Guantanamo hell

[Spirit]

No its fine for countries to become relient on natural resources. The problems arise when countries rely on other countries share of those natural resources. The US takes about 2/3's of the Worlds daily oil production and they are showing signs of being prepared to do anything to maintain such an intake. Now no matter how u dress that up its not right.

It's not fine for them to "become so reliant on natural resources". By that, I mean't reliant on other countries resources - living beyond their means. We seem to agree on that point I think you just misunderstood me US rely too much on those natural resources and that isn't fine - if you take more than you give things can't last for ever.

And Iraq was? The main argument for the case against Iraq for breaking international laws was its manufacture of WMD...and we all know what a load of shite that was/is...and besides, whos the biggest breaker of international laws? Have a guess...Infact the actual war to take Iraq was against International Law.

There was the manufactur of WMD, which although hasn't been proved hasn't been disproved either. But there was also the fact he was quite happy to sit back and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just for not supporting him, or for saying the wrong thing, or cos he didn't like the look of them. Mass murder is against international law too...

Iraq wasnt taken to uphold international law...or to fight global terrorism...or to save the Iraqi ppl. It was about good 'ol fashion power & money. Its as simple as that.

It was a bit of everything imho. Yes one of the things that was in the front of their mind was getting more power and money, yes, and that is not a good thing. But let us not lose sight of the fact that Sadam has proven himself to be a very evil man and which ever way you look at it it's very good thing he has been removed from power, and although the USA are now gaining financially from having control of the oil fields, the only people who are really losing out are the rich bastards that were controlling them before.

As I said, I fully support the fact Sadam has been removed from power - doing so has undoubtably saved uncountable lives. What I do not support is anyone else making profit out of doing so which it appears the USA will be. The profit should me made by the Iraqi people, and them alone.

 

[$kunk\\'eeD]

As I said, I fully support the fact Sadam has been removed from power - doing so has undoubtably saved uncountable lives. What I do not support is anyone else making profit out of doing so which it appears the USA will be. The profit should me made by the Iraqi people, and them alone.

end quote from above post
__________________

Im sure the secret cabal of world white leaders will be glad to hear were your support lays. Now the emergency meeting they had planned to discuss your opinons has been cancelled.

 

[Spirit]

Im sure the secret cabal of world white leaders will be glad to hear were your support lays. Now the emergency meeting they had planned to discuss your opinons has been cancelled.

If you have a point, make it...

 

[Ezby]

"Weapons of mass destructions aside, look at the horrors Sadam was inflicting on his own people - mass graves, uncountable stories of people disappearing forever etc."

True but there are many other evil regimes in this world going on... The Congo, North Korea, Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe.. which I might point out that 1000's of british citizens are involved in... we didnt go after any of these guys did we?

besides the point of the thread i know, i just thought id point it out...

 

[Spirit]

Aye I quite agree, but two wrongs do not make a right. It's sad that the reasoning behind this right was for personal profit, but my opinion remains the same that a good thing was done, regardless of the alterior motives behind it.

It's just a shame those motives were there at all, but there is still hope more good will come of the situation.

 

[Ezby]

I quite agree a good thing was done... altho there seem to be major problems now, is it not true that more US troops have died in the aftermath of the war than during it? Doesnt sound like they thought it thru very well...

 

[RaMpaGe]

but we learned from our mistakes?

they aint learning fast enuf so we speed it up a bit :p

 

[Spirit]

It is true more soldiers have died since "the end of the war" than during it, but as far as fact is concerned the war isn't over yet.

Sadam has been forced into hiding, and no longer has control over the country, but him and his troops continue to fight and until he is detained (lol, like they'll take him alive) the war will continue...

Guess they didn't think it through that well - although knowing the ego of the USA they prolly expected to walk though Iraq and capture him instantly. but we have to remember, this war is (or at least should be) against Sadam Hussain, not the ppl of Iraq.

 

[Wintermute]

Big questions, and worth coming (briefly) out of P&S retirement for...

The Guantanamo Bay situation gives me an awkward dillema: on the one hand, I believe that human rights should be absolute.

I understand however, that a large proportion of the guantanamo prisoners are not actually afghan, but muslims from other nations who were inside Afghanistan to provide muscle and support for the Taleban regime, which had zero respect for human rights itself.

There's a certain element of being hung on their own rope.

On the other part of the issue, I'm finding it hard to see the American action in Iraq as anything other than a short sighted and incredibly dangerous gamble.

Yes, Saddam has been removed form power, but at what cost? Will we have another hostile islamic theocracy in five years? America is keen to impose democracy on Iraq, but I wonder if they have actually considered what the majority view of the Iraqi people is going to be?

What will they do if elections produce a majority for Isolationist Theocrats? Allow a second Iran to form? what about human rights then?

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

oh well...
for the US administration is/was and prolly will be full of double standards...
i mean the US feels (at least that what they say) threatened by the iraq who spent like 1/400th of money for its military compared to the US that is...
weird thing is that they actually had reason to feel threatened by the former soviet union whose official goal was to destroy capitalism for about 50 years, yet they got over it

nonetheless, biological and chemical weapons r nasty buggers no doubt and i can see that they truely suspected this kind of weapons in the iraq
but y the hell so many lies about it?
painting everything black and white and on top of it drawing a picture of a holy crusader fighting the evil in this world just makes me laugh

double standards: thats the stuff thats pissing me off mainly
iraq: saddam was the american favorite ally 15 years ago
the US supported the war vs iran which was against international law with loads of arms and money
they did not care about saddam using chemical weapons as he was fighting in the american interest
they did not care about saddam slaughtering kurds up north in 1988

they did care about saddam violating international law when their interest was in danger with the invasion of kuwait

US was supporting the taliban (knowing what shitbags they were/are) as long they were pissing off the russians in afghanistan

nukes: after WW2 the US stationed nukes in the north of turkey targeted on the soviet union... - threatening its ppl
1962 the US went nuts because of the soviets stationing nukes on cuba...

the US is quick in rejecting to sign contracts to reduce the output of harmful gases i.e. because it costs money
thats just one of the many examples for the US trying to retain their power whereever they can

 

[Penny]

It is true more soldiers have died since "the end of the war" than during it, but as far as fact is concerned the war isn't over yet.

Soz to be off topic, just read the other day that more american soldiers have been killed in iraq since "the war ended" than back in all of 1991. Quite shocking really.

 

[Gen76]

Just because 1 side doesnt think much of human right, does that mean u should sink down to their level?

And didnt Bush hold a longass speech saying the war was over?

 

[Meteor]

I have heard about three islands. The two others are not that
often in the media.

 

[Wintermute]

Just because 1 side doesnt think much of human right, does that mean u should sink down to their level?

That's why it's a dillema

seriously though, It's an interesting question, and goes right to the heart of what we think human rights are about... is it actually a question of rights that these people have, and shouldn't be removed for their sake, or whether it's an index of acceptable behaviour, and not violating those rights is what keeps us human..

Short answer for me, I think, is that I care about the situation at Guantanamo, but I don't care enough to acually write to my MP, or anything else active.

 

[Alf Roberts]

Thats of course if the US cares for human rights...something that I for 1 dont think they give a toss about. They fly the HR flag when it suits but their actions tell of a different story. Look at all the past & present dictators that they have propped up. Dictators which operate their countries with v poor human rights records. Look at the US's aggressive foreign policies both political & financial that ultimately result in deaths for those at the bottom of the respective chains.

The US `power ppl' only care for HR within the US due to the fact that they are a democracy and therefore its about winning votes....outside their borders they couldnt give a fuck what goes on as long as they get what they want.

A couple of points about the whole Guantanamo Bay issue that i think are quite interesting with regards to Americas handling of it are:-

1, Even tho the US itself claims its a `War on terrorism', it wont proclaim that those held are Prisoners of War (POW's) and therefore the Geneva Convention does not apply.

2, In building cases against those held, the US is even undermining its own position with regards to its own Law cos its extracting evidence by means of torture*.

*This rule applies to UK Law as well...something Mr Blair seems to have conviently become blind to.

 

[Gen76]

USA is rules by a smal group of very rich ppl, same families who have been at it for dacades.theres nothing good or right about the US and certainly not free as they like to proclaim so often.

 

[«)Fîrë$±ørm(»]

just wondering... what makes u think any other country isnt ruled like that ie norway?

 

[-ManuZ-]

to much english 4 me

 

[BBStr@nge]

There was the manufactur of WMD, which although hasn't been proved hasn't been disproved either. But there was also the fact he was quite happy to sit back and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians just for not supporting him, or for saying the wrong thing, or cos he didn't like the look of them. Mass murder is against international law too...

Blimey.....read in isolation it is extremely difficult to decide whether you are describing an Iraqi Dictator or an American one...................

 

[Gen76]

Big corporations play a large part in any democratic countrey, but the diffrence between norway or any other euro countrey and the US is well obveus imo