The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Actually the UN did not ask the US to intervene in Liberia, 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.
Belldandy wrote:
>Lotsa things
And when it comes to China, I don't disagree (though I disagree strongly on your summation of what's happening in Saudi; it reads like it's sourced from the US version of what is happening there at the moment). However, if you have a moron in the White House who is going to talk about moral obligations, crusades, and all sorts of other emotive terms when justifying his land grabs, then it's logical to apply the those terms to all other regimes that fit the bill. Which China does. And will there be a war on moral grounds there? No. Which sort of shows that the supposed moral element of the war against Iraq was non-existent in the upper echelons of the US government. I don't recall any speeches talking about "A moral duty to remove regemes that support evil and terror. Oh, unless they have too big an army or actually have WMD. Then we'll give them Most Favoured Nation status".
The oil thing...well, it's funny how the people of Liberia hasn't had the same level of support as the people of Iraq supposedly have in liberating their country. Taking revenue away from a dictator? And the US and UK are just going to hand over all the oil revenues and allow an Iraqi democracy to sell the oil as they please? Do you honestly believe that both countries won't demand favourable oil deals?
It's hypocrisy, and it stinks.
>Lotsa things
And when it comes to China, I don't disagree (though I disagree strongly on your summation of what's happening in Saudi; it reads like it's sourced from the US version of what is happening there at the moment). However, if you have a moron in the White House who is going to talk about moral obligations, crusades, and all sorts of other emotive terms when justifying his land grabs, then it's logical to apply the those terms to all other regimes that fit the bill. Which China does. And will there be a war on moral grounds there? No. Which sort of shows that the supposed moral element of the war against Iraq was non-existent in the upper echelons of the US government. I don't recall any speeches talking about "A moral duty to remove regemes that support evil and terror. Oh, unless they have too big an army or actually have WMD. Then we'll give them Most Favoured Nation status".
The oil thing...well, it's funny how the people of Liberia hasn't had the same level of support as the people of Iraq supposedly have in liberating their country. Taking revenue away from a dictator? And the US and UK are just going to hand over all the oil revenues and allow an Iraqi democracy to sell the oil as they please? Do you honestly believe that both countries won't demand favourable oil deals?
It's hypocrisy, and it stinks.
Light, the Phillipines, around and after the same time as the war in Afghanistan did receive US help, in fact the first signs of renewed support came in November 2001 http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/ 2001-November/002247.html since then the terrorists have been slowly but surely routed, America deployed 'military advisors', totalling into 3-5 thousand based on estimates and these included ranger, marine and special ops personnel with all their equipment and backup. Whilst Abu Sayaf is not destroyed, earlier this year a further 1000 US troops deployed to the area and a final mop up operation is thought to be in planning stages.
So help was given, just away from the TV camera's. Saudia Arabia has also clamped down on some activities but has to be careful not to incite a revolution against the royal family there, whilst we'd like them to do more, no one is too keen to see them overthrown by fundementalists...Saudia Arabia also has this annoying habit of arresting western terrorist suspects, who being western, their nations then protest their innocence....
With China, I think we have to bear in mind that taking down the regime is not realistically possible in military terms, Everyone here knows, or should know, that to do so would be lose lose for all involved. Already capitalism is rife in China, and more and more students are protesting about human rights, freedom of speech, helped by things like the internet which is censored, but it's not easy to censor, things get through, and the more educated the next generation of Chinese become the more likely they are to bring about change in the country. The comparison with Iraq is unfair, IMO. We knew Iraq threatened it's neighbours under Saddam's regime and that he was violently unpredictable. We knew there was links to Al Qaeda, again dangerous. We also knew that should he, or a successor, decide to, he could effectively cut the oil to the west.
In a sense it was also about oil, but not about controlling it, more securing it and removing it as a revenue source for Saddam and his cronies. Like it or not, the world needs oil. Power, communications, transport, defence. Not everything has alternative supplies available yet, hence it is vital that oil be in the possession of stable nations, not those with a history of going border crossing.
The danger with China is not that we cannot defeat them , we can, it's how we'd have to do it that causes the problem an the repercussions of that. With Iraq the worst that happened was a bio weapon hitting Israel or another nearby state, or that there would be a mass release inside Iraq. No matter what happened Saddam could not win this war, merely prolong defeat. The very fact he could not seriously hurt our forces without WMD use hampered him, and us. If he'd have used WMD on us then he knew - because Swiss diplomats had made this very clear, he'd get it back in spades. Fire one bio weapon at coalition troops and we'd hit so hard it wouldn't matter where he ran. If he'd used WMD on our troops then public support would tolerate a retaliation of kind, and there would be no civilian wounded for the tv cameras, only corpses which no one would be able to get close enough to film anyway. None of that happened.
Now, from what I know, here is what happens if we attack China. China knows it outnumbers any possible US/UN force except if there is an unheralded coaltion of forces. It's the defender so has the advantage on the ground. Satellites are only of limited use, they can kill ours and we can kill theirs. Our ground troops negate theirs but we can dominate the skies through sheer numbers and technology, this gives our ground forces the advantage to push into China. So, China sees it cannot win, unless, it goes Nuclear. But then it knows the coalition will respond in kind, and the coalition knows the Chinese know this. But the Chinese are desperate, we're kicking them in their own homeland and the people giving the orders know the end is nigh, so they go nuclear. We retaliate. Clouds of nuclear contamination across Asia and Europe and America, large swathes of China uninhabitable for decades, food production and water provision in China destroyed, not to mention both sides are fighting in NBC suits now....you'd have a humanitarian crisis in China that'd make every famine in history look like a joke. The coalition has taken massive casualties , the world economy is making like the Titnanic filled top to bottom with steel, you've got cancer cases going through the roof all over the world which further strains national economies, refugees from all of Asia, the industrial provider of most of the world is looking like it's done a timewarp to the first century......in short a total disaster.
So help was given, just away from the TV camera's. Saudia Arabia has also clamped down on some activities but has to be careful not to incite a revolution against the royal family there, whilst we'd like them to do more, no one is too keen to see them overthrown by fundementalists...Saudia Arabia also has this annoying habit of arresting western terrorist suspects, who being western, their nations then protest their innocence....
With China, I think we have to bear in mind that taking down the regime is not realistically possible in military terms, Everyone here knows, or should know, that to do so would be lose lose for all involved. Already capitalism is rife in China, and more and more students are protesting about human rights, freedom of speech, helped by things like the internet which is censored, but it's not easy to censor, things get through, and the more educated the next generation of Chinese become the more likely they are to bring about change in the country. The comparison with Iraq is unfair, IMO. We knew Iraq threatened it's neighbours under Saddam's regime and that he was violently unpredictable. We knew there was links to Al Qaeda, again dangerous. We also knew that should he, or a successor, decide to, he could effectively cut the oil to the west.
In a sense it was also about oil, but not about controlling it, more securing it and removing it as a revenue source for Saddam and his cronies. Like it or not, the world needs oil. Power, communications, transport, defence. Not everything has alternative supplies available yet, hence it is vital that oil be in the possession of stable nations, not those with a history of going border crossing.
The danger with China is not that we cannot defeat them , we can, it's how we'd have to do it that causes the problem an the repercussions of that. With Iraq the worst that happened was a bio weapon hitting Israel or another nearby state, or that there would be a mass release inside Iraq. No matter what happened Saddam could not win this war, merely prolong defeat. The very fact he could not seriously hurt our forces without WMD use hampered him, and us. If he'd have used WMD on us then he knew - because Swiss diplomats had made this very clear, he'd get it back in spades. Fire one bio weapon at coalition troops and we'd hit so hard it wouldn't matter where he ran. If he'd used WMD on our troops then public support would tolerate a retaliation of kind, and there would be no civilian wounded for the tv cameras, only corpses which no one would be able to get close enough to film anyway. None of that happened.
Now, from what I know, here is what happens if we attack China. China knows it outnumbers any possible US/UN force except if there is an unheralded coaltion of forces. It's the defender so has the advantage on the ground. Satellites are only of limited use, they can kill ours and we can kill theirs. Our ground troops negate theirs but we can dominate the skies through sheer numbers and technology, this gives our ground forces the advantage to push into China. So, China sees it cannot win, unless, it goes Nuclear. But then it knows the coalition will respond in kind, and the coalition knows the Chinese know this. But the Chinese are desperate, we're kicking them in their own homeland and the people giving the orders know the end is nigh, so they go nuclear. We retaliate. Clouds of nuclear contamination across Asia and Europe and America, large swathes of China uninhabitable for decades, food production and water provision in China destroyed, not to mention both sides are fighting in NBC suits now....you'd have a humanitarian crisis in China that'd make every famine in history look like a joke. The coalition has taken massive casualties , the world economy is making like the Titnanic filled top to bottom with steel, you've got cancer cases going through the roof all over the world which further strains national economies, refugees from all of Asia, the industrial provider of most of the world is looking like it's done a timewarp to the first century......in short a total disaster.
I'll agree with light on this one - my major thought at the time of the Iraq war was, "Hang on a minute, why the hell does Bush give a damn about the suffering of these people all of a sudden?"
The two main arguments of the pro-war lobby (henceforth known "hellraisers") are the WMD, ie the threat they pose to Western ways of life, and that now the people are liberated and that wouldn't have happened etc.
As far as I can recall, we don't have their WMD yet. Must be bloody well hidden.
The population of Iraq, I believe is not that much better off. Many are still left without electricity, clean water and the rest. But hey, aren't I forgetting something? Now they can loot all the free stuff they want! Like I said, I can't imagine Bush caring so much about the Iraqi people (and ONLY them, seemingly not anyone else under a repressive regime) to actually start a war, when he could be out shooting deer or anything like that.
To me, it's too much of a coincidence that the five companies who put up around 70% of the funding for the Bush campaign now have the five biggest contracts in Iraq.
I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, thems are just my views on the "crusade" (as Bush so head-smackingly-idiotically put it).
The two main arguments of the pro-war lobby (henceforth known "hellraisers") are the WMD, ie the threat they pose to Western ways of life, and that now the people are liberated and that wouldn't have happened etc.
As far as I can recall, we don't have their WMD yet. Must be bloody well hidden.
The population of Iraq, I believe is not that much better off. Many are still left without electricity, clean water and the rest. But hey, aren't I forgetting something? Now they can loot all the free stuff they want! Like I said, I can't imagine Bush caring so much about the Iraqi people (and ONLY them, seemingly not anyone else under a repressive regime) to actually start a war, when he could be out shooting deer or anything like that.
To me, it's too much of a coincidence that the five companies who put up around 70% of the funding for the Bush campaign now have the five biggest contracts in Iraq.
I'm not trying to have a go at anyone, thems are just my views on the "crusade" (as Bush so head-smackingly-idiotically put it).
Belldandy wrote:
> Taking your point about China, how ? You've got people in the UK and
> USA who want our troops out of Iraq because of a few deaths a day,
> and I don't wish to demean the sacrifice of those who have given
> their lives in service in Iraq, but any war with China - and that is
> what it would take to remove the regime I believe - would see
> casualties in the tens of thousands for little material gain. China
> has nukes, we failed to control weapons proliferation in the past and
> now we have several nations with them whom we cannot touch unless
> they act first. What China does know is that it cannot withstand any
> retaliation should it act against Taiwan. On the other hand it knows
> that the rest of the world will not act unless America does, and that
> American politics dictates that America will not act unless China
> takes massive direct action. Hence the impasse continues, as it does
> in North Korea.
I'm not actually against war per se (which is why both Goat and I kicked off at you when you said anti-war movement could be equated with pacifism). But that's by the by; your key phrase there is "for little material gain". That is EXACTLY why the war happened against Iraq; material gain for the aggressors.
What I'm driving at is that in your last post you said that the US and UK should take out dangerous regimes. Well, the implications of that are to take on nations like China. Otherwise it's not about a moral crusade, it's just about bullying weaker nations until they give you what you want.
>
> Coming back to Iraq, I'm not entirely sure you can say it was purely
> for our benefit - US companies are afraid of involvement, both
> governments are taking huge political risks, and the missions there
> are going to last a decade. Ultimately I believe there will be
> democracy in Iraq, not identical to ours, but a form of it, and I
> honestly think we'll see it spread to other nations around it such as
> Iran and Syria. The Democrats do handle PR better, but that comes
> with being accomplished liars 95% of the time and hiding it...
Heh. I'll leave that political bias to one side (because ALL politicians are accomplished liars, it's just that some tell us lies that we want to hear...) for now. But as to it be entirely for our benefit...well, okay. However, do you honestly and truthfully believe that America would greenlight this invasion purely out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they wouldn't. So whilst the motivation of some (maybe even Mr Blair himself, because he has gained little out of this) may have been predominantly humanitarian, that was not what made this war happen. The biggest driving force was self interest.
>
> Ont thing I think your replies do highlight, Light, is that the US,
> no matter its faults, is looked to for nearly every problem there is
> in the world today. It has not engaged everywhere, but considering
> pundits were predicting Bush's win in 2000 to lead to an isolatry
> America then the situation is far better than could it could be. At
> least we're criticising the way the West engages rather than the fact
> it does nothing at all.
True; and there is too much anti-americanism in the world. But here's the thing; most pro-american rhetoric concerns how it is "the land of the free". They set an absurdly high bar for themselves as the shining light of freedom and democracy, as the defender of human rights. That makes their government, with all of its assaults on the freedoms and human rights of other countries, a very easy target for anyone genuinely interested in freedom, democracy, and human rights (and, candour compels me to admit, naysayers).
To use a fairly flippant example, if someone was to stand there saying "You must, all of you, not eat ice cream because doing so is evil!" whilst at the same time stealing the ice cream from everybody else and gorging themselves on it, would you be surprised if they were criticised?
>
> It would have been remarkably easy following 9/11 for America,
> Australasia, Russia, China and Western Europe to surround itself with
> a steel ring of security and simply say they were no longer going to
> be involved with other nations, leaving the Middle East, Africa, most
> of asia and former Soviet states to their own devices.
>
> I'd far rather we engaged some places, than none at all, do you agree
> ?
With that statement taken on its own? Yes, I agree. But what I don't agree with is the fact that after 9/11, we started a war with a nation who's Al-Quaida presence has been vastly increased by that war. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing remotely resembling a standard of proof beyond reasonable, or even slight, doubt has been put forward for that. All evidence presented has been thoroughly discredited, in some cases by the very intelligence agencies who put it forward in the first place.
Basically, if we take 9/11 as the starting point then yes, the responsible parties have to be engaged in some way. The RESPONSIBLE parties. Like, for example, Afghanistan (believe it or not, I supported that war). Or the Phillipines, a major Al-Quaida stronghold. Or Saudi Arabia. But nothing has been done with these latter two nations; no wars against them, no extra aid to help them fight the Al-Quaida terrorists who train there. Instead, a needless white elephant of a war was fought.
> Taking your point about China, how ? You've got people in the UK and
> USA who want our troops out of Iraq because of a few deaths a day,
> and I don't wish to demean the sacrifice of those who have given
> their lives in service in Iraq, but any war with China - and that is
> what it would take to remove the regime I believe - would see
> casualties in the tens of thousands for little material gain. China
> has nukes, we failed to control weapons proliferation in the past and
> now we have several nations with them whom we cannot touch unless
> they act first. What China does know is that it cannot withstand any
> retaliation should it act against Taiwan. On the other hand it knows
> that the rest of the world will not act unless America does, and that
> American politics dictates that America will not act unless China
> takes massive direct action. Hence the impasse continues, as it does
> in North Korea.
I'm not actually against war per se (which is why both Goat and I kicked off at you when you said anti-war movement could be equated with pacifism). But that's by the by; your key phrase there is "for little material gain". That is EXACTLY why the war happened against Iraq; material gain for the aggressors.
What I'm driving at is that in your last post you said that the US and UK should take out dangerous regimes. Well, the implications of that are to take on nations like China. Otherwise it's not about a moral crusade, it's just about bullying weaker nations until they give you what you want.
>
> Coming back to Iraq, I'm not entirely sure you can say it was purely
> for our benefit - US companies are afraid of involvement, both
> governments are taking huge political risks, and the missions there
> are going to last a decade. Ultimately I believe there will be
> democracy in Iraq, not identical to ours, but a form of it, and I
> honestly think we'll see it spread to other nations around it such as
> Iran and Syria. The Democrats do handle PR better, but that comes
> with being accomplished liars 95% of the time and hiding it...
Heh. I'll leave that political bias to one side (because ALL politicians are accomplished liars, it's just that some tell us lies that we want to hear...) for now. But as to it be entirely for our benefit...well, okay. However, do you honestly and truthfully believe that America would greenlight this invasion purely out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they wouldn't. So whilst the motivation of some (maybe even Mr Blair himself, because he has gained little out of this) may have been predominantly humanitarian, that was not what made this war happen. The biggest driving force was self interest.
>
> Ont thing I think your replies do highlight, Light, is that the US,
> no matter its faults, is looked to for nearly every problem there is
> in the world today. It has not engaged everywhere, but considering
> pundits were predicting Bush's win in 2000 to lead to an isolatry
> America then the situation is far better than could it could be. At
> least we're criticising the way the West engages rather than the fact
> it does nothing at all.
True; and there is too much anti-americanism in the world. But here's the thing; most pro-american rhetoric concerns how it is "the land of the free". They set an absurdly high bar for themselves as the shining light of freedom and democracy, as the defender of human rights. That makes their government, with all of its assaults on the freedoms and human rights of other countries, a very easy target for anyone genuinely interested in freedom, democracy, and human rights (and, candour compels me to admit, naysayers).
To use a fairly flippant example, if someone was to stand there saying "You must, all of you, not eat ice cream because doing so is evil!" whilst at the same time stealing the ice cream from everybody else and gorging themselves on it, would you be surprised if they were criticised?
>
> It would have been remarkably easy following 9/11 for America,
> Australasia, Russia, China and Western Europe to surround itself with
> a steel ring of security and simply say they were no longer going to
> be involved with other nations, leaving the Middle East, Africa, most
> of asia and former Soviet states to their own devices.
>
> I'd far rather we engaged some places, than none at all, do you agree
> ?
With that statement taken on its own? Yes, I agree. But what I don't agree with is the fact that after 9/11, we started a war with a nation who's Al-Quaida presence has been vastly increased by that war. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing remotely resembling a standard of proof beyond reasonable, or even slight, doubt has been put forward for that. All evidence presented has been thoroughly discredited, in some cases by the very intelligence agencies who put it forward in the first place.
Basically, if we take 9/11 as the starting point then yes, the responsible parties have to be engaged in some way. The RESPONSIBLE parties. Like, for example, Afghanistan (believe it or not, I supported that war). Or the Phillipines, a major Al-Quaida stronghold. Or Saudi Arabia. But nothing has been done with these latter two nations; no wars against them, no extra aid to help them fight the Al-Quaida terrorists who train there. Instead, a needless white elephant of a war was fought.
Taking your point about China, how ? You've got people in the UK and USA who want our troops out of Iraq because of a few deaths a day, and I don't wish to demean the sacrifice of those who have given their lives in service in Iraq, but any war with China - and that is what it would take to remove the regime I believe - would see casualties in the tens of thousands for little material gain. China has nukes, we failed to control weapons proliferation in the past and now we have several nations with them whom we cannot touch unless they act first. What China does know is that it cannot withstand any retaliation should it act against Taiwan. On the other hand it knows that the rest of the world will not act unless America does, and that American politics dictates that America will not act unless China takes massive direct action. Hence the impasse continues, as it does in North Korea.
Coming back to Iraq, I'm not entirely sure you can say it was purely for our benefit - US companies are afraid of involvement, both governments are taking huge political risks, and the missions there are going to last a decade. Ultimately I believe there will be democracy in Iraq, not identical to ours, but a form of it, and I honestly think we'll see it spread to other nations around it such as Iran and Syria. The Democrats do handle PR better, but that comes with being accomplished liars 95% of the time and hiding it...
Ont thing I think your replies do highlight, Light, is that the US, no matter its faults, is looked to for nearly every problem there is in the world today. It has not engaged everywhere, but considering pundits were predicting Bush's win in 2000 to lead to an isolatry America then the situation is far better than could it could be. At least we're criticising the way the West engages rather than the fact it does nothing at all.
It would have been remarkably easy following 9/11 for America, Australasia, Russia, China and Western Europe to surround itself with a steel ring of security and simply say they were no longer going to be involved with other nations, leaving the Middle East, Africa, most of asia and former Soviet states to their own devices.
I'd far rather we engaged some places, than none at all, do you agree ?
Coming back to Iraq, I'm not entirely sure you can say it was purely for our benefit - US companies are afraid of involvement, both governments are taking huge political risks, and the missions there are going to last a decade. Ultimately I believe there will be democracy in Iraq, not identical to ours, but a form of it, and I honestly think we'll see it spread to other nations around it such as Iran and Syria. The Democrats do handle PR better, but that comes with being accomplished liars 95% of the time and hiding it...
Ont thing I think your replies do highlight, Light, is that the US, no matter its faults, is looked to for nearly every problem there is in the world today. It has not engaged everywhere, but considering pundits were predicting Bush's win in 2000 to lead to an isolatry America then the situation is far better than could it could be. At least we're criticising the way the West engages rather than the fact it does nothing at all.
It would have been remarkably easy following 9/11 for America, Australasia, Russia, China and Western Europe to surround itself with a steel ring of security and simply say they were no longer going to be involved with other nations, leaving the Middle East, Africa, most of asia and former Soviet states to their own devices.
I'd far rather we engaged some places, than none at all, do you agree ?
Belldandy wrote:
> What I'm saying is that, as is the case wit hmany laws in this
> country, there are times when someone can break international law for
> the right reasons. Taking down dangerous regimes and wiping out those
> who support terrorism happens to be one of those reasons.
If America and the UK were both blameless when it came to supporting terrorism, I'd wholeheartedly agree; sometimes the law IS a straightjacket, and it's forms shouldn't be stuck to just for the sake of it. However, as both the US and UK have and continue to support terrorism and dangerous regimes worldwide...well, that's when the morality of the whole thing gets gray. For example, we have offered support to the Chinese regime, yet they invaded Tibet and regularly threaten Taiwan. We show no sign of wanting to take out this dangerous regime.
For more straightforward terrorism...well, America funded huge numbers of terrorists in Afghanistan when it was a Communist state. Not to mention the unofficial funding of Irish terrorists. And, of course, various West African factions depending on which junta holds the balance of power in any given week.
In other words, yes you've given a good reason to break international law. Unfortunately, it's painfully clear that it's not the reason the UK and US are breaking it; we're breaking it purely for our own benefit, and not for any reasons of morality.
>
> On a related note - and I'm not try to divert attention from a
> worthwhile topic - I am seriously hoping that the UN gets its act
> together and lets the US or someone else deploy a covert op into
> Nigeria to grab Taylor for trial for War Crimes he comitted in Sierra
> Leone, if African nations think they can just give sanctuary like
> that to people like that then I seriously hope someone can prove them
> wrong.
>
> With 3 US warships in the area I think it's high time a snatch team
> went and grabbed him if Nigeria fails to do the right thing.
>
> Undoubtedly one of you cna come up with an example of someone the
> west has harboured and I don't doubt that, but that does not mean we
> should let every war criminal escape, and what happened in Sierra
> Leone ranks as one of the low points of modern history.
>
> I actually think it's time that America and it's allies got tough and
> started going after everyone that should be chased down, not just
> selective nations and people, but everyone.
Here here. I'm just waiting for confirmation that Idi Amin has finally lumbered off this mortal coil too.
But again, the west supports numerous of these dictators and does so as long as they serve in our best national interests. We cannot do that with one breath, then condemn their morality with the next. Not when the UK and US are the main reason they are there in power in the first place.
> And it is time they
> looked at Guantanamo and resolved it - charge those who they can
> prove did something and release the rest with a very public apology
> and compensation. Take a minor PR hit to regain the moral high
> ground.
If they were Democrats, I believe they would; democrats are better at PR. But they're Neo-Cons, and their method of dealing with the press is to say "This is what we're doing. If you don't like it, tough." And as long as they do, that moral high ground is going to be out of their grasp.
>
> Finally, whilst were on the subject of terrorism, Daily (I think)
> Express details how they gave a reporter a false background, he got
> employed at Heathrow, and got a massive dagger and numerous other
> weapons past all security....despite security alarms being triggered
> - they just ignored him. In light of renewed intelligence that a new
> deadly attack is possible this year this has to be alarming news.
Thing is, if you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. It's difficult to motivate oneself to care about ones job when you're barely making minimum wage and generally being shat on by ones superiors. I agree; security needs to be tightened at airports. But as long as we pay security workers 9/10's of crap all, then it's not going to improve any time soon.
> What I'm saying is that, as is the case wit hmany laws in this
> country, there are times when someone can break international law for
> the right reasons. Taking down dangerous regimes and wiping out those
> who support terrorism happens to be one of those reasons.
If America and the UK were both blameless when it came to supporting terrorism, I'd wholeheartedly agree; sometimes the law IS a straightjacket, and it's forms shouldn't be stuck to just for the sake of it. However, as both the US and UK have and continue to support terrorism and dangerous regimes worldwide...well, that's when the morality of the whole thing gets gray. For example, we have offered support to the Chinese regime, yet they invaded Tibet and regularly threaten Taiwan. We show no sign of wanting to take out this dangerous regime.
For more straightforward terrorism...well, America funded huge numbers of terrorists in Afghanistan when it was a Communist state. Not to mention the unofficial funding of Irish terrorists. And, of course, various West African factions depending on which junta holds the balance of power in any given week.
In other words, yes you've given a good reason to break international law. Unfortunately, it's painfully clear that it's not the reason the UK and US are breaking it; we're breaking it purely for our own benefit, and not for any reasons of morality.
>
> On a related note - and I'm not try to divert attention from a
> worthwhile topic - I am seriously hoping that the UN gets its act
> together and lets the US or someone else deploy a covert op into
> Nigeria to grab Taylor for trial for War Crimes he comitted in Sierra
> Leone, if African nations think they can just give sanctuary like
> that to people like that then I seriously hope someone can prove them
> wrong.
>
> With 3 US warships in the area I think it's high time a snatch team
> went and grabbed him if Nigeria fails to do the right thing.
>
> Undoubtedly one of you cna come up with an example of someone the
> west has harboured and I don't doubt that, but that does not mean we
> should let every war criminal escape, and what happened in Sierra
> Leone ranks as one of the low points of modern history.
>
> I actually think it's time that America and it's allies got tough and
> started going after everyone that should be chased down, not just
> selective nations and people, but everyone.
Here here. I'm just waiting for confirmation that Idi Amin has finally lumbered off this mortal coil too.
But again, the west supports numerous of these dictators and does so as long as they serve in our best national interests. We cannot do that with one breath, then condemn their morality with the next. Not when the UK and US are the main reason they are there in power in the first place.
> And it is time they
> looked at Guantanamo and resolved it - charge those who they can
> prove did something and release the rest with a very public apology
> and compensation. Take a minor PR hit to regain the moral high
> ground.
If they were Democrats, I believe they would; democrats are better at PR. But they're Neo-Cons, and their method of dealing with the press is to say "This is what we're doing. If you don't like it, tough." And as long as they do, that moral high ground is going to be out of their grasp.
>
> Finally, whilst were on the subject of terrorism, Daily (I think)
> Express details how they gave a reporter a false background, he got
> employed at Heathrow, and got a massive dagger and numerous other
> weapons past all security....despite security alarms being triggered
> - they just ignored him. In light of renewed intelligence that a new
> deadly attack is possible this year this has to be alarming news.
Thing is, if you pay peanuts then you get monkeys. It's difficult to motivate oneself to care about ones job when you're barely making minimum wage and generally being shat on by ones superiors. I agree; security needs to be tightened at airports. But as long as we pay security workers 9/10's of crap all, then it's not going to improve any time soon.
What I'm saying is that, as is the case wit hmany laws in this country, there are times when someone can break international law for the right reasons. Taking down dangerous regimes and wiping out those who support terrorism happens to be one of those reasons.
On a related note - and I'm not try to divert attention from a worthwhile topic - I am seriously hoping that the UN gets its act together and lets the US or someone else deploy a covert op into Nigeria to grab Taylor for trial for War Crimes he comitted in Sierra Leone, if African nations think they can just give sanctuary like that to people like that then I seriously hope someone can prove them wrong.
With 3 US warships in the area I think it's high time a snatch team went and grabbed him if Nigeria fails to do the right thing.
Undoubtedly one of you cna come up with an example of someone the west has harboured and I don't doubt that, but that does not mean we should let every war criminal escape, and what happened in Sierra Leone ranks as one of the low points of modern history.
I actually think it's time that America and it's allies got tough and started going after everyone that should be chased down, not just selective nations and people, but everyone. And it is time they looked at Guantanamo and resolved it - charge those who they can prove did something and release the rest with a very public apology and compensation. Take a minor PR hit to regain the moral high ground.
Finally, whilst were on the subject of terrorism, Daily (I think) Express details how they gave a reporter a false background, he got employed at Heathrow, and got a massive dagger and numerous other weapons past all security....despite security alarms being triggered - they just ignored him. In light of renewed intelligence that a new deadly attack is possible this year this has to be alarming news.
On a related note - and I'm not try to divert attention from a worthwhile topic - I am seriously hoping that the UN gets its act together and lets the US or someone else deploy a covert op into Nigeria to grab Taylor for trial for War Crimes he comitted in Sierra Leone, if African nations think they can just give sanctuary like that to people like that then I seriously hope someone can prove them wrong.
With 3 US warships in the area I think it's high time a snatch team went and grabbed him if Nigeria fails to do the right thing.
Undoubtedly one of you cna come up with an example of someone the west has harboured and I don't doubt that, but that does not mean we should let every war criminal escape, and what happened in Sierra Leone ranks as one of the low points of modern history.
I actually think it's time that America and it's allies got tough and started going after everyone that should be chased down, not just selective nations and people, but everyone. And it is time they looked at Guantanamo and resolved it - charge those who they can prove did something and release the rest with a very public apology and compensation. Take a minor PR hit to regain the moral high ground.
Finally, whilst were on the subject of terrorism, Daily (I think) Express details how they gave a reporter a false background, he got employed at Heathrow, and got a massive dagger and numerous other weapons past all security....despite security alarms being triggered - they just ignored him. In light of renewed intelligence that a new deadly attack is possible this year this has to be alarming news.
A brick he found down the quarry, and he'll gozz on you as well.
Hmmmm yeah, shut up.
A big stick with a nail in it
A big stick with a nail in it
Page: