potential innocents. And knowing whether they're innocent or not is more difficult without a proper, official trial. In this case however, it seems like the prisoners don't use the tribunal they have available. Are they unsatisfied with the way it's run, or are they refusing to use it in any case? A modern writing to replace the 1907 Convention would be convenient, as the entire world would then agree on a new set of rules for how prisons should look, and how these tribunals should work. Then it shouldn't matter if the tribunals were inspected by the UN, for instance. Both Americans and the prisoners would be able to agree upon whether improvements were needed or not.



Agreed - but that is not the fault of the current election process in the United States. That is the fault of the population and the demographics that this country has arranged itself into.


Actually the system has a weakness, and that is the fear of throwing away your vote. It makes people vote for one of the two largest parties instead of smaller ones that won't make it into the government anyway. If you're right wing you would like Republicans more than Democrats, if you're left win you'd like Democrats more than Republicans. One possible system I've thought of would be to make a two round system. Not like the one in France, but with ALL candidates proceeding to the second round. Taking part in the elections should be compulsory, with a punishment of a month in prison or something, but it should be possible to vote a discontent vote, which wouldn't be for any existing party. The first round should be used to find out whether the smaller parties would make it into the government or not in a normal vote, the second round to make people able to change their votes to the nearest large party in the same block, if the own party wouldn't make it. Coalition governments should also be encouraged by the system.



Not scientific I am afraid - maybe logical and philosophical - if that is what you are meaning by scientific.

Yes, that's what I mean.

[Redleg]

You have many points within the same paragraph - so I took them as seperate issues to address. This might change the orginial meaning of what you wrote - so correct me if I do that.


Well, by apology I mean someting that is interpreted as an official statement that the nation has changed it's policy, and condemns the atrocities committed by earlier leaders of that nation.

Then it would be even more useless - the United States has not committed any atrocities in the last 30 years. The last one was My Lai. Fullujah might come close to one - given a proper investigation into the situation. Turning back civilians who are attempting to flee a war zone meets the definition of atrocities. Making bad decisions and executing those bad decisions does not equate to an atrocities. Again making such an apology has no political value - especially in the minds of those who have stated that they want to destroy the West.



If you as a nation don't want to repair the damage and show that the nation doesn't stand by the atrocities previously committed, the nation as a whole remains hated for those atrocities.

I think you are confusing bad decisions and unpopular decisions with atrocities.



It's not something that has to do with my own opinions, but with the way things seem to be working.

Such apologies are meaningless. They accomplish absolutely nothing other then making the individual and his supporters fill good about themselves. Not a whole lot of political value in such an apology.



Without any official statement of that kind, it's impossible to see the nation as any different from what it was when the atrocities were carried out. If European countries hadn't apologized and sent aid to countries that were victims of the colonialism, I'd personally still see Europe as a bunch of countries of cruel colonialists, for example.

Well then you should see them still as cruel colonialists - since all an internet search shows is that it was talked about and urged to be done - but no official documents or press releases could be found.



Of course I understand there's fear involved in apologizing and sending aid to repair damages. If you have upheld a policy of never surrendering as long as you have the power, it can immediately be interpreted as a sign of weakness. The apologizing and change of policy must happen gradually and in a clever way. Changing in one day would be devastating - all aid money sent would probably end up in the hands of OBL and used for weapons used to strike Americans. A slow change, first to neutrality, then to aid, is preferable. Even though it would feel immoraly correct, you could say something like:
- we're changing policy, we condemn the atrocities carried out towards you
- if enough of you stop fighting now you'll recieve aid in five years from now.

All well in fine - but doubtful if it works at all. Most will take it as another form of colonialism if you don't just provide cash. Infrastructure development is what is needed - and most of the nations involved are more corrupt then any developed nation. Providing just cash - will lead to your stated worst case scenerio. Providing the expertise to build the infrastructure will give the impression of the return of colonialism - initially until it shown otherwise.



We can't put this new policy of repairing the damage our predecessors did, unless the fighting stops. Those you were fighting were the previos leaders, not the American nation. We promise to send aid and projects to repair the damage. But we can't do that as long as the fighting continues.

I don't think your seeing the big picture. Many don't see it as fighting the previous adminstration but America itself as a nation.



However, there's also the threat of extremistical anti-Americans gaining power in Iraq if you pursue this strategy. So how is that avoided? Well, by simply adding to the terms of aid that anti-Americanism, such as kidnapping or similar, will result in aid being stopped.

It will continue as long as the islamic fundmentalism of the area is not addressed by the citizens living in the area. They themselves will be he victims of the fundmentalists.



There's one, single thing that America should also require from the Iraqi nation, and that is the cooperation against suspects of terrorism.

That was tried in Afganstan in the initial discussion with the Taliban, and we know how that negatotation turned out.



These suspects should recieve official, normal trials, and in the usual matter recieve damage money if they turned out innocent. The key things is the communication in this case also.


I agree completely with this sentence



The official declaration of changed policy, for instance, is crucial in giving the locals and incentive to stop fighting. Trust, although difficult, and on the surface risky, must be applied. The Iraqi nation must be trusted to be able to handle it's own problems, the muslim faith must be trusted as not being a direct cause of extremism. The persian-muslim culture of the area must also be trusted.

Ah but there is an official declaration of policy for Iraq - to turn it over to the Iraqi citizens in the form of the constitutional government that they themselves set-up. Now is that policy being followed would be an interesting discussion.



If you clearly define what your goal in Iraq are, and what you want from Iraq, it's very easy to see when those terms are broken. If the terms are broken, you can freely attack the nation, but before doing so clearly stating that (and keeping that promise as well as you can): "The attack is directed at overthrowing the leadership for not complying to the terms, not towards the Iraqi people.

That was actually done.



No combattants that surrender will be deliberately maltreated or tortured. The leaders will have to recieve trials and a few years of prison (in America, for the sake of avoiding rebellion with reinstallation of them), for what they did." And perhaps one of the terms could also be to allow American and/or UN soldiers to guard the border crossings into Iraq. Then trading blockades can be lifted, but weapons trades be intercepted. I'm sure someone who actually has power in the American government can work out the details of it. It's important that it's both fair, not limiting the future possibilities of the Iraqi people, and still guaranteeing the safety of the American people.

I agree with most if not all - however you do realize a lot of what you mention concerning Iraq - is failed policy of the United Nations Resolutions.



But I hope you understand the importance of clearly announcing that earlier actions are condemned, and clearly announcing exactly what will be done, and what the goals of the war are.

Oh I understand what your saying - however condemning them and apologizing is not what works.



The goals of the war, in the terror-fighting aspect, is clearly to impose some terms on whichever government will rule Iraq in the future. Those terms, I think, must be stated officially.

Agreed





Indeed, they also need to apologize. Our societies have changed a lot during the last few centuries, so it would be ridiculous to apologize for anything happening earlier than a few centuries ago, of course. I think we should draw a line somewhere, perhaps 1800? Or 1900? Or 1945? and then apologize (and with apologize I again mean making a statement that shows that the current leadership condemns such actions and that such actions are, with certainty, not part of the modern policy) for all major atrocities carried out. For the sake of communication, especially in the cases where the actions happened recently, where it's difficult to know whether the policy has changed or not.


Condemning past actions only gives grounds for future problems, by all means saying that official policy is changed is well and fine, but actions always speak louder then words.

I could give instances of where the United States sends aid to its stated enemies citizens when they face natural diasters.



A 1907 writing is too old to live up to modern standards.

Its the law of war that has been negotated and agreed upon by most nations. Does it require an update - sure, but until then that is the agreed upon standard.



Around that time, for instance the French still had inhumane prisons with torture and labor camps in many of their colonies. A new writing is needed. What matters is however what people think of the facilities. If they're legal, that's a first good step, it's actually the only responsibility the government itself has. But if the laws are aged and don't agree with common opinion, they need to be renewed. Remember that prisons aren't for punishment, but for safe-keeping of people suspected of being dangerous. It's impossible even with all surveillance in the world, to know for sure whether a man is innocent. That's why you should treat them in a humane manner, thinking of all of them as potential innocents. And knowing whether they're innocent or not is more difficult without a proper, official trial. In this case however, it seems like the prisoners don't use the tribunal they have available. Are they unsatisfied with the way it's run, or are they refusing to use it in any case? A modern writing to replace the 1907 Convention would be convenient, as the entire world would then agree on a new set of rules for how prisons should look, and how these tribunals should work. Then it shouldn't matter if the tribunals were inspected by the UN, for instance. Both Americans and the prisoners would be able to agree upon whether improvements were needed or not.


Prisons are for punishment. POW camps are internment places to keep soldiers safe, and secure so they don't return to fight with the opposing force.



Actually the system has a weakness, and that is the fear of throwing away your vote. It makes people vote for one of the two largest parties instead of smaller ones that won't make it into the government anyway.

Again that is not a weakness of the system but a aspect of the political demographics of this nation.



If you're right wing you would like Republicans more than Democrats, if you're left win you'd like Democrats more than Republicans. One possible system I've thought of would be to make a two round system.

We have a two round system - its called the primaries. Each party conducts a primary election to pick their party candidate. I have even seen one for a party other then the two main.



Not like the one in France, but with ALL candidates proceeding to the second round. Taking part in the elections should be compulsory, with a punishment of a month in prison or something, but it should be possible to vote a discontent vote, which wouldn't be for any existing party. The first round should be used to find out whether the smaller parties would make it into the government or not in a normal vote, the second round to make people able to change their votes to the nearest large party in the same block, if the own party wouldn't make it. Coalition governments should also be encouraged by the system.

I like the American system - it works, and its basically fair. Changing the demographics of the national politic would be a good thing - but that takes a viable third party, not the government.

[master of the puppets]

damn, this sure is one looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong page.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You have many points within the same paragraph - so I took them as seperate issues to address. This might change the orginial meaning of what you wrote - so correct me if I do that.

Thanks, it's nice of you to be so careful with your quoting me. I'll try to be as careful myself, and if I make a mistake in it, I'm glad to be corrected.



Then it would be even more useless - the United States has not committed any atrocities in the last 30 years. The last one was My Lai. Fullujah might come close to one - given a proper investigation into the situation. Turning back civilians who are attempting to flee a war zone meets the definition of atrocities. Making bad decisions and executing those bad decisions does not equate to an atrocities. Again making such an apology has no political value - especially in the minds of those who have stated that they want to destroy the West.

Making bad decisions is still something that should be apologized over. Actually it's the only case where you can really apologize and expect to be forgiven easily, because it was simply mistakes. That the US hasn't committed any atrocies the last 30 years is a lie. Try to see the big picture. Don't blame me if the people of America and Europe, and other places, have to face consequences. I won't do anything, either for or against it. I'm merely acting as the messenger, trying to explain the big picture, and how history works, and has always worked. The consequences of what is done today is seen in 50 to 200 years from now. Whether it's our children, the children of our children, or offsprings very far away, we can't know today. Only if both sides try to see their faults, and improve themselves and create justice, can there be lasting peace. Most people are scared of admitting their faults, as they are afraid of facing penalties for it. Our world is sometimes too harsh, to judging, so that it sometimes punishes admittance and attempts at justice. Admittance can get you killed in courts in some parts of the USA. This is not what the end result of admittance of faults should be. There should be no punishments given to the guilty, or they have an incentive to continue with their atrocies. There should however be severe penalties for trying to not admit and hide the truth, trying to defend a dream which is really a nightmare built upon the corpses and crushed hopes of innocent people. Trust me, not even Rome could hold out in the end, after increasing corruption and refusal to surrender and give justice to the oppressed. How many romans live today? How many people today can claim any of the famous patricians as their ancestors? When Rome fell, the punishment for refusing to admit every fault made the punishment on the roman people so much harder. The USA hasn't passed that point yet. But when attempts are made at hiding truths of past atrocities, and instead of condemning them supporting them, it's passing that crucial point. But what can I do about people wanting their own destruction? Should I fight a losing battle with my own suffering as only result to plea to people to become sensible and proceed along the way that will benefit them most? I see no further reason to discuss ways of finding peace and safety, if people don't seem to want peace and safety, because of their pride, which can't allow them to do the right thing. "A just peace is predictable, a war only the gods know the outcome of", are words attributed to Hannibal Barca which I think suits the situation well.



Well then you should see them still as cruel colonialists - since all an internet search shows is that it was talked about and urged to be done - but no official documents or press releases could be found.

The leaders in many ways still are. I had a list of a few countries who have apoligized for major past events, but it was in an old newspaper which I haven't access to right now. A major difference with European countries except GB is that they haven't taken major part in major offensive unprovoked wars during the last 30 years.



I don't think your seeing the big picture. Many don't see it as fighting the previous adminstration but America itself as a nation.


Exactly, that's why the new leader of America must do the statement of condemnation. In fact, this big picture you say I'm not seeing is the very same big picture I'm talking about myself. People outside see actions of the leaders of a nation as the actions of a nation.



That was tried in Afganstan in the initial discussion with the Taliban, and we know how that negatotation turned out.


The demands made weren't exactly clear, and the possible consequences of refusal of cooperation weren't clearly put forward either. Still, the Afghanistan war was better handled than the Iraq war.



Ah but there is an official declaration of policy for Iraq - to turn it over to the Iraqi citizens in the form of the constitutional government that they themselves set-up. Now is that policy being followed would be an interesting discussion.

[QUOTE=Redleg]
That was actually done.


Almost, but in a very, very incorrect way. I can imagine myself in Bush's situation when planning to attack Iraq, writing an information (not rhetorics) speech to both America and the Iraqi people:
"The Iraqi leadership is refusing to cooperate in ways to make us sure there are no threats against us directed from Iraq. Furthermore, the Iraqi leadership has shown acts of hostility, which threaten the USA. (Here I would put a list of the exact problems). As the Iraqi leadership refuses to cooperate, and the Iraqi system has been unable to avoid putting a dictator who refuses to do this cooperation (one must here point out that this is a cooperation that also the USA would do if demanded by anyone outside - it must be just and fair claims), and the people have, unlike many other democratic countries of the world, been unable to overthrow such a dictator - many other people in many other countries have payed with their blood for democracy - it's necessary for the USA to interfere and make sure a system where such dictators come to power replaces the old system.

But there I would stop, and remember the broken promises of air support. It's a terrible burden, it's almost unforgivable. But I'd recognize the necessity of apoligizing for those actions before. How the rebels against Saddam were killed because of a failed promise of the USA, done by my predecessors. I would realize that not until a proper apology has been made in that case, the people of Iraq would meet our forces with open arms.

So I would make that apology, and continue: It's a bonus of the invasion that the Iraqi people get rid of their dictator. To repair the damage my predecessors did to the earlier rebel attempts, the US forces will handle the liberation and overthrowing of Saddam single-handedly. We will not ask for the help of the curds and shias. This time we must, and will, show that we keep our promises, and do our part of the deal.

I would end the speech by explaining clearly that nobody who isn't actively fighting for keeping Saddam in power and defending a system that once made him leader, will be harmed deliberately, but that bombings of anti-air equipment may hurt some. I would warn the population of staying near known anti-air equipment and tanks in the first phase of the war. I would promise to set up refugee camps for civilians where they will be safe from American fire, and recieve shelter and food while the fighting goes on, but make clear that there's no possibility of defending them from Saddam's weapons in those camps. But also make clear that the punishment for Saddam will increase if he hurts civilians (and tell exactly which punishment he will recieve in both cases, even though it isn't according to typical law procedures, but trying the leader of a country isn't exactly a typical trial. I would make the punishment for handing over power without a fight very, very low, but some special terms to avoid him from ever gaining power in Iraq again - he would for instance have to live the rest of his life in the USA), and uses techniques that will make it necessary to risk hurting civilians in order to be able to overthrow him. The objective is only to overthrow Saddam, and change the system so that it doesn't allow a maniac to be elected (here I would contemplate the faults of the American democratic system, and in the speech briefly mention that also America's system has faults, and that I'll in the nearest future try to pass an amendment to address that, and try to clarify that weaknesses in the system are things that make people like Saddam come to power - and warn about the dangers of a maniac getting the full power over the US Army and it's nukes).

However, in this process I would also consider splitting Iraq. Although creating a curdistan in northern Iraq would create diplomatic difficulties with Turkey and possibly result in curdic claims of ground from Turkey, this option should only be carried out if the Curdistan promise to not claim any more ground, with consequences if they did (and clearly explain exactly which the consequences would be). I would also consider a sunni part and a shia part. One of the main reasons why Saddam in the first place claimed dictator powers instead of allowing democracy was that the majority was shia, and seemed likely to join Khomenini's anti-American anti-sunni strict islamic politics, which wasn't a loved scenario by sunnis, who are often (although it would be wrong to generalize) more secularized and westernized than shias in many aspects. But this last paragraph are only some thoughts, which haven't been thought-through a lot, which means I'd first have appointed a commission and invited several people to discuss it's advantages and faults.

Finally I would also say that the US Army forces wishes to take as much Iraqi oil as is consumed by the US military equipment, but no more, and keep that promise.

Many of these things above Bush actually did. But not the details, and it turns out they're the most important part in the long term. This different procedure mentioned above would have made it possible to carry out the war without getting massive demonstration, hatred and a new severe wave of jihad, and still achieve the objectives needed to be achieved for the safety of the USA.

The USA and GB should also have refrained from making typical propaganda pictures of smiling children together with the leaders. I'm not sure if Bush made it, but Blair apparently did. If my ally Blair would do such a thing I would condemn it as an inapropriate rhetorical method.



Condemning past actions only gives grounds for future problems, by all means saying that official policy is changed is well and fine, but actions always speak louder then words.


A combination of condemnation and actions is of course needed. But if nobody is attacking you, or there's no situation which makes it possible for you to show that you keep promises, you can't create one. In the meantime you declared the changed policy and condemn the earlier ones, if that's what you truly do.



I could give instances of where the United States sends aid to its stated enemies citizens when they face natural diasters.


Yes, but in that case it's just stupid bureaucracy. It will most likely just fall in the hands of the enemies and be used for weapons and similar. Controls, earmarking and actual people present in the area are needed in order to make it work. Sometimes one should also send materials and things, rather than the actual money, so that it's easier to control what it is used for.



Prisons are for punishment.


Well, if that's your view then I'm very sorry for you. You'll keep punishing innocents and innocents are rare in our world. The desire to punish people for atrocies is a basic, animalistic instinct, which isn't useful in a civlization. Most of our instincts lead us to incorrect actions that hurts ourselves and others in civilization. The instincts aren't adapted to civilization. In nature, in a flock, everyone sees and hears everything. You know when someone has committed a punishable offense. There it made sense with an instinct to punish. But here, in civilization, no surveillance in the world can tell us the entire truth (it's actually even very easy as a criminal to take advantage of surveillance to make others look guilty). That's why we only use prisons for safe-keeping of possibly dangeorus people. The objective of the entire system including police, law and trials is to avoid crime. Scaring people by punishing earlier tried people doesn't work. The nations with death penalty show no less criminality than other countries. Punishing the guilty is done to please ourselves and our instincts, not for any good purpose.



POW camps are internment places to keep soldiers safe, and secure so they don't return to fight with the opposing force.


Agreed.



Again that is not a weakness of the system but a aspect of the political demographics of this nation. [...] We have a two round system - its called the primaries. Each party conducts a primary election to pick their party candidate. I have even seen one for a party other then the two main.


Well, if you don't see the weaknesses of the system then I fear it's impossible for me to take the discussion on an optimal democratic system any further. The system has created a deadlock situation with only two parties able to win, and those parties are almost the same. They have both shown signs of corruption. It's dictatorship in disguise. Accidental, but nevertheless dangerous. Give me fifty Americans and I could infiltrate that system and take over power for myself and those fifty men in less than 15 years by propaganda and various ugly tricks, that's how well the system works. Demographics isn't the only cause, less than 70 percent voted in the last election, which shows disconcent with the existing parties. There needs to be viable other parties, but it's difficult to launch a new party quickly, without mass media support, telling the nation of your existence, and not only showing alleged scandals you've committed, as is often the case in many other countries, but I won't speak for America in this one case, as I lack information. In any case I doubt American news would announce it when/if a new party would be started. Try starting a new party and you'll see how difficult it is. The only way to power, then, is ugly tricks and infiltration of the existing parties. Is that how you want new voices to make themselves heard?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Oops double post

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Thats just bloody disgusting. Wish the EU politicans could grow some balls and give the US administration the finger unless they stop with the whole torture thing.

Well said! *applauds*

[Tribesman]

Since most are from either Afganstan and Iraq - use your imagination

No I shall leave the imagination to you Red , can you provide any proof to back up that claim .
Still it is an improvement to your earlier claims that they were all captured on the battlefield , did you ever get a reply to your letter protesting about these practices that you said you were sending to your political leaders ?

Now then , for proof would you like to take a country , say Kuwait for example , and examine how many of its citizens currently in Gitmo were captured in either Iraq or Afghanistan "on the field of battle" and how many were captured elsewhere ?
Feel free to choose citizens of any country (except Australia or the US) and try and show that most were captured on the battlefield if you like .

Try looking at the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Notice that the Hague Convention covers occupation in the same agreement as warfare. Spouting they dont when the argeement covers the subject doesn't work.

Spouting does work :san_wink:
Or you could read the convention you posted if you like .
Your statementoccupation is part of war. The same rules apply until the occupation is over.
is irrelevant to the discussion , those rules and conditions no longer apply do they , perhaps that is why the soveriegn governments have asked America to return those detainees who were covered when those conditions did apply .
But america won't return them , so that means they are in violation of the Hague Conventions yet again , but hey it is only a treaty isn't it , Afghanistan and Iraq don't have the might to make you honour the treaty so the conventions go out the window don't they .:shrug:

[Redleg]

Thanks, it's nice of you to be so careful with your quoting me. I'll try to be as careful myself, and if I make a mistake in it, I'm glad to be corrected.

No problem




Making bad decisions is still something that should be apologized over.

Only in the immediate - however given the nature of the world and the world view of many - such a statement is not often taken in the light in which it is given.



Actually it's the only case where you can really apologize and expect to be forgiven easily, because it was simply mistakes. That the US hasn't committed any atrocies the last 30 years is a lie.

Actually its not a lie - but I am sure we will have to agree to disagree.



Try to see the big picture. Don't blame me if the people of America and Europe, and other places, have to face consequences. I won't do anything, either for or against it. I'm merely acting as the messenger, trying to explain the big picture, and how history works, and has always worked. The consequences of what is done today is seen in 50 to 200 years from now. Whether it's our children, the children of our children, or offsprings very far away, we can't know today. Only if both sides try to see their faults, and improve themselves and create justice, can there be lasting peace. Most people are scared of admitting their faults, as they are afraid of facing penalties for it. Our world is sometimes too harsh, to judging, so that it sometimes punishes admittance and attempts at justice. Admittance can get you killed in courts in some parts of the USA. This is not what the end result of admittance of faults should be. There should be no punishments given to the guilty, or they have an incentive to continue with their atrocies. There should however be severe penalties for trying to not admit and hide the truth, trying to defend a dream which is really a nightmare built upon the corpses and crushed hopes of innocent people. Trust me, not even Rome could hold out in the end, after increasing corruption and refusal to surrender and give justice to the oppressed. How many romans live today? How many people today can claim any of the famous patricians as their ancestors? When Rome fell, the punishment for refusing to admit every fault made the punishment on the roman people so much harder. The USA hasn't passed that point yet. But when attempts are made at hiding truths of past atrocities, and instead of condemning them supporting them, it's passing that crucial point. But what can I do about people wanting their own destruction? Should I fight a losing battle with my own suffering as only result to plea to people to become sensible and proceed along the way that will benefit them most? I see no further reason to discuss ways of finding peace and safety, if people don't seem to want peace and safety, because of their pride, which can't allow them to do the right thing. "A just peace is predictable, a war only the gods know the outcome of", are words attributed to Hannibal Barca which I think suits the situation well.


Interesting reading - but since its mostly personal opinion I won't comment on it, other then to say it crosses into politicial opinion that I don't agree with nor do I follow on a personal level.



The leaders in many ways still are. I had a list of a few countries who have apoligized for major past events, but it was in an old newspaper which I haven't access to right now. A major difference with European countries except GB is that they haven't taken major part in major offensive unprovoked wars during the last 30 years.

If you find it post it - I can only find mentions of the talks and the possiblity but no actual apologies by any European nation. You might want to check part of your statement - last time I checked Bosnia and Kosovo were in Europe. So is Greece - who still has conflict with Turkey as several of the posters keep alluding to. And then there is Russia - which spans both Europe and Asia.




Exactly, that's why the new leader of America must do the statement of condemnation. In fact, this big picture you say I'm not seeing is the very same big picture I'm talking about myself. People outside see actions of the leaders of a nation as the actions of a nation.


Hm - that is different from what the Iraqi Captain we captured in 1991 told me.



The demands made weren't exactly clear, and the possible consequences of refusal of cooperation weren't clearly put forward either. Still, the Afghanistan war was better handled than the Iraq war.


Oh the demands and consequences were made perfectly clear. I believe it was hand over OBL or else.


[quoe]
Almost, but in a very, very incorrect way. I can imagine myself in Bush's situation when planning to attack Iraq, writing an information (not rhetorics) speech to both America and the Iraqi people:[/quote]

Okay



"The Iraqi leadership is refusing to cooperate in ways to make us sure there are no threats against us directed from Iraq. Furthermore, the Iraqi leadership has shown acts of hostility, which threaten the USA. (Here I would put a list of the exact problems). As the Iraqi leadership refuses to cooperate, and the Iraqi system has been unable to avoid putting a dictator who refuses to do this cooperation (one must here point out that this is a cooperation that also the USA would do if demanded by anyone outside - it must be just and fair claims), and the people have, unlike many other democratic countries of the world, been unable to overthrow such a dictator - many other people in many other countries have payed with their blood for democracy - it's necessary for the USA to interfere and make sure a system where such dictators come to power replaces the old system.


Interesting - you ever compared it to President Bush's Speech to the United Nations. Now some will point out the error's in the speech - but look at it compared to what you state here and see how it comes out. The portion that comes close to what you state here. Use the complete Speech and compare to what else you have written futher down. Makes for an interesting comparision.


the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html




But there I would stop, and remember the broken promises of air support. It's a terrible burden, it's almost unforgivable. But I'd recognize the necessity of apoligizing for those actions before. How the rebels against Saddam were killed because of a failed promise of the USA, done by my predecessors. I would realize that not until a proper apology has been made in that case, the people of Iraq would meet our forces with open arms.

So I would make that apology, and continue: It's a bonus of the invasion that the Iraqi people get rid of their dictator. To repair the damage my predecessors did to the earlier rebel attempts, the US forces will handle the liberation and overthrowing of Saddam single-handedly. We will not ask for the help of the curds and shias. This time we must, and will, show that we keep our promises, and do our part of the deal.

I would end the speech by explaining clearly that nobody who isn't actively fighting for keeping Saddam in power and defending a system that once made him leader, will be harmed deliberately, but that bombings of anti-air equipment may hurt some. I would warn the population of staying near known anti-air equipment and tanks in the first phase of the war. I would promise to set up refugee camps for civilians where they will be safe from American fire, and recieve shelter and food while the fighting goes on, but make clear that there's no possibility of defending them from Saddam's weapons in those camps. But also make clear that the punishment for Saddam will increase if he hurts civilians (and tell exactly which punishment he will recieve in both cases, even though it isn't according to typical law procedures, but trying the leader of a country isn't exactly a typical trial. I would make the punishment for handing over power without a fight very, very low, but some special terms to avoid him from ever gaining power in Iraq again - he would for instance have to live the rest of his life in the USA), and uses techniques that will make it necessary to risk hurting civilians in order to be able to overthrow him. The objective is only to overthrow Saddam, and change the system so that it doesn't allow a maniac to be elected (here I would contemplate the faults of the American democratic system, and in the speech briefly mention that also America's system has faults, and that I'll in the nearest future try to pass an amendment to address that, and try to clarify that weaknesses in the system are things that make people like Saddam come to power - and warn about the dangers of a maniac getting the full power over the US Army and it's nukes).

I linked the complete speech to the United Nations - it seems the best match of his speeches compared to what you have written. I will let you judge how close or different the two are.



However, in this process I would also consider splitting Iraq. Although creating a curdistan in northern Iraq would create diplomatic difficulties with Turkey and possibly result in curdic claims of ground from Turkey, this option should only be carried out if the Curdistan promise to not claim any more ground, with consequences if they did (and clearly explain exactly which the consequences would be). I would also consider a sunni part and a shia part. One of the main reasons why Saddam in the first place claimed dictator powers instead of allowing democracy was that the majority was shia, and seemed likely to join Khomenini's anti-American anti-sunni strict islamic politics, which wasn't a loved scenario by sunnis, who are often (although it would be wrong to generalize) more secularized and westernized than shias in many aspects. But this last paragraph are only some thoughts, which haven't been thought-through a lot, which means I'd first have appointed a commission and invited several people to discuss it's advantages and faults.


Splitting Iraq into three is a possiblity - but a Kurdish nation invites trouble with Turkey. The United States can not afford that political trouble with Turkey. (just a side note - I personally have no issue with splitting Iraq up - however Turkey will not like it - and it will most likely cause problems futher down the road.)



Finally I would also say that the US Army forces wishes to take as much Iraqi oil as is consumed by the US military equipment, but no more, and keep that promise.

Interesting is all I will say on that one



Many of these things above Bush actually did. But not the details, and it turns out they're the most important part in the long term. This different procedure mentioned above would have made it possible to carry out the war without getting massive demonstration, hatred and a new severe wave of jihad, and still achieve the objectives needed to be achieved for the safety of the USA.

In that I am afraid your sadly mistaken. No course involving fighting a war would of been acceptable to many.



The USA and GB should also have refrained from making typical propaganda pictures of smiling children together with the leaders. I'm not sure if Bush made it, but Blair apparently did. If my ally Blair would do such a thing I would condemn it as an inapropriate rhetorical method.


Propaganda is part of war though.




A combination of condemnation and actions is of course needed. But if nobody is attacking you, or there's no situation which makes it possible for you to show that you keep promises, you can't create one. In the meantime you declared the changed policy and condemn the earlier ones, if that's what you truly do.

I don't agree with your opinion here completely - since a stated change of policy is really all the new leader can do.




Yes, but in that case it's just stupid bureaucracy. It will most likely just fall in the hands of the enemies and be used for weapons and similar. Controls, earmarking and actual people present in the area are needed in order to make it work. Sometimes one should also send materials and things, rather than the actual money, so that it's easier to control what it is used for.


Actually the aid given is given direct to the citizens and to the government. In Iran's case during their earthquack recovery - not once but several - teams of search and rescue went, the Red Cross with food and medical supplies, and many others providing direct aid to the affected citizens. In the recent events in Indonesia - direct aid was again given to the citizens in many forms from the United States government and from its individual citizens (along with many other nations throughout the world.) I mentioned it like I did - and now this to show that aid is often done in spite of the politics but is often forgotten about by the recieving nation for the politics.




Well, if that's your view then I'm very sorry for you.

Tsk Tsk - prisons are for punishing those who are convicted of crimes - nothing to be sorry about. You were doing well in keeping it out of this realm until this.



You'll keep punishing innocents and innocents are rare in our world. The desire to punish people for atrocies is a basic, animalistic instinct, which isn't useful in a civlization. Most of our instincts lead us to incorrect actions that hurts ourselves and others in civilization. The instincts aren't adapted to civilization. In nature, in a flock, everyone sees and hears everything. You know when someone has committed a punishable offense. There it made sense with an instinct to punish. But here, in civilization, no surveillance in the world can tell us the entire truth (it's actually even very easy as a criminal to take advantage of surveillance to make others look guilty). That's why we only use prisons for safe-keeping of possibly dangeorus people. The objective of the entire system including police, law and trials is to avoid crime. Scaring people by punishing earlier tried people doesn't work. The nations with death penalty show no less criminality than other countries. Punishing the guilty is done to please ourselves and our instincts, not for any good purpose.



I advocate punishing only those who are convicted in a court of law. You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion based upon your own political and idealogue opinion.




Well, if you don't see the weaknesses of the system then I fear it's impossible for me to take the discussion on an optimal democratic system any further.

Oh I know the weakness of the Electorical system of the United States - just like I know some of the weakness of the other systems out there. For us to have the discussion and how to improve the electorical system for President of the United States - would require me to actually go back and re-read and study several additional books on the subject. If you want - I am more then willing to discuss the electorical college and how it works. Since it seems that from what you are writing that you only have a minimum amount of information on it. And my knowledge on the process is light - but seems to be significantly greater then yours. Don't get defensive on the subject - and attempt to say it needs corrected - if your unwilling to hear counter arguements nor get into the details of the system.

But first ask yourself this question - what other nation attempts to get close to 300 million people to particapate in the election process?



The system has created a deadlock situation with only two parties able to win, and those parties are almost the same. They have both shown signs of corruption. It's dictatorship in disguise. Accidental, but nevertheless dangerous. Give me fifty Americans and I could infiltrate that system and take over power for myself and those fifty men in less than 15 years by propaganda and various ugly tricks, that's how well the system works.

Actually I doubt that you could. It takes a combination of a lot of different political and demographic aspects. If it was that easy - John Kerry would of been elected President in 2004.



Demographics isn't the only cause, less than 70 percent voted in the last election, which shows disconcent with the existing parties. There needs to be viable other parties, but it's difficult to launch a new party quickly, without mass media support, telling the nation of your existence, and not only showing alleged scandals you've committed, as is often the case in many other countries, but I won't speak for America in this one case, as I lack information. In any case I doubt American news would announce it when/if a new party would be started. Try starting a new party and you'll see how difficult it is. The only way to power, then, is ugly tricks and infiltration of the existing parties. Is that how you want new voices to make themselves heard?

You might want to see how many political parties exist in the United States.

[Redleg]

Since most are from either Afganstan and Iraq - use your imagination

No I shall leave the imagination to you Red , can you provide any proof to back up that claim .

Its not hard - its mentioned in the media quite often. It clearly states most are either from Afganstan or Iraq. Try to find something that says something different. But then again I you might want to look up the word most which was what was stated - not all. If I said all your attempt here would be valid - but since I did not - your comment is not revelant.

However I suspect your attempting a normal clever word play by assuming I mean the prisoners are citizens of Afganstan and Iraq, which we both know from previous discussions - I mean where the prisoner was captured - not their citizenship.



Still it is an improvement to your earlier claims that they were all captured on the battlefield , did you ever get a reply to your letter protesting about these practices that you said you were sending to your political leaders ?

What do you think? Its not hard - image a form letter and you get close.



Now then , for proof would you like to take a country , say Kuwait for example , and examine how many of its citizens currently in Gitmo were captured in either Iraq or Afghanistan "on the field of battle" and how many were captured elsewhere ?

Naw - I will let you try it.




Feel free to choose citizens of any country (except Australia or the US) and try and show that most were captured on the battlefield if you like .


Nope - you want to prove me wrong - do the leg work yourself.




Try looking at the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Notice that the Hague Convention covers occupation in the same agreement as warfare. Spouting they dont when the argeement covers the subject doesn't work.

Spouting does work :san_wink:

In this case not at all



Or you could read the convention you posted if you like .

You might want to check out the title of the document in which Occupation is covered in. Opps its in the convention concerning the rules of war on land....



Your statementoccupation is part of war. The same rules apply until the occupation is over.
is irrelevant to the discussion , those rules and conditions no longer apply do they , perhaps that is why the soveriegn governments have asked America to return those detainees who were covered when those conditions did apply .

Is the occupation of Iraq over? I don't think so - over 100,000 United States troops indicate otherwise. Soveriegn government can always ask for prisoners back even in the midst of war. You might want to read the Hague Conventions on the issue again.



But america won't return them , so that means they are in violation of the Hague Conventions yet again , but hey it is only a treaty isn't it

Again you are not correct - Occupation is part of war - Prisoners are exchanged by aggreement or when the war is ended.

Or would you rather have the United States use the exact consequences and punishment these individuals could recieve? A summary court is what is dicitated in the letter of the treaty, with a short walk to the post.




, Afghanistan and Iraq don't have the might to make you honour the treaty so the conventions go out the window don't they .:shrug:

Not at all - the conventions are still in place. An active war is still ongoing in Iraq.

[Ser Clegane]

A follow up on Redleg's remarks on hypocrisy:

Germany Talks Torture and Finds Hypocrisy (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391493,00.html)

Obviously there are some issues our administration has to resolve, before they could credibly complain about any CIA actions...

"We are so totally condemning your methods! But while you're at it anyway - could you share the results of your "interrogations" with us? ...please?"

Sad...

[Rodion Romanovich]

Interesting reading - but since its mostly personal opinion I won't comment on it, other then to say it crosses into politicial opinion that I don't agree with nor do I follow on a personal level.


On the contrary, history and psychology has shown that this is a fact rather than an opinion.



If you find it post it - I can only find mentions of the talks and the possiblity but no actual apologies by any European nation. You might want to check part of your statement - last time I checked Bosnia and Kosovo were in Europe. So is Greece - who still has conflict with Turkey as several of the posters keep alluding to. And then there is Russia - which spans both Europe and Asia.


Yes, I will post it. But Russia for instance, which you mention, is still seen as half criminal by many, wouldn't yoy agree? Also Turkey is seen as a guilty nation, for the same reason. As I said the main idea is to make clear you'r policy has changed, the apology in itself has little function, it's to make people around feel confident in the knowledge that they won't have to suffer the same atrocities again, and that they will recieve aid to repair some of the damage. Both are necessary. European countries have changed many constitutional details since their last atrocities, and most have also handed over several colonies without violence, and also of course handed over colonies they could theoretically have held and surrendering their claims for them. That is an act that resembles such an apology enough that most western European countries are still possible to be seen as better than they were historically.



Hm - that is different from what the Iraqi Captain we captured in 1991 told me.

One example is not very good. And in the 1991 war many of the Iraqi people still miraculously trusted the USA desipte the two cases of withdrawn air support. Perhaps the captain was even a sunni muslim? If he was a curd or shia he might also have said that, but as you can see this changed after the 1991 war. Papa Bush screwed up even more, and then Bush junior made it even worse. The massive surrenders of Iraqi soldiers haven't been as common this time as last time.



Oh the demands and consequences were made perfectly clear. I believe it was hand over OBL or else.


You do realize this is an impossible statement to make. Handing over a certain individual who is extremely good at hiding himself. Not even when the USA took Afghanistan were they able to find him. It's an unclear and impossible statement. A possible statement would be: allow these and these methods of cooperation, that could, hopefully, allow either of us to find OBL, and replace "these and these methods of cooperation" with exact terms.



Interesting - you ever compared it to President Bush's Speech to the United Nations. Now some will point out the error's in the speech - but look at it compared to what you state here and see how it comes out. The portion that comes close to what you state here.

Yes, I'm aware of how his speeches looked. The differences between it and my own speech are basically the points were I think he did wrong. I had to list the entire policy I would have followed in order to give the full overview and an ability to judge it, rather than just point out the mistakes. It makes more sense and is easier to follow that way. You do see that there are differences, I hope. Those differences are extremely important. They are what turns the war from an atrocity into a just war. The actual war would probably have been carried out in the same way, although I would probably have concentrated on an offensive to encircle Baghdad (keeping those plans secret of course) to encircle Saddam while he remained there. Most other things would have been done in the exact same way. I would be careful and use non-propaganda information speeches. Propaganda style speeches to a nation where many in the population have been brainwashed about how horrible the USA is would be devastating and only give fuel to local resistance. The objectives given to all generals and soldiers should be overthrowing Saddam, and minimizing civilian and American casualties. As much as possible, flyers with information about refugee camps I mentioned above should be dropped. I would also punish anyone carrying out torture or atrocities (and of course make that clear to the soldiers beforehand). I would send shrinks with the invasion force for anyone getting a sudden need to kill or torture someone innocent. As the world isn't religious today as it once was, shrinks are the natural replacement of priests in modern warfare for raising morale and keeping maniacs from carrying out acts of terror.

Some examples of where Bush is making clear mistakes in his demands:
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions."

What does "end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it" mean in practice? If any nation demanded that of me, I would think "OMG, how the hell am I supposed to meet up with that requirement? That nation is trying to get a war no matter what. There's nothing we can do, because they aren't even saying what to do. Do they mean we should make sure there's no single individual in this country becomes a terrorist? Ha, not even the USA is able to do that. Well, this clearly means they're wanting a reason to attack no matter what, so we might as well not even try to do anything in this point"

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."
Would give same reaction.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
This is the one valid point, which he did well. It's clear exactly what it means.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
This is an impossible demand to make. Preventing a country from trading as it wishes.

Finally he doesn't even mention the main argument for why the war should be carried out: that the Iraqi system and inability to overthrow it's dictator has led to an unworthy leader who refuses to cooperate has been put in charge. That reason is the ultimate objective of the war, and if it had been stressed, it would clearly have shown that the US troops would concentrate on the overthrowing, not on defeating the Iraqi army forces or anything of that kind. The reason why he doesn't mention this main argument, is because he doesn't dare to make an apology and/or condemnation for the failed promises of air support. That's perhaps the most crucial point where he fails.

He misses the main argument for war, which also clearly would have defined what the US objective in Iraq was, which would also have made it perfectly clear that surrendering enemy combattants would be treated well. Oh, and the Guantanamo bay is also a scary factor that makes many want to fight to death instead of surrendering. He also fails to recognize the lack of adequate democracy in the USA. It's impossible to demand from another nation to become democratic unless you are prepared to change yourself too. The only thing that is left is an unclear mess of rhetorics: "peace, democracy and freedom", which nobody understands, neither the American people, nor the Iraqi regime or people. You must understand that it's this communication problem that makes people condemn the war, not the war itself.



Splitting Iraq into three is a possiblity - but a Kurdish nation invites trouble with Turkey. The United States can not afford that political trouble with Turkey. (just a side note - I personally have no issue with splitting Iraq up - however Turkey will not like it - and it will most likely cause problems futher down the road.)

Not if you make proper demands as part of the deal. But like I said that's something I wouldn't have done before checking that it wouldn't cause further problems. I would call for experts and others to discuss it for half a year or whatever would be needed.



Interesting is all I will say on that one

It's a claim fully possible to make if the rest of the speech and policy of action is laid out as I suggested above. The oil is the very core of the Iraqi nation, it's Iraq's main trade good with the outside world. So it's a very sensitive matter to take the oil without asking or informing beforehand.



In that I am afraid your sadly mistaken. No course involving fighting a war would of been acceptable to many.

A bellum iustum is liked by more than an unprovoked attack without clear demands. Notice above that in my list of demands I had a reason which would justify the attack no matter whether the other terms would be met - the inability of the Iraqi system to lead to a worthy leader. As I explained, as this is partly the fault of the USA, an apology would be needed before that reason could be used. If done properly, that one difference in the speeches and actions would have turned a criminal war into a war for the safety of the American people with the bonus of possibly have positive outcomes for the Iraqi people as well.



Propaganda is part of war though.

Yes, but if you forget the information speeches the propaganda is useless. The information speeches and apologies would as I explained have turned the war into a morally correct action against foreign threats, rather than an uncontrolled bloodshed without clear objective.



I don't agree with your opinion here completely - since a stated change of policy is really all the new leader can do.

What is it you disagree with? Your statement seems to just repeat what I said? :san_huh:



Tsk Tsk - prisons are for punishing those who are convicted of crimes - nothing to be sorry about. You were doing well in keeping it out of this realm until this.

Well, I repeat it again, if this is your view I am very sorry for you. Punishing is a primitive instinct which isn't possible to apply in civilization, just like the hunting instincts doesn't work in civilization. If you have a need for punishing and revenge to feel safe and good inside, then you aren't apropriate material for fighting against terrorism who suicide bomb. The guilty that deserve harsh punishment are already dead. Like many others, will you direct this anger, hatred and fear towards those who supplied the terrorists with 5 dollars, like they would be horrible killers and not just in the same class as thieves? Would you even punish those who gave the terrorists money in the belief that it was aid for healthcare and food? You can never have the full information on whether someone is guilty. Hundreds of innocent people suffer death row in the USA. It's of course an act of brutal barbary to kill hundred innocent people, and claiming they're guilty. Dying being called a criminal and murdered, on top of being killed while innocent. You have no idea what a horrible thing that is. When enough innocent people are killed by such a scare system, the scare effect that to some extent may refrain people from criminal acts is replaced by disgust and hatred towards the nation itself.



I advocate punishing only those who are convicted in a court of law. You have jumped to an incorrect conclusion based upon your own political and idealogue opinion.

Those in Guantanamo bay have recieved no conviction in court yet. And those who have been convicted are convicted by DNA, surveillance cameras or similar hinting they might have committed a crime. You can never prove with certainty they did. Oh, and there's also witnesses who can make an innocent man be punished. It's easy enough to fool all these systems. Would you personally want to be assraped, beaten, bathe in your own shit and sleep on a hard, cold concrete floor? Wear a cloth over your eyes? Be moved into an electrocution room. Hearing someone read in a harsh voice how the state wants you dead because you are a dangerous criminal? There's no justification for murdering an innocent man for reasons such as satisfying primitive instincts and logistical reasons caused by lack of prison places. The purpose of law is, and has always been, to prevent crime. Anything else is a misunderstanding and uncivilized show of primitive instincts ruling you. It's not personal ideology that killing innocents is murder, it's a fact and part of ethics. You shall not kill even 10 innocent to get to a thousand guilty. The guilty if kept in prison harms society very little. The costs for food and similar are minimal compared to other state finance matters.



Oh I know the weakness of the Electorical system of the United States - just like I know some of the weakness of the other systems out there. For us to have the discussion and how to improve the electorical system for President of the United States - would require me to actually go back and re-read and study several additional books on the subject. If you want - I am more then willing to discuss the electorical college and how it works. Since it seems that from what you are writing that you only have a minimum amount of information on it. And my knowledge on the process is light - but seems to be significantly greater then yours. Don't get defensive on the subject - and attempt to say it needs corrected - if your unwilling to hear counter arguements nor get into the details of the system.

You're discussing the procedure on how votes are turned into decision on who wins. I'm discussing the procedure on how votes are cast. The two rounds you're speaking of are different types of rounds. I'm talking about two rounds of casting votes. Please refrain from calling my uneducated on the system. Also, you just pointed out another weakness of the system: you have to go back and reread school books in order to understand it. Try to estimate how many others in your nation are that uneducated about how it works. Not very democratic, I must say.



But first ask yourself this question - what other nation attempts to get close to 300 million people to particapate in the election process?


Like I said, all democratic countries need to reform their systems.



Actually I doubt that you could. It takes a combination of a lot of different political and demographic aspects. If it was that easy - John Kerry would of been elected President in 2004.


Why on earth would that make Kerry the one to have been elected in 2004?



You might want to see how many political parties exist in the United States.

Yes, but they don't get much of a chance do they? The concept "starting a party" refers to getting the party started officially, and get common recognition and make at least 90 percent of the population in the nation know of your existence. Did you know of all the parties in Louis the Fat's signature, for instance? :san_grin:

Oh and finally note that my policy suggestion wouldn't have lost the USA anything compared to what the system used by Bush did. In fact it would give the same positive results but minimize and remove most negative results. Including the so very important result of preventing consequences and revenge in 50-200 years from now on, and turning the war from being morally wrong into a morally correct war. You see, he didn't need to lie to justify the war. All it took would be an apology. Usually when people are scared, like the USA of course is of the terrorism threat, there is justification for it. That justification is either a real threat, or imagination. If it's imagination, it's justifies no action. If it's a real threat it justifies action to remove that threat factor. If you can admit to yourself that it might be imagination, and dare to question yourself "Why do I hold this opinion? What am I scared of?" (this is the Socratic method btw) you find out that it's imagination when it is imagination, and when it's a real threat you find the correct motifs for why action should be taken. It's nothing wrong with being scared, although some people believe so. Whoever isn't scared of being blown up when such things do happen would be a strange person who doesn't represent the will of the people. Most people don't want to be blown up, so it's a responsibility of a leader to either do something that will decrease the number of such incidents by own actions or by asking for help from able men (the latter actually the more common, as few leaders can have deep knowledge in everything), or recognize his inability of holding his office, and resign.

[Redleg]

On the contrary, history and psychology has shown that this is a fact rather than an opinion.

If you say so, I won't analysis your comments however since they are indeed mostly opinion.




Yes, I will post it. But Russia for instance, which you mention, is still seen as half criminal by many, wouldn't yoy agree? Also Turkey is seen as a guilty nation, for the same reason. As I said the main idea is to make clear you'r policy has changed, the apology in itself has little function, it's to make people around feel confident in the knowledge that they won't have to suffer the same atrocities again, and that they will recieve aid to repair some of the damage. Both are necessary. European countries have changed many constitutional details since their last atrocities, and most have also handed over several colonies without violence, and also of course handed over colonies they could theoretically have held and surrendering their claims for them. That is an act that resembles such an apology enough that most western European countries are still possible to be seen as better than they were historically.

Again what evidence is there of this type of apology happening. In 2001 it was discussed but I have seen no official apology from any European Nation in any of the Media Searchs I have conducted in the last few days.




One example is not very good. And in the 1991 war many of the Iraqi people still miraculously trusted the USA desipte the two cases of withdrawn air support. Perhaps the captain was even a sunni muslim? If he was a curd or shia he might also have said that, but as you can see this changed after the 1991 war. Papa Bush screwed up even more, and then Bush junior made it even worse. The massive surrenders of Iraqi soldiers haven't been as common this time as last time.



Oh but they were - and the disapperance of the Iraqi Army is also extremely telling.



You do realize this is an impossible statement to make. Handing over a certain individual who is extremely good at hiding himself. Not even when the USA took Afghanistan were they able to find him. It's an unclear and impossible statement. A possible statement would be: allow these and these methods of cooperation, that could, hopefully, allow either of us to find OBL, and replace "these and these methods of cooperation" with exact terms.


The discussion did not center around the how possible the request was - but that it was made and that the conditions of not assisting were also made perfectly clear. The United States even asked to send our troops into the area to conduct operations against OBL - but the Taliban refused.



Yes, I'm aware of how his speeches looked. The differences between it and my own speech are basically the points were I think he did wrong. I had to list the entire policy I would have followed in order to give the full overview and an ability to judge it, rather than just point out the mistakes. It makes more sense and is easier to follow that way. You do see that there are differences, I hope.

What you fail to realize is that the concepts are the same - the difference is one is your idea - the other is what President Bush stated. Very similiar in content - a little different in context.



Those differences are extremely important. They are what turns the war from an atrocity into a just war.

The war is a legal war therefor it is not an atrocity. Throwing names on something you disagree with does not make it so.



The actual war would probably have been carried out in the same way, although I would probably have concentrated on an offensive to encircle Baghdad (keeping those plans secret of course) to encircle Saddam while he remained there. Most other things would have been done in the exact same way. I would be careful and use non-propaganda information speeches. Propaganda style speeches to a nation where many in the population have been brainwashed about how horrible the USA is would be devastating and only give fuel to local resistance. The objectives given to all generals and soldiers should be overthrowing Saddam, and minimizing civilian and American casualties. As much as possible, flyers with information about refugee camps I mentioned above should be dropped. I would also punish anyone carrying out torture or atrocities (and of course make that clear to the soldiers beforehand). I would send shrinks with the invasion force for anyone getting a sudden need to kill or torture someone innocent. As the world isn't religious today as it once was, shrinks are the natural replacement of priests in modern warfare for raising morale and keeping maniacs from carrying out acts of terror.

Hindsite is always 20/20. Such things don't always work - most warplans don't survive contact with the enemy.




Some examples of where Bush is making clear mistakes in his demands:
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions."

What does "end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it" mean in practice? If any nation demanded that of me, I would think "OMG, how the hell am I supposed to meet up with that requirement? That nation is trying to get a war no matter what. There's nothing we can do, because they aren't even saying what to do. Do they mean we should make sure there's no single individual in this country becomes a terrorist? Ha, not even the USA is able to do that. Well, this clearly means they're wanting a reason to attack no matter what, so we might as well not even try to do anything in this point"

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."
Would give same reaction.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
This is the one valid point, which he did well. It's clear exactly what it means.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
This is an impossible demand to make. Preventing a country from trading as it wishes.

Finally he doesn't even mention the main argument for why the war should be carried out: that the Iraqi system and inability to overthrow it's dictator has led to an unworthy leader who refuses to cooperate has been put in charge. That reason is the ultimate objective of the war, and if it had been stressed, it would clearly have shown that the US troops would concentrate on the overthrowing, not on defeating the Iraqi army forces or anything of that kind. The reason why he doesn't mention this main argument, is because he doesn't dare to make an apology and/or condemnation for the failed promises of air support. That's perhaps the most crucial point where he fails.

Not really going to analysis your thoughts on this area - you might be wrong, you might be right. However its opinion.



He misses the main argument for war, which also clearly would have defined what the US objective in Iraq was, which would also have made it perfectly clear that surrendering enemy combattants would be treated well. Oh, and the Guantanamo bay is also a scary factor that makes many want to fight to death instead of surrendering. He also fails to recognize the lack of adequate democracy in the USA. It's impossible to demand from another nation to become democratic unless you are prepared to change yourself too. The only thing that is left is an unclear mess of rhetorics: "peace, democracy and freedom", which nobody understands, neither the American people, nor the Iraqi regime or people. You must understand that it's this communication problem that makes people condemn the war, not the war itself.


Actually he made the arguement as well as he good - the adminstration screwed up in the execution by not sending enough ground troops to maintain security and establish control quickly once the Iraqi government dissolved.



Not if you make proper demands as part of the deal. But like I said that's something I wouldn't have done before checking that it wouldn't cause further problems. I would call for experts and others to discuss it for half a year or whatever would be needed.

Ignoring 12 years of failed inspections, discussions, resolutions, and negotations in the mean time.




It's a claim fully possible to make if the rest of the speech and policy of action is laid out as I suggested above. The oil is the very core of the Iraqi nation, it's Iraq's main trade good with the outside world. So it's a very sensitive matter to take the oil without asking or informing beforehand.


We will have to agree to disagree. Claims on oil are not something one should ever make - unless the sole purpose of the operation is to gain oil



A bellum iustum is liked by more than an unprovoked attack without clear demands. Notice above that in my list of demands I had a reason which would justify the attack no matter whether the other terms would be met

Try reading President Bush's speech to the United Nations again - he did the same thing.



- the inability of the Iraqi system to lead to a worthy leader. As I explained, as this is partly the fault of the USA, an apology would be needed before that reason could be used. If done properly, that one difference in the speeches and actions would have turned a criminal war into a war for the safety of the American people with the bonus of possibly have positive outcomes for the Iraqi people as well.


Again the war is not criminal - it is legal, calling it illegal does not make it so. The rest we again will have to agree to disagree. The inablity of the Iraqi system of the past to have a worthy leader is the fault of the several nations to include Iraq - but it seems you still on the kick to blame primarily the United States.



Yes, but if you forget the information speeches the propaganda is useless. The information speeches and apologies would as I explained have turned the war into a morally correct action against foreign threats, rather than an uncontrolled bloodshed without clear objective.


Oh I disagree completely - apologies mean absolutely nothing in the context of this statement.



What is it you disagree with? Your statement seems to just repeat what I said? :san_huh:


You keep speaking in terms of apology - that is not going to work.



Well, I repeat it again, if this is your view I am very sorry for you. Punishing is a primitive instinct which isn't possible to apply in civilization, just like the hunting instincts doesn't work in civilization. If you have a need for punishing and revenge to feel safe and good inside, then you aren't apropriate material for fighting against terrorism who suicide bomb. The guilty that deserve harsh punishment are already dead. Like many others, will you direct this anger, hatred and fear towards those who supplied the terrorists with 5 dollars, like they would be horrible killers and not just in the same class as thieves? Would you even punish those who gave the terrorists money in the belief that it was aid for healthcare and food? You can never have the full information on whether someone is guilty. Hundreds of innocent people suffer death row in the USA. It's of course an act of brutal barbary to kill hundred innocent people, and claiming they're guilty. Dying being called a criminal and murdered, on top of being killed while innocent. You have no idea what a horrible thing that is. When enough innocent people are killed by such a scare system, the scare effect that to some extent may refrain people from criminal acts is replaced by disgust and hatred towards the nation itself.


Tsk tsk - not going to discuss - Prison is punishment, Justice is holding people accountable for their actions. Needlesss to say we have a difference in opinion. Placing the "I feel sorry for you" is a needless comment - and shows only that you disagree with my opinion. You have your opinion on crime and punishment - I have mine.



Those in Guantanamo bay have recieved no conviction in court yet.

They all have recieved at least one military tribunal which is what is required.



And those who have been convicted are convicted by DNA, surveillance cameras or similar hinting they might have committed a crime. You can never prove with certainty they did. Oh, and there's also witnesses who can make an innocent man be punished. It's easy enough to fool all these systems. ld you personally want to be assraped, beaten, bathe in your own shit and sleep on a hard, cold concrete floor?Or a cloth over your eyes? Be moved into an electrocution room. Hearing someone read in a harsh voice how the state wants you dead because you are a dangerous criminal? There's no justification for murdering an innocent man for reasons such as satisfying primitive instincts and logistical reasons caused by lack of prison places. The purpose of law is, and has always been, to prevent crime. Anything else is a misunderstanding and uncivilized show of primitive instincts ruling you. It's not personal ideology that killing innocents is murder, it's a fact and part of ethics. You shall not kill even 10 innocent to get to a thousand guilty. The guilty if kept in prison harms society very little. The costs for food and similar are minimal compared to other state finance matters.


Tsk Tsk - emotional appeal does not work with me. Try using logic - if you dont know what is emotional appeal in your previous post - I bolded one such statement. Again read the statement I made and argue against it with logic.


I advocate punishing only those who are convicted in a court of law.



You're discussing the procedure on how votes are turned into decision on who wins. I'm discussing the procedure on how votes are cast. The two rounds you're speaking of are different types of rounds. I'm talking about two rounds of casting votes. Please refrain from calling my uneducated on the system. Also, you just pointed out another weakness of the system: you have to go back and reread school books in order to understand it. Try to estimate how many others in your nation are that uneducated about how it works. Not very democratic, I must say.

I will refrain from such comments if you do so yourself. As stated before I return comments in the same manner as I precieve the comment to be. You are obvious unware of how the electorial system works - so saying one is uneducated on the system is not a false statement now is it. The system is designed in the way it is for a reason - called States Rights and State Representation in the National Government. If you don't understand that reasoning of the system - your comments are meaningless on how the system works in the United States. I have to re-read some books because its been 20 years since I have really delved into the system. Its not a lack of understanding but of clarification of the system.



The rest later

[Redleg]

On the contrary, history and psychology has shown that this is a fact rather than an opinion.

If you say so, I won't analysis your comments however since they are indeed mostly opinion.




Yes, I will post it. But Russia for instance, which you mention, is still seen as half criminal by many, wouldn't yoy agree? Also Turkey is seen as a guilty nation, for the same reason. As I said the main idea is to make clear you'r policy has changed, the apology in itself has little function, it's to make people around feel confident in the knowledge that they won't have to suffer the same atrocities again, and that they will recieve aid to repair some of the damage. Both are necessary. European countries have changed many constitutional details since their last atrocities, and most have also handed over several colonies without violence, and also of course handed over colonies they could theoretically have held and surrendering their claims for them. That is an act that resembles such an apology enough that most western European countries are still possible to be seen as better than they were historically.

Again what evidence is there of this type of apology happening. In 2001 it was discussed but I have seen no official apology from any European Nation in any of the Media Searchs I have conducted in the last few days.




One example is not very good. And in the 1991 war many of the Iraqi people still miraculously trusted the USA desipte the two cases of withdrawn air support. Perhaps the captain was even a sunni muslim? If he was a curd or shia he might also have said that, but as you can see this changed after the 1991 war. Papa Bush screwed up even more, and then Bush junior made it even worse. The massive surrenders of Iraqi soldiers haven't been as common this time as last time.



Oh but they were - and the disapperance of the Iraqi Army is also extremely telling.



You do realize this is an impossible statement to make. Handing over a certain individual who is extremely good at hiding himself. Not even when the USA took Afghanistan were they able to find him. It's an unclear and impossible statement. A possible statement would be: allow these and these methods of cooperation, that could, hopefully, allow either of us to find OBL, and replace "these and these methods of cooperation" with exact terms.


The discussion did not center around the how possible the request was - but that it was made and that the conditions of not assisting were also made perfectly clear. The United States even asked to send our troops into the area to conduct operations against OBL - but the Taliban refused.



Yes, I'm aware of how his speeches looked. The differences between it and my own speech are basically the points were I think he did wrong. I had to list the entire policy I would have followed in order to give the full overview and an ability to judge it, rather than just point out the mistakes. It makes more sense and is easier to follow that way. You do see that there are differences, I hope.

What you fail to realize is that the concepts are the same - the difference is one is your idea - the other is what President Bush stated. Very similiar in content - a little different in context.



Those differences are extremely important. They are what turns the war from an atrocity into a just war.

The war is a legal war therefor it is not an atrocity. Throwing names on something you disagree with does not make it so.



The actual war would probably have been carried out in the same way, although I would probably have concentrated on an offensive to encircle Baghdad (keeping those plans secret of course) to encircle Saddam while he remained there. Most other things would have been done in the exact same way. I would be careful and use non-propaganda information speeches. Propaganda style speeches to a nation where many in the population have been brainwashed about how horrible the USA is would be devastating and only give fuel to local resistance. The objectives given to all generals and soldiers should be overthrowing Saddam, and minimizing civilian and American casualties. As much as possible, flyers with information about refugee camps I mentioned above should be dropped. I would also punish anyone carrying out torture or atrocities (and of course make that clear to the soldiers beforehand). I would send shrinks with the invasion force for anyone getting a sudden need to kill or torture someone innocent. As the world isn't religious today as it once was, shrinks are the natural replacement of priests in modern warfare for raising morale and keeping maniacs from carrying out acts of terror.

Hindsite is always 20/20. Such things don't always work - most warplans don't survive contact with the enemy.




Some examples of where Bush is making clear mistakes in his demands:
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions."

What does "end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it" mean in practice? If any nation demanded that of me, I would think "OMG, how the hell am I supposed to meet up with that requirement? That nation is trying to get a war no matter what. There's nothing we can do, because they aren't even saying what to do. Do they mean we should make sure there's no single individual in this country becomes a terrorist? Ha, not even the USA is able to do that. Well, this clearly means they're wanting a reason to attack no matter what, so we might as well not even try to do anything in this point"

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."
Would give same reaction.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
This is the one valid point, which he did well. It's clear exactly what it means.

"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people."
This is an impossible demand to make. Preventing a country from trading as it wishes.

Finally he doesn't even mention the main argument for why the war should be carried out: that the Iraqi system and inability to overthrow it's dictator has led to an unworthy leader who refuses to cooperate has been put in charge. That reason is the ultimate objective of the war, and if it had been stressed, it would clearly have shown that the US troops would concentrate on the overthrowing, not on defeating the Iraqi army forces or anything of that kind. The reason why he doesn't mention this main argument, is because he doesn't dare to make an apology and/or condemnation for the failed promises of air support. That's perhaps the most crucial point where he fails.

Not really going to analysis your thoughts on this area - you might be wrong, you might be right. However its opinion.



He misses the main argument for war, which also clearly would have defined what the US objective in Iraq was, which would also have made it perfectly clear that surrendering enemy combattants would be treated well. Oh, and the Guantanamo bay is also a scary factor that makes many want to fight to death instead of surrendering. He also fails to recognize the lack of adequate democracy in the USA. It's impossible to demand from another nation to become democratic unless you are prepared to change yourself too. The only thing that is left is an unclear mess of rhetorics: "peace, democracy and freedom", which nobody understands, neither the American people, nor the Iraqi regime or people. You must understand that it's this communication problem that makes people condemn the war, not the war itself.


Actually he made the arguement as well as he good - the adminstration screwed up in the execution by not sending enough ground troops to maintain security and establish control quickly once the Iraqi government dissolved.



Not if you make proper demands as part of the deal. But like I said that's something I wouldn't have done before checking that it wouldn't cause further problems. I would call for experts and others to discuss it for half a year or whatever would be needed.

Ignoring 12 years of failed inspections, discussions, resolutions, and negotations in the mean time.




It's a claim fully possible to make if the rest of the speech and policy of action is laid out as I suggested above. The oil is the very core of the Iraqi nation, it's Iraq's main trade good with the outside world. So it's a very sensitive matter to take the oil without asking or informing beforehand.


We will have to agree to disagree. Claims on oil are not something one should ever make - unless the sole purpose of the operation is to gain oil



A bellum iustum is liked by more than an unprovoked attack without clear demands. Notice above that in my list of demands I had a reason which would justify the attack no matter whether the other terms would be met

Try reading President Bush's speech to the United Nations again - he did the same thing.



- the inability of the Iraqi system to lead to a worthy leader. As I explained, as this is partly the fault of the USA, an apology would be needed before that reason could be used. If done properly, that one difference in the speeches and actions would have turned a criminal war into a war for the safety of the American people with the bonus of possibly have positive outcomes for the Iraqi people as well.


Again the war is not criminal - it is legal, calling it illegal does not make it so. The rest we again will have to agree to disagree. The inablity of the Iraqi system of the past to have a worthy leader is the fault of the several nations to include Iraq - but it seems you still on the kick to blame primarily the United States.



Yes, but if you forget the information speeches the propaganda is useless. The information speeches and apologies would as I explained have turned the war into a morally correct action against foreign threats, rather than an uncontrolled bloodshed without clear objective.


Oh I disagree completely - apologies mean absolutely nothing in the context of this statement.



What is it you disagree with? Your statement seems to just repeat what I said? :san_huh:


You keep speaking in terms of apology - that is not going to work.



Well, I repeat it again, if this is your view I am very sorry for you. Punishing is a primitive instinct which isn't possible to apply in civilization, just like the hunting instincts doesn't work in civilization. If you have a need for punishing and revenge to feel safe and good inside, then you aren't apropriate material for fighting against terrorism who suicide bomb. The guilty that deserve harsh punishment are already dead. Like many others, will you direct this anger, hatred and fear towards those who supplied the terrorists with 5 dollars, like they would be horrible killers and not just in the same class as thieves? Would you even punish those who gave the terrorists money in the belief that it was aid for healthcare and food? You can never have the full information on whether someone is guilty. Hundreds of innocent people suffer death row in the USA. It's of course an act of brutal barbary to kill hundred innocent people, and claiming they're guilty. Dying being called a criminal and murdered, on top of being killed while innocent. You have no idea what a horrible thing that is. When enough innocent people are killed by such a scare system, the scare effect that to some extent may refrain people from criminal acts is replaced by disgust and hatred towards the nation itself.


Tsk tsk - not going to discuss - Prison is punishment, Justice is holding people accountable for their actions. Needlesss to say we have a difference in opinion. Placing the "I feel sorry for you" is a needless comment - and shows only that you disagree with my opinion. You have your opinion on crime and punishment - I have mine.



Those in Guantanamo bay have recieved no conviction in court yet.

They all have recieved at least one military tribunal which is what is required.



And those who have been convicted are convicted by DNA, surveillance cameras or similar hinting they might have committed a crime. You can never prove with certainty they did. Oh, and there's also witnesses who can make an innocent man be punished. It's easy enough to fool all these systems. ld you personally want to be assraped, beaten, bathe in your own shit and sleep on a hard, cold concrete floor?Or a cloth over your eyes? Be moved into an electrocution room. Hearing someone read in a harsh voice how the state wants you dead because you are a dangerous criminal? There's no justification for murdering an innocent man for reasons such as satisfying primitive instincts and logistical reasons caused by lack of prison places. The purpose of law is, and has always been, to prevent crime. Anything else is a misunderstanding and uncivilized show of primitive instincts ruling you. It's not personal ideology that killing innocents is murder, it's a fact and part of ethics. You shall not kill even 10 innocent to get to a thousand guilty. The guilty if kept in prison harms society very little. The costs for food and similar are minimal compared to other state finance matters.


Tsk Tsk - emotional appeal does not work with me. Try using logic - if you dont know what is emotional appeal in your previous post - I bolded one such statement. Again read the statement I made and argue against it with logic.


I advocate punishing only those who are convicted in a court of law.



You're discussing the procedure on how votes are turned into decision on who wins. I'm discussing the procedure on how votes are cast. The two rounds you're speaking of are different types of rounds. I'm talking about two rounds of casting votes. Please refrain from calling my uneducated on the system. Also, you just pointed out another weakness of the system: you have to go back and reread school books in order to understand it. Try to estimate how many others in your nation are that uneducated about how it works. Not very democratic, I must say.

I will refrain from such comments if you do so yourself. As stated before I return comments in the same manner as I precieve the comment to be. You are obvious unware of how the electorial system works - so saying one is uneducated on the system is not a false statement now is it. The system is designed in the way it is for a reason - called States Rights and State Representation in the National Government. If you don't understand that reasoning of the system - your comments are meaningless on how the system works in the United States. I have to re-read some books because its been 20 years since I have really delved into the system. Its not a lack of understanding but of clarification of the system.



The rest later

[Tribesman]

Its not hard - its mentioned in the media quite often.

But red , as you repeatedly state , don't believe the media .
It clearly states most are either from Afganstan or Iraq.
Oh dear ,lets forget the media and concentrate on your own government or the government of those counries whose citizens are involved , or the committee that has oversight on this matter ,.
What the hell lets just look at any evidence that is available in the public domain , oh but that would rip your arguement to shreds wouldn't it .

But then again I you might want to look up the word most which was what was stated - not all.
Wooohoo correct , but you previously have stated "all" not "most" , which was shown to be incorrect and you seemed slightly upset about the lies that you had been told , so upset about plain facts being laid before your eyes that you said you wrote a letter to say that the "facts" were lies .

However I suspect your attempting a normal clever word play by assuming I mean the prisoners are citizens of Afganstan and Iraq, which we both know from previous discussions - I mean where the prisoner was captured - not their citizenship.


No word play at all there Red , try and read it again , where the peiople were captured is the issue , besides which....
You might want to check out the title of the document in which Occupation is covered in.
You might want to check out the paperwork that ends the occupation force requirements , hence the Hauge conventions on occuping powers are now redundant (have you got a dictionary yet ?)
Is the occupation of Iraq over? I don't think so - over 100,000 United States troops indicate otherwise.
Oh but it is , it was very important to get the paperwork in place to try and save a little money , it has been over for quite some time now .
A summary court is what is dicitated in the letter of the treaty, with a short walk to the post.


Ah it must be Panto time ..oh no it isn't :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: :san_laugh: you should know the treaties , you post them often enough .
you want to prove me wrong - do the leg work yourself.

hey Red , I provided you with a prime example ,look into it yourself . oh but you may find yourself writing some more letters to your governmentNow then , for proof would you like to take a country , say Kuwait for example , and examine how many of its citizens currently in Gitmo were captured in either Iraq or Afghanistan "on the field of battle" and how many were captured elsewhere ?
Feel free to choose citizens of any country (except Australia or the US) and try and show that most were captured on the battlefield if you like .
:san_laugh:

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: As your last post is only a series of "I won't comment that", "it's your own opinion" and similar, I guess there's nothing more I can do to make you realize the weaknesses of the American procedure and policy. If this is the coldness and lack of understanding shown by all American soldiers and people in positions of power, then I'm sad to see that America has put a doom on it's children, on it's offspring. When that doom is executed, depends on little, unpredictable details. I don't wish that doom. Usually when great empires fall, the result is chaos and violence far worse than that committed by the empire. But it is inevitable. Will it be in 50 years or in 500 years that someone will stand in the ruins of the USA and say: "vae victis"? I do not know. All I can do is cry over the cruelness and horridness of power, that civilization has created, and cry over all the men and women that will die. Over how never once in history, not even now, in the longest yet and most geographically spread era of enlightenment, civilization can refrain from creating a power that it's holders can't handle. For what else can I do but crying?

[Redleg]

Its not hard - its mentioned in the media quite often.

But red , as you repeatedly state , don't believe the media .

And that doesn not prove your initial comment. As for the rest of your comments see the edit below.

Edit: Attempting to belittle others that have different opinions then yourself is nothing other then the tactic of a bully, and bully's are normally nothing other then individuals who must take out there own self-loathing on others.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: As your last post is only a series of "I won't comment that", "it's your own opinion" and similar, I guess there's nothing more I can do to make you realize the weaknesses of the American procedure and policy.


Not at all - its because the language used in the last several posts is not suited toward civil discourse between individuals with different world views and opinions. Once the language breaks down into idealogue rethoric - its best not to pursue the conservation - because the civility of it begins to break down, I could play the same type of language usage - but in the spirt of honesty I won't take that track with you - the discussion has been informative and enlightening as to your viewpoints but its beginning to break down into the idealogue rethoric, As your examble below clearly indicates.



If this is the coldness and lack of understanding shown by all American soldiers and people in positions of power, then I'm sad to see that America has put a doom on it's children, on it's offspring. When that doom is executed, depends on little, unpredictable details. I don't wish that doom. Usually when great empires fall, the result is chaos and violence far worse than that committed by the empire. But it is inevitable. Will it be in 50 years or in 500 years that someone will stand in the ruins of the USA and say: "vae victis"? I do not know. All I can do is cry over the cruelness and horridness of power, that civilization has created, and cry over all the men and women that will die. Over how never once in history, not even now, in the longest yet and most geographically spread era of enlightenment, civilization can refrain from creating a power that it's holders can't handle. For what else can I do but crying?


If you wish honest discourse and opinion without such rethoric - begin a new thread or start this one over again. But I wont respond to such comments from you - I have gained some respect for your opinion to resort to such tactics that you are displaying here.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The main problem might be that the debate branched in several different debates.

First of all, your misconception about what law is about. I no educated circles, punishment has been the objective of law ever.

Next it's your denial of the failed promises to the curds and shias in Iraq, which unless apology was given couldn't justify the main reason for an attack on Iraq, and without that justification there was no viable justification left.

Finally it's your failure to admit that it's theoretically possible for a system like the American one to be infiltrated by unworthy maniacs, and that it doesn't have any more security than the system of the Weimar republic, where Hitler was elected, and that the very system therefore needs to be reformed. Exactly how might be a matter of taste, but must also be based on facts. Your stating that "I think it's a good system" looks quite strange in this case. It's not an opinion but a fact that the system has no more security than that of the Weimar republic. Unless you like what happened in the 30ies and 40ies in Germany you would naturally realize that a change of such a system is necessary. There comes the third branching of the debate, which requires an own topic.

Emotional appeal isn't rhetoric if placed in a correct context. Especially not if it's an accurate description of how a philosophy looks when turned into practice. The philosophy of punishing, even if innocents can be hurt, must be illustrated in order to be understood. I once thought "that kind of thing doesn't happen to me", when I was younger. Such a thought is naive. You must really try to understand the pain and suffering you create for an innocent, in order to realize what a barbaric act murder of an innocent is. It's only used to handle your own fear, not to obtain justice or protect anyone. Even despite letting out many criminals to strike again, systems without death penalty have the same or less murders than such with death penalty, the executions not even being counted in those statistics. That suggests that a system without death penalty but with longer prison sentences than the average pro-justice system would have much less crime than one with death penalty. If you really insist on death penalty despite that there are alternative systems which not only saves innocents from being murdered by state, AND reduces the number of innocents murdered by the murderers, it's clear that what you're after isn't to reduce crime, but to satisfy yourself, and suffocate your fears by seeing the guilty suffer, even if more innocents suffer, both from state-supported and individual murder.

[Adrian II]

A follow up on Redleg's remarks on hypocrisy:

Germany Talks Torture and Finds Hypocrisy (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,391493,00.html)

Obviously there are some issues our administration has to resolve, before they could credibly complain about any CIA actions...

"We are so totally condemning your methods! But while you're at it anyway - could you share the results of your "interrogations" with us? ...please?"

Sad...Redleg's remarks were about al-Masri. The article in Der Spiegel does not address that issue.

And the practice mentioned in it is not hypocritical at all. Intelligence services have a duty to lawfully collect any information relevant to national security. For European intelligence services, this includes spying on the Americans to see how they gather and evaluate information. Wolfgang Schäuble said that German intelligence officers had interviewed one prisoner being held in a Syrian jail that human rights groups say tortures prisoners and one in Guantanamo Bay. So what is wrong with interviewing detainees? He didn't say the Germans tortured the detainees, joined in their torture or encouraged their torture. Schäuble also said that Germany couldn't afford to ignore information provided by suspects even if it may have been obtained illegally. Damn right he is.

European services will want to observe at close quarters what sort of information gathered through American torture is actually valid and useful, and what part of it is misguided, fabricated and/or suggested to the victims. That is not hypocritical. Nor would you call the Red Cross hypocritical simpy because it works with authorities in order to visit their camps and prisons. Red Cross personnel are not activists. Nor are intelligence personnel.


Berliner Zeitung wrote: "Speaking with a forked tongue is something Europeans are masters at. They criticise torture by the US and then enquire about visiting hours in the dungeons, they condemn the torture centers in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and offer to set up their own ones in Eastern Europe."Since when did Germany offer to set up its own torture centre? The Polish have this problem, possibly the Romanians. And these countries are not 'masters' at speaking with forked tongues; they depend heavily on the United States for their security and are not in a position to refuse certain requests, certainly not dead-poor Romania. For the same reason Poland decided to send troops to Iraq, even though a majority of Polish were firmly against it. Polish membership of the EU and the recent budget deal, from which Poland will benefit tremendously, will hopefully put an end to the U.S. 'buying' their support for illegal causes.

[Tribesman]

And that doesn not prove your initial comment.

Eh ???? do you mean .....the hypocracy of the war on terror is absolutely incredible .

Or are you focusing on the fact that you cannot show that most of the prisoners were in fact captured in either Afghanistan or Iraq , as it is not true , or the fact that the laws covering occupation forces do not apply anymore since the occupation is over .

As for the rest of your comments see the edit below.

Aw ....so you cannot dispute any of the content , so you just say it is bullying instead to try and dodge the issue :san_huh:

[Ser Clegane]

Redleg's remarks were about al-Masri. The article in Der Spiegel does not address that issue.
Even if Redleg's original remark was about al-Masri (and some of the following weren't specifically targeting the al-Masri case) - is that a reason not to address the hypocrisy in condemning torture and benefitting from it on a broader level?


And the practice mentioned in it is not hypocritical at all. Intelligence services have a duty to lawfully collect any information relevant to national security. For European intelligence services, this includes spying on the Americans to see how they gather and evaluate information. Wolfgang Schäuble said that German intelligence officers had interviewed one prisoner being held in a Syrian jail that human rights groups say tortures prisoners and one in Guantanamo Bay. So what is wrong with interviewing detainees? He didn't say the Germans tortured the detainees, joined in their torture or encouraged their torture. Schäuble also said that Germany couldn't afford to ignore information provided by suspects even if it may have been obtained illegally. Damn right he is.

I see your point here - realistically it makes sense for European intelligence services not to ignore such information that is basically presented on a silver platter.
But if you argue that way, complaints about detainee-carrying CIA planes crossing German airspace lose a bit of credibility, don't you think?

Also - given your argument above - shouldn't we then consequently not also legally use information gained by torture in court?


Nor would you call the Red Cross hypocritical simpy because it works with authorities in order to visit their camps and prisons. Red Cross personnel are not activists. Nor are intelligence personnel.
Irrelevant comparison - unless you are trying to imply that the Red Cross is benefitting from the torture




Since when did Germany offer to set up its own torture centre?
Who said that Germany did? :san_huh:

[Adrian II]

I see your point here - realistically it makes sense for European intelligence services not to ignore such information that is basically presented on a silver platter.Indeed. Mind you, I am talking about all sorts of information, including info on American assets, views and methods that allow German intelligence to gauge American intentions and policy goals.
Also - given your argument above - shouldn't we then consequently not also legally use information gained by torture in court?Of course not. Intelligence gathering is not the same as criminal prosecution. And the comparison with the Red Cross is valid. The IRC works with all kinds of authorites, including abusive institutions and personnel, in order to gather information on their detainees and prisoners. Ideally, they have the well-being of the detainees and prisoners at heart. Ideally, intelligence should do the same provided it has the well-being of a nation at heart. In both cases, the stated purpose is saving lives. As soon as intelligence or the IRC advocated or facilitated torture, that would make them complicit. This rule applies to the planes as well.
Who said that Germany did? :san_huh:The article in the Berliner suggests that Europeans are hypocrites because Germany protested against practices that Poland (apparently) condoned in secret. Poland does no equal Germany, to my knowledge.

You know, Ser Clegane, there is a specific German strain of political correcteness that says that because of WWII Germany has a duty to stay away from all political practices that are even remotely suggestive of its war-time excesses. Until the early nineties this included participation any sort of form of international military intervention, even if it occurred under UN auspices. I believe 'Somalia' represented the first break in this post-war German tradition. That was a good thing. It is also a good thing that Germany -- for 'historic reasons' -- refrained from taking an active part in the NATO bombing of Serbia and Kosovo in 1999. There is a middle way, and other European nations would like to see Germany take its responsibility and face the fact that it is a pillar of the common European project. This includes a realistic attitude toward intelligence gathering.

[Ser Clegane]

Intelligence gathering is not the same as criminal prosecution.
Indeed, but if we - in the name of national security - use information gained from terrorists (or suspects) by means of torture to e.g., prevent bomb attacks or to arrest other terrorists, shouldn't we then also be able to use such information in court against terrorist suspects?


Ideally, they have the well-being of the detainees and prisoners at heart. Ideally, intelligence should do the same provided it has the well-being of a nation at heart.
And there you explain the clear difference between the two. One is visiting the detainee to serve the interests of the detainee, the other visits him to serve interests that have nothing to do with the well-being of the prisoner.
Absolutely not equivalent, even if we assume good intentions in both cases (which you could - ideally - also assume for the torturers :san_wink: )



There is a middle way, and other European nations would like to see Germany take its responsibility and face the fact that it is a pillar of the common European project. This includes a realistic attitude toward intelligence gathering.

Agree - however, we (and that includes myself) shouldn't act too indignant about detainees flying across Germany then.

[Adrian II]

And there you explain the clear difference between the two. One is visiting the detainee to serve the interests of the detainee, the other visits him to serve interests that have nothing to do with the well-being of the prisoner. Absolutely not equivalent, even if we assume good intentions in both cases (which you could - ideally - also assume for the torturers :san_wink: )For the purpose of our discussion the torturers intentions are neither here nor there; what counts is that the act of torture is illegal.

With regard to the IRC and intelligence, I believe you make the wrong assumption that the former has legitimate interests at heart and the latter does not. In my view, trying to protect your nationals from harm is just as legitimate as trying to protect prisoners or detainees from harm. Refusing to legally collect information that may save lives would be an instance of inexcusable neglect.
Agree - however, we (and that includes myself) shouldn't act too indignant about detainees flying across Germany then.The German no-torture policy has deep historical and moral roots. Neglecting these basics would inevitably hurt the German nation and its security, something the American authorities are only now rediscovering after years of laissez-faire policies.

This is an issue where the specific German political correctness is an asset which I would cherish, if I were you.
:bow:

[Redleg]

The main problem might be that the debate branched in several different debates.

Yep



First of all, your misconception about what law is about. I no educated circles, punishment has been the objective of law ever.


I have no misconception about the law. I understand how the law functions within the United States and what the system is based upon. I do not follow the philosophy of law that you are attempting to tell me is the only course of the law. In saying that I have a misconception of what the law is about - you are committing several logical fallacies.



Next it's your denial of the failed promises to the curds and shias in Iraq, Again you are incorrect - try reading again what I said about the failure of President Bush Sr. concerning the that issue.


which unless apology was given couldn't justify the main reason for an attack on Iraq, and without that justification there was no viable justification left.

No apology is necessary to justify an attack on Iraq. Your opinion on this is your opinion, mine is something different.



Finally it's your failure to admit that it's theoretically possible for a system like the American one to be infiltrated by unworthy maniacs, and that it doesn't have any more security than the system of the Weimar republic,

Theoretically possible and actuality are two seperate things. The system is in fact more secure then the Weimar Republic - history shows us that now doesn't?



where Hitler was elected, and that the very system therefore needs to be reformed.
Tsk Tsk - bad comparison.



Exactly how might be a matter of taste, but must also be based on facts. Your stating that "I think it's a good system" looks quite strange in this case.

A system that has survived bad presidents in the past, survived a civil war, survived a major depression, and has survived the stupidity of the people in the past. Pointing out its weakness because you do not agree with the system while ignoring how it has worked - does not make for a sound arguement against.



It's not an opinion but a fact that the system has no more security than that of the Weimar republic.

No my fine friend - that is opinion. The system has more security then that of the Weimar Republic. The constitution has a safeguard for just that with an amendment that states a President can only serve two terms. The Party structure is more intensive then you can possibily image. The demographics of the population has lead to two main parties - that can not be influenced by the government only by the society. For the government to form new parties - or to break apart the current parties would lead to undemocratic reforms. There are other safeguards built into the system. Trying to compare the United States to the Weimar Republic is a false comparrison. Congress would have to give up much more of its authority and responsibities to get close. The only reform that must take place is Congress needs to revoke the Presidential War Powers Act. That however is not part of the electorial process in which you first attempted to go into.



Unless you like what happened in the 30ies and 40ies in Germany you would naturally realize that a change of such a system is necessary. There comes the third branching of the debate, which requires an own topic.

Tsk Tsk - again incorrect. Where is the run away inflation, the massive depression, the repressive conditions of a failed war impossed by the victors. And several other aspects of the Weimer Republic that is not in existance in the United States.



Emotional appeal isn't rhetoric if placed in a correct context. Especially not if it's an accurate description of how a philosophy looks when turned into practice.

Not when you are attempting to not understand what is stated. Again convicted in a court of law was the statement.



The philosophy of punishing, even if innocents can be hurt, must be illustrated in order to be understood. I once thought "that kind of thing doesn't happen to me", when I was younger. Such a thought is naive. You must really try to understand the pain and suffering you create for an innocent, in order to realize what a barbaric act murder of an innocent is. It's only used to handle your own fear, not to obtain justice or protect anyone. Even despite letting out many criminals to strike again, systems without death penalty have the same or less murders than such with death penalty, the executions not even being counted in those statistics. That suggests that a system without death penalty but with longer prison sentences than the average pro-justice system would have much less crime than one with death penalty. If you really insist on death penalty despite that there are alternative systems which not only saves innocents from being murdered by state, AND reduces the number of innocents murdered by the murderers, it's clear that what you're after isn't to reduce crime, but to satisfy yourself, and suffocate your fears by seeing the guilty suffer, even if more innocents suffer, both from state-supported and individual murder.

Again I don't follow that philosophy about punishment. If convicted of a crime the main purpose of the prison system is punishment. Try reading why they call the process after the trail process - the punishment phase.

[Redleg]

And that doesn not prove your initial comment.

Eh ???? do you mean .....the hypocracy of the war on terror is absolutely incredible .

Or are you focusing on the fact that you cannot show that most of the prisoners were in fact captured in either Afghanistan or Iraq , as it is not true , or the fact that the laws covering occupation forces do not apply anymore since the occupation is over .

Why should I respond to your statements with facts - you chose to ignore facts for what you believe to be correct. No Tribesman when you decide to actually discuss the issue, provide revelant supporting information then I will take a look at what you have to say. However until then - I will respond in the same manner in which you post. Vague and misleading without any substance.



As for the rest of your comments see the edit below.

Aw ....so you cannot dispute any of the content , so you just say it is bullying instead to try and dodge the issue :san_huh:
[/quote]

Not at all - your comments were nothing other then an attempt to belittle and bully another member of the forum. Why should I answer the questions when the individual who asks them is only using bully tactics and belittles those who have an opinion different then his?

You don't want a discussion or even an arguement on the issue - the manner which you posted your comments show that.

[Redleg]

Redleg's remarks were about al-Masri. The article in Der Spiegel does not address that issue.

Actually my remark on hypocrisy was about European governments concerning al-Masri.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I have no misconception about the law. I understand how the law functions within the United States and what the system is based upon. I do not follow the philosophy of law that you are attempting to tell me is the only course of the law. In saying that I have a misconception of what the law is about - you are committing several logical fallacies.


Which logical fallacies, if I may ask?



Again you are incorrect - try reading again what I said about the failure of President Bush Sr. concerning the that issue.


Please tell me exactly which part of his statements you're referring to.



Theoretically possible and actuality are two seperate things. The system is in fact more secure then the Weimar Republic - history shows us that now doesn't?


No, history doesn't show us that at all. Whether something is theoretically vulernable or not can't be shown by history, only by analyzing the systems and comparing them.



No my fine friend - that is opinion. The system has more security then that of the Weimar Republic. The constitution has a safeguard for just that with an amendment that states a President can only serve two terms. The Party structure is more intensive then you can possibily image. The demographics of the population has lead to two main parties - that can not be influenced by the government only by the society. For the government to form new parties - or to break apart the current parties would lead to undemocratic reforms. There are other safeguards built into the system. Trying to compare the United States to the Weimar Republic is a false comparrison. Congress would have to give up much more of its authority and responsibities to get close. The only reform that must take place is Congress needs to revoke the Presidential War Powers Act. That however is not part of the electorial process in which you first attempted to go into.


There's only a single point you can point out where the systems differ: in that the president may only serve for a maximum of two terms. Well, as we all know Hitler was elected by the same system, but committed a coup to stay in power. That coup was illegal in that system. Limiting maximum terms to two doesn't solve the problem.



Not when you are attempting to not understand what is stated. Again convicted in a court of law was the statement.


"Emotional appeal" by describing a true scenario which follows from an ideology is an illustration of it, not rhetorics. If you have already tried seeing how the innocent that have to suffer would feel, then the description won't change your mind, but if you haven't even considered it you then get a chance to reconsider your values. That's not rhetorics. Rhetorics is trying to convice someone to choose an opinion without having real arguments for it. By for example saying:
"We must trust in God, and do what is right for the American people"
That very statement has nothing to do with argumenting for or against a particular action, but is used to indirectly take advantage of subconscious brain processes.


Again I don't follow that philosophy about punishment. If convicted of a crime the main purpose of the prison system is punishment. Try reading why they call the process after the trail process - the punishment phase.

No, that is what it was called in old law. The concept is aged, and has been denied by most modern law experts. In fact, it's mostly considered a very Medieval way of thinking to consider punishment as the objective of law. But let's carry on this discussion in the death penalty topic. English Assassin for instance pointed out that death penalty nations have more murders, which doesn't exactly speak in favor of death penalty. If you realize that the main objective is to protect innocents, then you'd not support death penalty, as it's obviously correlated to more murder, even when you aren't counting the murder the state commits. And btw most murderers murder people who they consider bad guys. It's the exact same reasoning as that lying behind the state murder. Killers who just kill randomly are quite rare outside Hollywood productions.

[Redleg]

Which logical fallacies, if I may ask?

Look at the ones about drawing conclusions.




Please tell me exactly which part of his statements you're referring to.


I was refering to my comments - along the lines of saying that everyone ignored the problem and took the cowards way out of doing absolutely nothing.



No, history doesn't show us that at all. Whether something is theoretically vulernable or not can't be shown by history, only by analyzing the systems and comparing them.

Has the United States been taken over by a dicator since its foundation?



There's only a single point you can point out where the systems differ: in that the president may only serve for a maximum of two terms. Well, as we all know Hitler was elected by the same system, but committed a coup to stay in power. That coup was illegal in that system. Limiting maximum terms to two doesn't solve the problem.

You will find that a coup is hard to do in the United States - another law prevents Federal Troops in being involved in civilian matters - The Posse Comitias (SP) Act. Most military officers and commanders steer away from any action dealing with the public without a express declartion from Congress and the President. Checks and Balances.




"Emotional appeal" by describing a true scenario which follows from an ideology is an illustration of it, not rhetorics. If you have already tried seeing how the innocent that have to suffer would feel, then the description won't change your mind, but if you haven't even considered it you then get a chance to reconsider your values. That's not rhetorics. Rhetorics is trying to convice someone to choose an opinion without having real arguments for it. By for example saying:

Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy - it is an attempt not to use logic to convince another of the merits of your arguement. Emotional appeal is rhetoric by its definition.



"We must trust in God, and do what is right for the American people"
That very statement has nothing to do with argumenting for or against a particular action, but is used to indirectly take advantage of subconscious brain processes.

Hince its emotional appeal.




No, that is what it was called in old law. The concept is aged, and has been denied by most modern law experts. In fact, it's mostly considered a very Medieval way of thinking to consider punishment as the objective of law.
But let's carry on this discussion in the death penalty topic. English Assassin for instance pointed out that death penalty nations have more murders, which doesn't exactly speak in favor of death penalty. If you realize that the main objective is to protect innocents, then you'd not support death penalty, as it's obviously correlated to more murder, even when you aren't counting the murder the state commits. And btw most murderers murder people who they consider bad guys. It's the exact same reasoning as that lying behind the state murder. Killers who just kill randomly are quite rare outside Hollywood productions.

Again I don't follow the philosophy on law that you are advocating. In fact I pretty much follow the philosophy of the law and justice that is used in the United States.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Look at the ones about drawing conclusions.

Examples please.


I was refering to my comments - along the lines of saying that everyone ignored the problem and took the cowards way out of doing absolutely nothing.

I want to know which words you considered to say the thing I wondered about. Do you have a quote, with all irrelevant cut away and just showing this particular aspect?



Has the United States been taken over by a dicator since its foundation?

That doesn't prove the system is good. You can play Russian roulette with a gun and survive 10 times, it still doesn't say Russian roulette is harmless. To see whether Russian roulette is dangerous, we look at what it is. We found out that we use a revolver with 6 bullet positions and put a bullet in one of them and twist it around, with around one sixth chance of dying. Next we take another man to try roulette with another gun, also with 6 bullets, and he dies on the first try. With your reasoning, you'd say that guy played roulette with a more dangerous gun.



Emotional appeal is a logical fallacy - it is an attempt not to use logic to convince another of the merits of your arguement. Emotional appeal is rhetoric by its definition.

Please cut the BS about "logical fallacy", and point out what those logical fallacies are. Do you even know what logic is? Logic is drawing a conclusion from a basis of facts. Whether these facts are true or not, is not up to logic to determine. Logic only determines whether a conclusion is true if the fact basis is true. Emotional appeal when used to describe a scenario which follows directly from the ideology of the opponent isn't rhetorics and avoiding of logic. The scenario described follows as a logical conclusion from the ideology you have presented. It's called making a synthesis, something you should try sometime. You look at your axioms and draw as many correct conclusions as you can from them, to get an as good overview as possible over how the ideology looks when applied in a practical situation.



Hince its emotional appeal.

That example is an example of emotional appeal serving a rhetorical purpose. Just like the word God can serve a purpose in a prayer, the speech of a heretic, or an interjection. It serves a rhetorical purpose if it has nothing to do with the matter the speech is about.



Again I don't follow the philosophy on law that you are advocating. In fact I pretty much follow the philosophy of the law and justice that is used in the United States.

Please let us move this part of the debate to the death penalty thread. Many people having the same misconception doesn't make it true. Just like the public thinks republic legionaries wore lorica segmentata and the crusades were only about religion, the public in some places think that death penalty reduces crime, while it has been proved the other way around. A system which makes for more murder can't be justified by anything except emotion and irrational fear.

[Adrian II]

Actually my remark on hypocrisy was about European governments concerning al-Masri.Which European government, apart from the German, has made statements on the al-Masri case? None, I believe.

Al-Masri was detained in Macedonia on December 31, 2003, and held in the capital; he was flown to Afghanistan on January 23, 2004, and he was flown back to Albania where he was released on May 28, 2004. Which other EU government was concerned with the al-Masri case, apart from Berlin? None, I believe.

How could they be hypocritical concerning al-Masri if they haven't stated a particular view on his case or been involved in his case in any way?

[Redleg]

Which European government, apart from the German, has made statements on the al-Masri case? None, I believe.

Al-Masri was detained in Macedonia on December 31, 2003, and held in the capital; he was flown to Afghanistan on January 23, 2004, and he was flown back to Albania where he was released on May 28, 2004. Which other EU government was concerned with the al-Masri case, apart from Berlin? None, I believe.

How could they be hypocritical concerning al-Masri if they haven't stated a particular view on his case or been involved in his case in any way?

Well your wrong - as you already pointed out in your above comments. since I said European countries - trying to use just the EU is not correct.

Where is Macedonia located geographically?

[Adrian II]

Since I said European countries - trying to use just the EU is not correct. Where is Macedonia located geographically?The EU has taken a stance on the matter of renditions. I am not aware that Macedonia has. Macedonia is not in the EU, remember?

OK, so we have narrowed down your pan-European 'hypocrisy' charge to only one country: Macedonia.

Pray tell us, what has hapless Skopje said or done about al-Masri that makes it (look) hypocritical. Has it protested renditions for instance? Has it denied al-Masri's Macedonian custody in January, 2004? Has it denied cooperating with the Americans?

[Redleg]

Examples please.

Here this will help

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/




I want to know which words you considered to say the thing I wondered about. Do you have a quote, with all irrelevant cut away and just showing this particular aspect?

Here is the revelant post with my comments. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1012210&postcount=79




That doesn't prove the system is good. You can play Russian roulette with a gun and survive 10 times, it still doesn't say Russian roulette is harmless. To see whether Russian roulette is dangerous, we look at what it is. We found out that we use a revolver with 6 bullet positions and put a bullet in one of them and twist it around, with around one sixth chance of dying. Next we take another man to try roulette with another gun, also with 6 bullets, and he dies on the first try. With your reasoning, you'd say that guy played roulette with a more dangerous gun.

Not at all - the system is chalk full of checks and balances that prevent the dictatorship from ever happening. Again russian roulette is a poor comparision, just like attempting to compare the United States system of government to the Weimer Republic. The system has been in place for over 200 years with amendments made to adjust to the times. The election process for President is what works best for this country - which is completely different from the system used by the Weimer Republic, which appointed the Chancellors - they were not elected by the populace either, the system in the United States allows the states to vote on an individual bases who the state will select for President. The United States does not use a collation form of government either. Several other actual facts make the Weimer Republic a bad comparision to what is happening in the politics of the United States.



Please cut the BS about "logical fallacy", and point out what those logical fallacies are.

logical fallacy is the apporiate term. See the above link if you want to know more about them. Why should I point out the multilple logical fallacies being committed by both of us other then for what they are logical fallacies. The spefics are easy by looking at the language and method used. Emotional appeal is the prime logical fallacy beign used.



Do you even know what logic is?

Sure I do - or I wouldn't of mentioned logical fallacies.


Logic is drawing a conclusion from a basis of facts. Whether these facts are true or not, is not up to logic to determine. Logic only determines whether a conclusion is true if the fact basis is true. Emotional appeal when used to describe a scenario which follows directly from the ideology of the opponent isn't rhetorics and avoiding of logic. The scenario described follows as a logical conclusion from the ideology you have presented. It's called making a synthesis, something you should try sometime. You look at your axioms and draw as many correct conclusions as you can from them, to get an as good overview as possible over how the ideology looks when applied in a practical situation.

And concerning emotional appeal - you are not completely correct - emotional appeal is a logic fallacy.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy[/quoute]



[quote]

That example is an example of emotional appeal serving a rhetorical purpose. Just like the word God can serve a purpose in a prayer, the speech of a heretic, or an interjection. It serves a rhetorical purpose if it has nothing to do with the matter the speech is about.


don't attempt to lecture on emotional appeal - since it seems your statements here run counter to the actual reasoning behind the fallacy.



Please let us move this part of the debate to the death penalty thread. Many people having the same misconception doesn't make it true. Just like the public thinks republic legionaries wore lorica segmentata and the crusades were only about religion, the public in some places think that death penalty reduces crime, while it has been proved the other way around. A system which makes for more murder can't be justified by anything except emotion and irrational fear.

I never claimed it reduced crime - its the punishment for the act. Again move it to the thread, if you wish.

[Redleg]

The EU has taken a stance on the matter of renditions. I am not aware that Macedonia has. Macedonia is not in the EU, remember?

Again who is speaking of the EU - another agency full of hypocrisy of a different type by the way.



OK, so we have narrowed down your pan-European 'hypocrisy' charge to only one country: Macedonia.

Actually you haven't. It seems that countries are using the intelligence gathered by the United States. So your charge here is incorrect.



Pray tell us, what has hapless Skopje said or done about al-Masri that makes it (look) hypocritical. Has it protested renditions for instance? Has it denied al-Masri's Macedonian custody in January, 2004? Has it denied cooperating with the Americans?

Why don't you tell me. What's wrong Adrian - you like making generalizations about the United States - but don't like it concerning Europeans.

As you were discussing with Ser the mere use of the data by any European nation makes them hypocritical if they complain about how the data is gathered.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Here is the revelant post with my comments. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1012210&postcount=79


It seems very irrelevent to me.



logical fallacy is the apporiate term. See the above link if you want to know more about them. Why should I point out the multilple logical fallacies being committed by both of us other then for what they are logical fallacies. The spefics are easy by looking at the language and method used. Emotional appeal is the prime logical fallacy beign used.
[...]
Sure I do - or I wouldn't of mentioned logical fallacies.


As a person who has studied logic a lot on university level etc., I don't think you're the one that should point out what logic is.



And concerning emotional appeal - you are not completely correct - emotional appeal is a logic fallacy.
This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy


You even misunderstand the text you have quoted. Emotional appeal is a fallacy when meant to hide the argumentation. Emotional appeal is not a fallacy when used to demonstrate what the argumentation means. If the argument is presented, and then explained with a common example, it's emotional appeal of a kind that isn't a fallacy. For instance this is a valid example of how emotional appeal is used in a non-fallacy way, in order to explain the argumentation more clearly:
- if you haven't got certain system to determine guilt, innocent people may be convicted. If you have death penalty, this means innocent people will die. This death for an innocent person, in combination with the humiliation of hearing that he is guilty and a danger and threat to society, is a horrible and cruel faith. For example, imagine YOU being in that situation, it would look like this. [EMOTIONAL APPEAL follows in this position of the text/speech/argumentation]. So we have established that it has horrible consequences, and now that you've really thought through the situation and realize what it means, you may want to reconsider your opinion.

Here, it appeals to the other debater to really think through a situation which he apparently hasn't thought through already. If he has, then his opinion will remain unchanged. If he hasn't, he may learn something new. But the actual argumentation is also presented, and the emotional appeal is an attempt to explain more clearly what the argumentation means. Many people lack the emotional intelligence needed to single-handedly make the synthesis and imagine how it would feel to be in a situation they've never been in.



don't attempt to lecture on emotional appeal - since it seems your statements here run counter to the actual reasoning behind the fallacy.


Don't attempt to lecture me on logics - since it seems you're not even capable of understanding the text you quote as your source of knowledge.



I never claimed it reduced crime - its the punishment for the act. Again move it to the thread, if you wish.

Good. At least you're starting to admit that you're after the punishment, as that's in your opinion satisfactory for you, and that you don't care for the innocent people. I must respect that opinion of yours, as you've now made clear it's just an opinion.

[Adrian II]

Why don't you tell me.Because I have other things to do than trying to make a horse drink. Stay dry, Redleg! :bow:

[Redleg]

It seems very irrelevent to me.

It points out what I stated about 1992 and the failure of the Bush administration - which goes to the question you asked and now don't seem to want answered.

in the nature of civility I have deleted my tit for tat post

[Upxl]

Why do you hate freedom, Kanamori?

Typical American way of thinking.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you guys.
But you’re being brainwashed and don't have the slightest idea!

Explain how occupying a country has to do with freedom.

It's all about oil.
Irak doesn't have the amount of money to invest in the oil production, so the Americans/English ones will invest.
What happens is that Irak will have to give 40 % of the profits away.

It happened before in Russia etc. But the normal rate is 12%
You’re bleeding them dry!

The worst thing about it is that the war has cost so many (American) boy's lives.
And it was a war for money.

EDIT by Ser Clegane - please keep the language civil

It isn’t about Sadam, it isn’t about Terrorism and It certainly got nothing to do with freedom.

Wake up pls.

[Ser Clegane]

Typical American way of thinking.

Lemurmania`s statement was sarcastic - as was Kanamori's (at least to my understanding :san_wink: )

[Upxl]

I wouldn't be much surprised if it wasn't.

Srry for the slang though. :sorry:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Upxl (odd name, that, by the way - does it have an interesting story behind it?), you claim that the war in Iraq is not for freedom.

It may not be solely for the benefit of freedom, but that f-word seems to be one of the war's by-products. You cannot say that the average Iraqi is less free under the current situation that under Saddam.

[Rodion Romanovich]

It points out what I stated about 1992 and the failure of the Bush administration - which goes to the question you asked and now don't seem to want answered.

in the nature of civility I have deleted my tit for tat post

Well, it seemed mostly like a "that's just an opinion", "that's a logical fallacy [without pointing out what was a fallacy and which logical rule it broke]" post, so I didn't get much information from it.

To summarize the different branchings of the discussion:
- we've agreed that communication and clarity is everything. But not agreed on the practical examples.
- you hold the opinion that law is about punishing criminals, even if it leads to more crime and suffering of wrongfully accused, while I'm of the opinion that reducing crime and suffering of the innocent is the main purpose, no matter what methods are used for it. Any further discussion was suggested to be moved to the death penalty topic, but I haven't got anything more to say at the moment, but if I do, I'll post there.
- you seem to be denying that the US government promised air support to curd and shia rebellions in Iraq, and then withdrew it once the rebellion had started and revealed itself to Saddam. Once revealed, Saddam responded by military actions and gene gas, towards which the rebel couldn't defend themselves with the withdrawn air support. Which part of this is it you deny? The fact that the air support was promised? The fact that it was withdrawn? The fact that the withdrawn air support changed the outcourse of the rebellion? The fact that the broken promise was a very bad move of the USA which might be cause for impopularity in the current Iraq war?
- you refuse to admit that the vote casting system of the USA allows for anti-democratic and dangerous vote results, despite the fact that two cooperating and almost similar parties have held the power in the USA for the last decades without competition from new parties. Their domination is still total, despite affairs such as the Watergate scandal. You don't think it's difficult for a new party to replace any of these parties, but I do think so.
- you're repeatedly claiming I'm using flawed logic, without pointing out where the fallacy lied. It's therefore impossible for me to improve my logic, if it would be wrong. However I doubt it's wrong, as I've read a lot of literature on the subject. You link to a page of fallacies which you apparently have read part or all of. But have you read about how correct logic looks? If you haven't, it can be difficult to interpret the fallacy list correctly, as you don't know what is wrong in the fallacy. If you read a book on logic, you'll see that all fallacies, even though you can make a list of thousands of them, spring from little more than a handful breaking of the basic laws of logic. If you know which laws of logic I'm talking about, you could contribute much to the discussion by pointing out which law was broken in which context. You would also learn more about yourself if you studied logic, and analyzed your argumentation critically, trying to find errors, just like I do. I usually change opinion of practical situations when someone counter-proves my logic, but my axioms, which are on such a basic level that all human beings can agree to them, remain the same. The beauty of logic is that if you have the exact same facts and axioms, your conclusion always end up the same. Therefore, disagreements are either a conflict over who has the wrong facts/premises, or because either of or both sides in the discussions use flawed logic. As you can see in the list above, I've considered the discussion to have reached it's ultimate goal in some of the points, where we've agreed that it's just differing axioms/premises. For example in the law/death penalty case.

[Redleg]

Well, it seemed mostly like a "that's just an opinion", "that's a logical fallacy [without pointing out what was a fallacy and which logical rule it broke]" post, so I didn't get much information from it.

Then you are not reading what is written. Because I clearly stated that my opinion on the failure in supporting the Kurd and Shia in 1992 was a failure of the world community in enforcing the ceasefire and a cowardly act by President Bush.




To summarize the different branchings of the discussion:
- we've agreed that communication and clarity is everything. But not agreed on the practical examples.

Correct



- you hold the opinion that law is about punishing criminals, even if it leads to more crime and suffering of wrongfully accused,

Wrong that is your interpation of my opinion. I believe that law is about determining the guilt of the accused in a court of law after that the punishment phase is about punishing the criminal.



while I'm of the opinion that reducing crime and suffering of the innocent is the main purpose, no matter what methods are used for it. Any further discussion was suggested to be moved to the death penalty topic, but I haven't got anything more to say at the moment, but if I do, I'll post there.

I seperated the thought since you are incorrect about what my opinion of the law is.



- you seem to be denying that the US government promised air support to curd and shia rebellions in Iraq, and then withdrew it once the rebellion had started and revealed itself to Saddam.

Wrong I have called it a cowarldy act - if you bother to read the post that states it, which was linked and the sentence is clearly there, it you will actually see the words - which the context is repeated above.



Once revealed, Saddam responded by military actions and gene gas, towards which the rebel couldn't defend themselves with the withdrawn air support. Which part of this is it you deny? The fact that the air support was promised? The fact that it was withdrawn? The fact that the withdrawn air support changed the outcourse of the rebellion? The fact that the broken promise was a very bad move of the USA which might be cause for impopularity in the current Iraq war?

Since I never denied it was a cowardly act - you are leaping to conclusions that are not there. Inother words your logic is flawed.



- you refuse to admit that the vote casting system of the USA allows for anti-democratic and dangerous vote results,

Tsk tsk - your into idealogue opinion. Has a dictator shown up and seized power in the United States? Was Bush unfairly and un-democraticly elected? Has anyone proved that he would of lost the election if the court had not halted the re-count? (I know the answer to this question). The system is based upon a democratic republic, and is also based upon the states having a representive impact on the Presidential election process and it works quite well.

Now if you want to address the failures of Congress and the Supreme COurt in providing the necessary check and balance to the Executive Branch of the government - I will happily point out the errors of those two branches in doing what they are suppose to do. However the Presidential Election process is fair and is representive of the people's will in sense of the democratic republic for which it was designed.




despite the fact that two cooperating and almost similar parties have held the power in the USA for the last decades without competition from new parties. Their domination is still total, despite affairs such as the Watergate scandal. You don't think it's difficult for a new party to replace any of these parties, but I do think so.

The new parties have failed to capture enough supports to be popular or to gain power, that is the fault of the party in question not the system. The federal government can not mandate how many parties and how they are structured, only the people can determine that.

You might want to check how many political parties are actually present in the United States.



- you're repeatedly claiming I'm using flawed logic, without pointing out where the fallacy lied.

Not at all - I repeatedly claim that you have are attempting to use emotional appeal to move your arguement forward. Which is what you have done in regards to political parties and the voting system of the United States.



It's therefore impossible for me to improve my logic, if it would be wrong.

Its up to you to improve your logic - not I.



However I doubt it's wrong, as I've read a lot of literature on the subject. You link to a page of fallacies which you apparently have read part or all of. But have you read about how correct logic looks? If you haven't, it can be difficult to interpret the fallacy list correctly, as you don't know what is wrong in the fallacy. If you read a book on logic, you'll see that all fallacies, even though you can make a list of thousands of them, spring from little more than a handful breaking of the basic laws of logic. If you know which laws of logic I'm talking about, you could contribute much to the discussion by pointing out which law was broken in which context. You would also learn more about yourself if you studied logic, and analyzed your argumentation critically, trying to find errors, just like I do.

If your a student of logic - then why do you make so many emotional appeals in your writing style? I am not here to correct your logic - that is for you to do on your own. However I do not accept emotional appeal as a sound base for a discussion nor as a logical response in bringing forth an issue. Your post about the electorical system is full of so much emotional appeal - I suspect know that your views on this are either un-informed or mis-informed opinion concerning the United States.




I usually change opinion of practical situations when someone counter-proves my logic, but my axioms, which are on such a basic level that all human beings can agree to them, remain the same. The beauty of logic is that if you have the exact same facts and axioms, your conclusion always end up the same.

Then you first must understand the election and electorial process of the United States, verus using emotional appeal to make your claim. The Weimer Republic comparrision is an appeal to emotion since the two systems are not the same, nor is claiming that it leads to undemocratic elections when the system has shown for 200 odd years that it has not elected a dictator into office. And the times it has come close to do so - the process is amended so that it does not make the same mistake twice

The process works, the checks and balances of the federal government work, as you are beginning to see in the media. You need to understand how a party forms in the United States, how the popularity of that party is based upon its ability to gather support from the people. The government can not interfer in that process - nor can it make a party popular.

You need to understand how the checks and balances are suppose to work - so that you can correctly identify where the federal government has failed in its responsiblities and its accountablity to the American People. And it has - but it has nothing to do with the election process, that is for the American people to determine what parties they support and which ones they don't. The government can not make those decisions nor can it sponsor any political party.

However once again the election process is not what determines that issue. The system is designed on the concept of the Democratic Republic - where every state has an impact on the government, and its done by the electorial college for the office of President. The two party system we have in the United States is not the fault of the government - but of the people and our demographics and the failure of other parties to gain popular support.

What you seem to be advocating is more undemocratic because it goes against the will of the people.




Therefore, disagreements are either a conflict over who has the wrong facts/premises, or because either of or both sides in the discussions use flawed logic. As you can see in the list above, I've considered the discussion to have reached it's ultimate goal in some of the points, where we've agreed that it's just differing axioms/premises. For example in the law/death penalty case.

Like I pointed out you have used mulitple times emotional appeal to cover your claim as being valid - that is indeed a logical fallacy. If you refuse to see the scope of your emotional appeal in your arguement - then my pointing out the error is the only thing that you will learn.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Then you are not reading what is written. Because I clearly stated that my opinion on the failure in supporting the Kurd and Shia in 1992 was a failure of the world community in enforcing the ceasefire and a cowardly act by President Bush.

Ok, then I'm glad that we agree on this point.



Wrong that is your interpation of my opinion. I believe that law is about determining the guilt of the accused in a court of law after that the punishment phase is about punishing the criminal.


So, is the following formulating of it correct?
- you hold the opinion that law is about punishing criminals who we believe are guilty after an attempt to weigh arguments for and against guilt as good as we can, even if that systme leads to more crime and suffering of wrongfully accused. I'm of the opinion that reducing crime and suffering of the innocent is the main purpose, no matter what methods are used for it.



Since I never denied it was a cowardly act - you are leaping to conclusions that are not there. Inother words your logic is flawed.


You can't just keep saying "logic is flawed" without pointing out what was wrong. I might in some cases jump conclusions because I get the wrong facts, not because my logic is flawed. In this case, I'm not listing conclusions. I'm listing questions. I listed some questions which I haven't even asked earlier. The questions I pose I do not know the answer of, hence they're not conclusions, but questions where I intended to recieve an answer. You've answered the two first, in which we apparently agree. The rest were, just like the first, normal and not rhetorical questions, to which I wanted an answer. Since you earlier disagreed to an entire block of statements in which those statements were part, it means that you think one or more of the statements are wrong. A block of statements is equivalent to a series of statements concatenated with the logical AND operator. Disagreeing to the block, is disagreeing to one or more of the statements. By asking the questions separately I wanted to know which part(s) of the block you disagreed to. But now you seem to agree to all parts of the block, as you say something along the lines of "already having responded to that". In that case, we agree also to this point, it seems.



Tsk tsk - your into idealogue opinion. Has a dictator shown up and seized power in the United States? Was Bush unfairly and un-democraticly elected? Has anyone proved that he would of lost the election if the court had not halted the re-count? (I know the answer to this question). The system is based upon a democratic republic, and is also based upon the states having a representive impact on the Presidential election process and it works quite well.

Now if you want to address the failures of Congress and the Supreme COurt in providing the necessary check and balance to the Executive Branch of the government - I will happily point out the errors of those two branches in doing what they are suppose to do. However the Presidential Election process is fair and is representive of the people's will in sense of the democratic republic for which it was designed.

The new parties have failed to capture enough supports to be popular or to gain power, that is the fault of the party in question not the system. The federal government can not mandate how many parties and how they are structured, only the people can determine that.


Yeah right, 50% or more express hatred towards Bush and his war, and there are millions of people that could start new parties. And the same two remain extremely dominant for several decades. It's not a personal opinion, it's a fact that the system itself won't allow any new parties in, as it requires 1. mass media attention (damn near impossible to get), 2. people must dare voting for it even if they're afraid it might mean losing to a party with opposite block ideology. For instance if an exact copy of the Democrats, but without corruption, would take part in the election, and despite all difficulties get enough massmedia attention, there would be a threat of throwing away your vote so that the Republicans would win, which, if you are a Democrat, wouldn't be desirable. But I think that again you're basing your opinion on emotion or hidden argumentation that you don't want to reveal, such as you actually liking the current parties, and don't want to see them replaced. That's why people with opinions close to those of the Democrats instead try to infiltrate that party, rather than making an own one - they know that no new parties can succeed. But such an infiltration is uncertain, and can be carried out as easily by unworthy as by people with serious ideology. And imagine what happens when someone unworthy has infiltrated the party, due to the same reasons as otherwise, that party remains a major party. It's then 50% chance of getting an unworthy leader. It's a too high risk. Considering that the possible damage that can be made is much greater than that of a nuclear reactor exploding, the error tolerance should be as low. For most nuclear reactors we require around 0.0000001 percent risk of error or lower.



Not at all - I repeatedly claim that you have are attempting to use emotional appeal to move your arguement forward. Which is what you have done in regards to political parties and the voting system of the United States.

Its up to you to improve your logic - not I.

If your a student of logic - then why do you make so many emotional appeals in your writing style? I am not here to correct your logic - that is for you to do on your own. However I do not accept emotional appeal as a sound base for a discussion nor as a logical response in bringing forth an issue. Your post about the electorical system is full of so much emotional appeal - I suspect know that your views on this are either un-informed or mis-informed opinion concerning the United States.

Then you first must understand the election and electorial process of the United States, verus using emotional appeal to make your claim. The Weimer Republic comparrision is an appeal to emotion since the two systems are not the same, nor is claiming that it leads to undemocratic elections when the system has shown for 200 odd years that it has not elected a dictator into office. And the times it has come close to do so - the process is amended so that it does not make the same mistake twice

The process works, the checks and balances of the federal government work, as you are beginning to see in the media. You need to understand how a party forms in the United States, how the popularity of that party is based upon its ability to gather support from the people. The government can not interfer in that process - nor can it make a party popular.

You need to understand how the checks and balances are suppose to work - so that you can correctly identify where the federal government has failed in its responsiblities and its accountablity to the American People. And it has - but it has nothing to do with the election process, that is for the American people to determine what parties they support and which ones they don't. The government can not make those decisions nor can it sponsor any political party.

However once again the election process is not what determines that issue. The system is designed on the concept of the Democratic Republic - where every state has an impact on the government, and its done by the electorial college for the office of President. The two party system we have in the United States is not the fault of the government - but of the people and our demographics and the failure of other parties to gain popular support.

What you seem to be advocating is more undemocratic because it goes against the will of the people.

Like I pointed out you have used mulitple times emotional appeal to cover your claim as being valid - that is indeed a logical fallacy. If you refuse to see the scope of your emotional appeal in your arguement - then my pointing out the error is the only thing that you will learn.

Your lies and emotional appeal in your post are highlighted in bold in the quote above. I see no reason why I should continue a debate where I discuss causalities and you have no theoretical counter-arguments. The critics on my logic is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. Again, I recommend you to read a book on logic. You can indeed improve my logical argumentation, if you point out which statement broke the laws of logic. That's what debating, and logic, are for. If you had read anything on logic, you would have know that. But from what I've seen here, your only interest lies in defending the opinion yoy held upon entering the debate, not try to find the truth, or improve the incorrect parts of your reasoning when the errors in your statements are pointed out. It's quite difficult to point our what logical errors you make, when you pretend to have the same premises as I have, but reach different conclusions. That is against the laws of logic, which say that the exact same premises always result in the exact same conclusions. As long as you don't actually demonstrate your chain of conlusions and reasoning, it's impossible for me to tell you wherein you error lies. When I say something that disagrees with your view, demonstrating my entire chain of thoughts, you do nothing but say "that's flawed logic", and neither point out which part of the chain you disagree to, nor tell how your chain of reasoning looks. Perhaps you even have hidden premises which you refuse to show, thus making so that even correct logic from both of us can lead us to different conclusions? But how can I know when you don't tell me which such hidden premises you have, if any?

This makes me think that you don't want to learn anything from the discussion. You don't want to improve or change, you see it as a loss of prestige. You don't want anyone to understand your reasoning, and don't want to show it, because you know it can then be counter-proved.

[Redleg]

Ok, then I'm glad that we agree on this point.

Correct - regardless of the number of times that you failed to acknowledge the point.


I was going to respond in detail - but I shall use two anologies instead.

The crows are feasting upon your cornfield. You have built a scarecrow with to much straw that the contents are easy to see.

The crows are preched upon the outstretched arms of the strawman, grooming thier feathers and crawing in mockery at the strawman.

Beware of the Pot calling the Kettle Black.

[Incongruous]

I love this line "why do you hate freedom"
what crapy question, what right deos America have to question someones alliegence to freedom? Do you have some kind of moral authority over people?
The hypocrasy of Europe, now what is that? It sure aint as bad a the you're either with us or against attitude of America.

But my favourite line is "it's all the fault of the liberal media" wtf, that is possibly the most obscure argument on the planet, can you hand me a micro-scope?
You seem to have created an invisible enemy, the liberal EU and others. Tell you what give me a map, paint all these whiny libyys blue. That would help me undertand you a lot better.

Obviously EU governments helped the CIA capture the German citizen and they probably damn well knew what was going to happen to him a whole lot of unpleasantness. But that is the fault of some wanker politicos not the people. I don't think anyone (well perhaps a few) was attacking the American people just you're wanker politicians. Hell nearly all politicians are wanker's at least we have something in common.
So the question is Red, do you agree with what YOURE government did, dismiss all other parties, I just want you're opinion on what you're government did.

[Major Robert Dump]

I would gladly be kidnapped and interrrogated if the "compensation" was phat. In fact, I would appreciate it if someone here would log my IP and report me as suspicious to homeland security so they will come get me ASAP because then I could get out of rent for January.

[Redleg]

I love this line "why do you hate freedom"
what crapy question, what right deos America have to question someones alliegence to freedom? Do you have some kind of moral authority over people?
The hypocrasy of Europe, now what is that? It sure aint as bad a the you're either with us or against attitude of America.

But my favourite line is "it's all the fault of the liberal media" wtf, that is possibly the most obscure argument on the planet, can you hand me a micro-scope?
You seem to have created an invisible enemy, the liberal EU and others. Tell you what give me a map, paint all these whiny libyys blue. That would help me undertand you a lot better.

Obviously EU governments helped the CIA capture the German citizen and they probably damn well knew what was going to happen to him a whole lot of unpleasantness. But that is the fault of some wanker politicos not the people. I don't think anyone (well perhaps a few) was attacking the American people just you're wanker politicians. Hell nearly all politicians are wanker's at least we have something in common.
So the question is Red, do you agree with what YOURE government did, dismiss all other parties, I just want you're opinion on what you're government did.

I don't have a problem with the government questioning individuals who they suspect of being criminals - as long as they follow the established procedure. Now it seems that some procedures were not correctly followed in this individual's case. So no I don't completely agree with it.

Now if you understand that - its not to hard to figure out the hypocrisy of many of the European Governments in not only this case but many of the others.

Hypocrisy is condemning the action but wanting the fruits of the action to benefit thier own security. And that is only the most obvious of the hypocrisy involved in the issue.

[Incongruous]

Could you specify "procedures" for me.
And clarify you're thoughts on the use of torture?

[Redleg]

Could you specify "procedures" for me. Its not all that hard to understand what procedures mean. It follows how nations deal with each other and how nations deal with custody of individuals who are suspected of criminal activity. Shall we look at Macedonia who turned over the suspect to the CIA.



And clarify you're thoughts on the use of torture?

I haven't stated in this thread my thoughts on torture, nor will I. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of European Governments for condemning the actions - but partaking in the intelligence gathered - and turning a blind eye to the activities when it happens in thier country.

[Incongruous]

I see...

[Upxl]

Upxl (odd name, that, by the way - does it have an interesting story behind it?),

No,only that Uberpixel sounded to much german. :happyg:



you claim that the war in Iraq is not for freedom.

Yes!
This my friend is only the excuse!
Bush cares as much for the "free" Iraqi people as I care about that strange looking tomato in my fridge.


It may not be solely for the benefit of freedom, but that f-word seems to be one of the war's by-products. You cannot say that the average Iraqi is less free under the current situation that under Saddam.

Don't know m8
We'll just have to wait and see.