The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
How can Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi (the two brits in Guantanamo Bay) confess to a war crime when America is denying that the conflict in Afghanistan was ever a war?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
There have been great pains taken to describe the men held in Guantanamo Bay as "Illegal non-combatants", thus allowing them to be held without any reference to the Geneva Convention. If they have to confess to war crimes, does this mean that they or any other interested party can also have members of the US government arrested for the war crime of Mistreatment of Prisoners?
And if they are saying that it is for the conflict between the Taliban and Northern Alliance prior to Sept 11th, then will anyone in the US government be held accountable for the millions in military aid given to the Taliban?
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1017546,00.html
> To be fair, I'd only comment once someone has done a similar study on
> liberals/Democrats (which are the same thing really)
Actually, no they're not; something of a gross oversimplification (something that shows how you prefer moral certainty?). But that's by the by. And how would a study showing Democrats' faults take away from the study showing Neo-con faults?
>
> With Clinton as a reference I think it'd make equally damning reading
> eh ?
Course it would; all politicians are lying, devious scumbags. Equally damning? Well...it would if we're putting getting sucked off by a porker on a par with declaring a war based on false evidence. But hey, as far as I'm concerned, arguing the difference between Bill and Dubya is like fighting about whether Hitler was worse than Stalin...
> Light wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1017546,00.html
> To be fair, I'd only comment once someone has done a similar study on
> liberals/Democrats (which are the same thing really)
Actually, no they're not; something of a gross oversimplification (something that shows how you prefer moral certainty?). But that's by the by. And how would a study showing Democrats' faults take away from the study showing Neo-con faults?
>
> With Clinton as a reference I think it'd make equally damning reading
> eh ?
Course it would; all politicians are lying, devious scumbags. Equally damning? Well...it would if we're putting getting sucked off by a porker on a par with declaring a war based on false evidence. But hey, as far as I'm concerned, arguing the difference between Bill and Dubya is like fighting about whether Hitler was worse than Stalin...
Belldandy wrote:
> Surely giving China Favoured Nation status for trade makes sense
> though ? AS I pointed out earlier a heck of lot of vital stuff for
> America and the West is sourced through Chinese producers, and making
> them favoured nation ties China, economically, to the USA to some
> degree.
Wouldn't it have been easier to get Iraqi oil by doing the same thing? Give them favoured nation oil status instead of Saudi? After all, Saddam was no more brutal a leader than, say, Deng Chou Ping.
I'm taking the proverbial because I'd have been loathe to see that happen, but you see how your logic can equally be applied to Iraq? The only thing that stopped it being applied was that Iraq was militarily weaker and could be pushed around.
>
> I do see your point about China, it's just that I don't honestly see
> any way of taking China's leaders down or out without killing a
> couple of billion people in the process.
No, neither do I. But if America really was on a moral crusade to remove dangerous regimes (as was your contention) they'd have to take on China. But they're not. They're simply bullying a weaker nation and taking what they want.
>
> One place it did send me thinking though was the ongoing Missile
> Defence plan, if, and it is an if, America can get that working, then
> suddenly China doesn't have much more than a conscripted, poorly
> trained, variably equipped military, then we can start making demands
> of them.
Demands? So essentially what you are saying is that you look forward to a time when America can threaten any nation they want? Erm...have you seen America's record on trade wars with European Nations? Would you like to be in the situation where the various european economies will get crushed in order to keep America prosperous?
>
> Really though, I don't think we will ever see any true wars now, even
> the Gulf one wasn't, more of a police action than a true war. Even
> for Communists, war doesn't make economic sense. Many western
> companies may be tied to weapons related sectors of the economy but I
> think western weapon and military technology is partly at the level
> of deterrance - we build the best stuff to deter any possible
> aggression from nation states - though this cannot be said of all
> sectors, latest fad at the moment seems to be the race for true
> camouflage (gives a semi invisible effect) that can withstand
> battlefield conditions.
I think you're being very Western in saying that; true wars? How about the conflicts that scar Africa? Or the Chechnya conflict? They look pretty much like wars to me.
I assume you mean that the west will not be involved in any more 'true' wars?
>
> However, 200 American troops landed in Liberia today to secure the
> port and other areas alongside the Nigerian peacekeepers, and I think
> America does deserve some credit for that, once the port is secure I
> think we'll see more forces landed, and hopefully, in time, Taylor at
> the Hague.
Yup; America was obliged to do this seeing as Liberia was their creation in the first place, but it is nice to see those obligations being carried out.
>
> On another note, because no one's commented on this yet, WTF is the
> UN doing regarding Libya ?
>
> They admit to Lockerbie, and look set to get sanctions lifted by all
> but the USA ?
>
> Are certain UN members insane ?
>
> What next, Bin Laden admits to 9/11 on live tv and France grants him
> asylum and a pension ? Saddam admits crimes to lengthy to mention and
> Russia makes him honourary head of state ?
>
> It should not end with the compensation being paid to relatives, we
> need to find out WHO knew, and who authorised and planned it - not
> the two scapegoats hung out previously -, and then we need to tell
> Libya they hand them over, or we'll damn well come and get them.
Bell, are you always this uncompromising? I mean, if a country were to take your advice then they would be perpetually at war. Are you honestly saying that you'd prefer millions of Libyans to continue to suffer even after their government apologises and pays compensation? So far an Internationally recognised Court of Law has given a conviction, the country responsible has apologised, and compensation is being paid. What, you're saying you want more? Okay, if that is the case then I'd like to see the UN find out WHO knew, authorised, and planned the training of Mujahhadein fighters in Afghanistan during the 70's and 80's. We already know that the CIA trained them, but who in their authorised it?
And how about the Contra Arms affair? Should we resurrect that one as well?
What I'm driving at here is that you're applying double standards; The US and UK are guilty of some pretty horrific acts, and we haven't even bothered to apologise for them. You're taking a moral stance and that's fine, but have you tried applying those morals to the foreign policy of the US over the last 20 years? A foreign policy that included genocide as one of it's tools?
>
> Hopefully President Bush won't dissapoint me and something is in the
> works to this effect, at the very least find those responsible and
> neutralise them, permanently....
I will bet you a serious amount of money that President Bush will disappoint you...
> Surely giving China Favoured Nation status for trade makes sense
> though ? AS I pointed out earlier a heck of lot of vital stuff for
> America and the West is sourced through Chinese producers, and making
> them favoured nation ties China, economically, to the USA to some
> degree.
Wouldn't it have been easier to get Iraqi oil by doing the same thing? Give them favoured nation oil status instead of Saudi? After all, Saddam was no more brutal a leader than, say, Deng Chou Ping.
I'm taking the proverbial because I'd have been loathe to see that happen, but you see how your logic can equally be applied to Iraq? The only thing that stopped it being applied was that Iraq was militarily weaker and could be pushed around.
>
> I do see your point about China, it's just that I don't honestly see
> any way of taking China's leaders down or out without killing a
> couple of billion people in the process.
No, neither do I. But if America really was on a moral crusade to remove dangerous regimes (as was your contention) they'd have to take on China. But they're not. They're simply bullying a weaker nation and taking what they want.
>
> One place it did send me thinking though was the ongoing Missile
> Defence plan, if, and it is an if, America can get that working, then
> suddenly China doesn't have much more than a conscripted, poorly
> trained, variably equipped military, then we can start making demands
> of them.
Demands? So essentially what you are saying is that you look forward to a time when America can threaten any nation they want? Erm...have you seen America's record on trade wars with European Nations? Would you like to be in the situation where the various european economies will get crushed in order to keep America prosperous?
>
> Really though, I don't think we will ever see any true wars now, even
> the Gulf one wasn't, more of a police action than a true war. Even
> for Communists, war doesn't make economic sense. Many western
> companies may be tied to weapons related sectors of the economy but I
> think western weapon and military technology is partly at the level
> of deterrance - we build the best stuff to deter any possible
> aggression from nation states - though this cannot be said of all
> sectors, latest fad at the moment seems to be the race for true
> camouflage (gives a semi invisible effect) that can withstand
> battlefield conditions.
I think you're being very Western in saying that; true wars? How about the conflicts that scar Africa? Or the Chechnya conflict? They look pretty much like wars to me.
I assume you mean that the west will not be involved in any more 'true' wars?
>
> However, 200 American troops landed in Liberia today to secure the
> port and other areas alongside the Nigerian peacekeepers, and I think
> America does deserve some credit for that, once the port is secure I
> think we'll see more forces landed, and hopefully, in time, Taylor at
> the Hague.
Yup; America was obliged to do this seeing as Liberia was their creation in the first place, but it is nice to see those obligations being carried out.
>
> On another note, because no one's commented on this yet, WTF is the
> UN doing regarding Libya ?
>
> They admit to Lockerbie, and look set to get sanctions lifted by all
> but the USA ?
>
> Are certain UN members insane ?
>
> What next, Bin Laden admits to 9/11 on live tv and France grants him
> asylum and a pension ? Saddam admits crimes to lengthy to mention and
> Russia makes him honourary head of state ?
>
> It should not end with the compensation being paid to relatives, we
> need to find out WHO knew, and who authorised and planned it - not
> the two scapegoats hung out previously -, and then we need to tell
> Libya they hand them over, or we'll damn well come and get them.
Bell, are you always this uncompromising? I mean, if a country were to take your advice then they would be perpetually at war. Are you honestly saying that you'd prefer millions of Libyans to continue to suffer even after their government apologises and pays compensation? So far an Internationally recognised Court of Law has given a conviction, the country responsible has apologised, and compensation is being paid. What, you're saying you want more? Okay, if that is the case then I'd like to see the UN find out WHO knew, authorised, and planned the training of Mujahhadein fighters in Afghanistan during the 70's and 80's. We already know that the CIA trained them, but who in their authorised it?
And how about the Contra Arms affair? Should we resurrect that one as well?
What I'm driving at here is that you're applying double standards; The US and UK are guilty of some pretty horrific acts, and we haven't even bothered to apologise for them. You're taking a moral stance and that's fine, but have you tried applying those morals to the foreign policy of the US over the last 20 years? A foreign policy that included genocide as one of it's tools?
>
> Hopefully President Bush won't dissapoint me and something is in the
> works to this effect, at the very least find those responsible and
> neutralise them, permanently....
I will bet you a serious amount of money that President Bush will disappoint you...
Light wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1017546,00.html
>
>
> Absolutely glorious study which goes some way to confirming that
> Dubya is not much more than an ignorant simpleton.
To be fair, I'd only comment once someone has done a similar study on liberals/Democrats (which are the same thing really)
With Clinton as a reference I think it'd make equally damning reading eh ?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1017546,00.html
>
>
> Absolutely glorious study which goes some way to confirming that
> Dubya is not much more than an ignorant simpleton.
To be fair, I'd only comment once someone has done a similar study on liberals/Democrats (which are the same thing really)
With Clinton as a reference I think it'd make equally damning reading eh ?
Surely giving China Favoured Nation status for trade makes sense though ? AS I pointed out earlier a heck of lot of vital stuff for America and the West is sourced through Chinese producers, and making them favoured nation ties China, economically, to the USA to some degree.
I do see your point about China, it's just that I don't honestly see any way of taking China's leaders down or out without killing a couple of billion people in the process.
One place it did send me thinking though was the ongoing Missile Defence plan, if, and it is an if, America can get that working, then suddenly China doesn't have much more than a conscripted, poorly trained, variably equipped military, then we can start making demands of them.
Really though, I don't think we will ever see any true wars now, even the Gulf one wasn't, more of a police action than a true war. Even for Communists, war doesn't make economic sense. Many western companies may be tied to weapons related sectors of the economy but I think western weapon and military technology is partly at the level of deterrance - we build the best stuff to deter any possible aggression from nation states - though this cannot be said of all sectors, latest fad at the moment seems to be the race for true camouflage (gives a semi invisible effect) that can withstand battlefield conditions.
However, 200 American troops landed in Liberia today to secure the port and other areas alongside the Nigerian peacekeepers, and I think America does deserve some credit for that, once the port is secure I think we'll see more forces landed, and hopefully, in time, Taylor at the Hague.
On another note, because no one's commented on this yet, WTF is the UN doing regarding Libya ?
They admit to Lockerbie, and look set to get sanctions lifted by all but the USA ?
Are certain UN members insane ?
What next, Bin Laden admits to 9/11 on live tv and France grants him asylum and a pension ? Saddam admits crimes to lengthy to mention and Russia makes him honourary head of state ?
It should not end with the compensation being paid to relatives, we need to find out WHO knew, and who authorised and planned it - not the two scapegoats hung out previously -, and then we need to tell Libya they hand them over, or we'll damn well come and get them.
Hopefully President Bush won't dissapoint me and something is in the works to this effect, at the very least find those responsible and neutralise them, permanently....
I do see your point about China, it's just that I don't honestly see any way of taking China's leaders down or out without killing a couple of billion people in the process.
One place it did send me thinking though was the ongoing Missile Defence plan, if, and it is an if, America can get that working, then suddenly China doesn't have much more than a conscripted, poorly trained, variably equipped military, then we can start making demands of them.
Really though, I don't think we will ever see any true wars now, even the Gulf one wasn't, more of a police action than a true war. Even for Communists, war doesn't make economic sense. Many western companies may be tied to weapons related sectors of the economy but I think western weapon and military technology is partly at the level of deterrance - we build the best stuff to deter any possible aggression from nation states - though this cannot be said of all sectors, latest fad at the moment seems to be the race for true camouflage (gives a semi invisible effect) that can withstand battlefield conditions.
However, 200 American troops landed in Liberia today to secure the port and other areas alongside the Nigerian peacekeepers, and I think America does deserve some credit for that, once the port is secure I think we'll see more forces landed, and hopefully, in time, Taylor at the Hague.
On another note, because no one's commented on this yet, WTF is the UN doing regarding Libya ?
They admit to Lockerbie, and look set to get sanctions lifted by all but the USA ?
Are certain UN members insane ?
What next, Bin Laden admits to 9/11 on live tv and France grants him asylum and a pension ? Saddam admits crimes to lengthy to mention and Russia makes him honourary head of state ?
It should not end with the compensation being paid to relatives, we need to find out WHO knew, and who authorised and planned it - not the two scapegoats hung out previously -, and then we need to tell Libya they hand them over, or we'll damn well come and get them.
Hopefully President Bush won't dissapoint me and something is in the works to this effect, at the very least find those responsible and neutralise them, permanently....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0,12271,1017546,00.html
Absolutely glorious study which goes some way to confirming that Dubya is not much more than an ignorant simpleton.
Absolutely glorious study which goes some way to confirming that Dubya is not much more than an ignorant simpleton.
Goatboy wrote:
> A reasonable discussion between Light and Bell...now I have to consume
> my own balls, as promised.
> Damn
Ha! Eat 'em; eat 'em raw dammit!
> A reasonable discussion between Light and Bell...now I have to consume
> my own balls, as promised.
> Damn
Ha! Eat 'em; eat 'em raw dammit!
Belldandy wrote:
> Actually the UN did not ask the US to intervene in Liberia
Umm...I never said they did!
>, and whilst
> this does not prevent action, it's not generally a good idea to
> deploy US troops alongside another UN mission....arguably US
> diplomatic pressure has forced Taylor out, a good thing.
Arguably it has. But equally arguably, it hasn't.
> Actually the UN did not ask the US to intervene in Liberia
Umm...I never said they did!
>, and whilst
> this does not prevent action, it's not generally a good idea to
> deploy US troops alongside another UN mission....arguably US
> diplomatic pressure has forced Taylor out, a good thing.
Arguably it has. But equally arguably, it hasn't.
Belldandy wrote:
> Out of interest Light, why is it only the US you find guilty of not
> doing anything against China ? Because they actually act against
> others ?
No, it's because the whole "It's our moral duty to remove dangerous regimes" justification only came about when all of their more tangible reasons for invading Iraq (WMD, Al-Quaida) had been...well, if not discredited then certainly called into enough doubt as to take it out of the realm of reasonable doubt.
If there reasons really were "It's a moral thing" then that morality would have extended to cover ALL dangerous regimes, not just the ones that happened to be in possession of a lot of oil. How can the US say, with a straight face, that it has a moral duty to oppose dangerous regimes when it has given China the status of Most Favoured Trading Nation?
The answer: the moral reasons were not much more than a sop to whip people up into the kind of emotional state where they feel war is justified.
> Out of interest Light, why is it only the US you find guilty of not
> doing anything against China ? Because they actually act against
> others ?
No, it's because the whole "It's our moral duty to remove dangerous regimes" justification only came about when all of their more tangible reasons for invading Iraq (WMD, Al-Quaida) had been...well, if not discredited then certainly called into enough doubt as to take it out of the realm of reasonable doubt.
If there reasons really were "It's a moral thing" then that morality would have extended to cover ALL dangerous regimes, not just the ones that happened to be in possession of a lot of oil. How can the US say, with a straight face, that it has a moral duty to oppose dangerous regimes when it has given China the status of Most Favoured Trading Nation?
The answer: the moral reasons were not much more than a sop to whip people up into the kind of emotional state where they feel war is justified.
A reasonable discussion between Light and Bell...now I have to consume my own balls, as promised.
Damn
Damn
Out of interest Light, why is it only the US you find guilty of not doing anything against China ? Because they actually act against others ?
Page: