May I read those? Can you link to any archive or such where you spoke out on atrocities in Korea in the 80's and 90's? I would also be interested in your words regarding Qusay Hussein's use of mustard gas and plastic shredders on his prisoners. Or your thoughts on small children being tortured to coerce information from their parents. Which forum or blog are those criticisms of yours posted on?

You can't be serious. This is ridiculous.

 

By the way. Saddam Hussein was an evil man but he had the help from America while it suited America and they helped him with many of those crimes of which they later accused him, including the use of poison gas. For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent. They armed him and helped him use those arms for heavens sakes!

 

You can't be serious. This is ridiculous.

Yes I can be serious. It is not the least bit ridiculous.

You obviously study this kind of thing a great deal. (Lots of references at your disposal - many articles you've found.) Surely you would be willing to share on those other human rights violations you've spoken out about?

For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent. They armed him and helped him use those arms for heavens sakes!

"America" playing holier than thou? Explain.

 

Yes I can be serious. It is not the least bit ridiculous.

Yes it is ridiculous. We are discussing America's actions in Iraq. We are not discussing me.

You obviously study this kind of thing a great deal. (Lots of references at your disposal - many articles you've found.) Surely you would be willing to share on those other human rights violations you've spoken out about?

No. I am not willing to share my private life. I am willing to defend my point of view with evidence. That is all. Google is there for others who would wish to contradict my cites. And, believe me, I am spending more time on this thread than I should. It is very time-consuming.

"America" playing holier than thou? Explain.

By condemning Saddam Hussein and justifying the invasion with phrases like "he used poison gas" when it is well documented that the USA helped him in those attacks. At that time he was America's ally and all was acceptable. Then America turned around on him and those things became atrocities. For America to condemn him for what they helped him do is just surreal.

Some more illustrations of what America has been up to. Maybe many Americans do not hear about these things because they do not want to hear them but I guarantee they get divulged amply in other parts of the world.

Penalty for torturing a prisoner to death: reprimand

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401544.html

Summary: American army kidnap and torture the sons of an Iraqi general in an effort to get the father to turn himself in and when the general turns himself in they torture him to death. The officer who did it is court martialled and gets off with a reprimand, no prison time at all.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Rueful_Rumsfeld_050704.htm
The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is ``going to get worse'' and warned that the most ``disturbing'' revelations haven't yet been made public.
``The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here,'' he said. ``We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/politics/12detain.html
Washington - Two Afghan prisoners who died in American custody in Afghanistan in December 2002 were chained to the ceiling, kicked and beaten by American soldiers in sustained assaults that caused their deaths, according to Army criminal investigative reports that have not yet been made public.

One soldier, Pfc. Willie V. Brand, was charged with manslaughter in a closed hearing last month in Texas in connection with one of the deaths, another Army document shows. Private Brand, who acknowledged striking a detainee named Dilawar 37 times, was accused of having maimed and killed him over a five-day period by "destroying his leg muscle tissue with repeated unlawful knee strikes."

The attacks on Mr. Dilawar were so severe that "even if he had survived, both legs would have had to be amputated," the Army report said, citing a medical examiner.
[snip]
American military officials in Afghanistan initially said the deaths of Mr. Habibullah, in an isolation cell on Dec. 4, 2002, and Mr. Dilawar, in another such
cell six days later, were from natural causes. Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, the American commander of allied forces in Afghanistan at the time, denied then that prisoners had been chained to the ceiling or that conditions at Bagram endangered the lives of prisoners.

But after an investigation by The New York Times, the Army acknowledged that the deaths were homicides.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3176362

The U.S. Army says Ibrahim Al-Nedawy died of natural causes at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. But his family says the 63-year-old villager and tribal leader was tortured and murdered during interrogation at the notorious facility. NPR's Ari Shapiro reports.

Al-Nedawy's death certificate says he died of cardiac arrest on Jan. 8. His son, Ahmed, who was at Abu Ghraib with him, says Al-Nedawy died after a month and a half of beatings and humiliation. "He was tortured, and the torture was continuous," Ahmed Al-Nedawy says.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Abuse_of_Captives_052604.htm

WASHINGTON, May 25 - An Army summary of deaths and mistreatment involving prisoners in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan shows a widespread pattern of abuse involving more military units than previously known.
[snip]
But the details paint a broad picture of misconduct, and show that in many cases among the 37 prisoners who have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army did not conduct autopsies and says it cannot determine the causes of the deaths.
[snip]
Both deaths were ruled homicides within days, but military spokesmen in Afghanistan initially portrayed at least one as being the result of natural causes.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5761936/
He cites evidence that doctors or medics falsified death certificates to cover up homicides, hid evidence of beatings and revived a prisoner so he could be further tortured. No reports of abuses were initiated by medical personnel until the official investigation into Abu Ghraib began, he found.
[snip]
A military police officer reported a medic inserted an intravenous tube into the corpse of a detainee who died while being tortured to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital, Miles said.

At prisons in both Iraq and Afghanistan, "Physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke or natural causes without noting the unnatural (cause) of the death," Miles wrote.

He cites an example from a Human Rights Watch report in which soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated he died of "natural causes ... during his sleep." However, after media coverage, the Pentagon changed the cause of death to homicide by blunt force injuries and suffocation.

The following page is well worth reading in its entirety.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/13/iraq/main617289.shtml
June 1, 2004
USA Today reports that, "more than a third of the prisoners who died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were shot, strangled or beaten by U.S. personnel before they died, according to death certificates and a high-ranking U.S. military official." Fifteen of the 37 deaths in detention involve prisoners who "have been killed or put in grave danger by U.S. troops or interrogators. In some cases, the immediate cause of death was listed as a heart attack, but that was in turn caused by a beating."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1223358,00.html

The original US autopsy said he had died of a heart attack. It now appears he was suffocated during interrogation when a CIA officer put him in a sleeping bag and sat on him.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_6
The death of Mohamed Taiq Zaid was initially attributed to "heat"; it is currently and belatedly being investigated as a possible homicide due to abusive exposure to the hot Iraqi climate and deprivation of water.

Eight prisoners suffered "natural" deaths from heart attacks or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Threats, beatings, fear, police interrogation, and arrests are known to cause "homicide by heart attack" or life-threatening heart failure. People with preexisting heart disease, dehydration, hyperthermia, or exhaustion are especially susceptible.[11-15] No forensic investigation of lethal "heart attacks" explores the possibility that these men died of stress-induced heart attacks.
[snip]
Sher Mohammad Khan was picked up in Afghanistan in September 2004. Shortly thereafter, his bruised body was given to his family. Military officials told journalists that he had died of a heart attack within hours of being taken into custody. No investigation, autopsy, or death certificate is available

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_6
The 70-year-old man had a hip replacement and walked with a cane. The Christian Peacemaker Team reports the son as saying[18]:
They pushed him like a criminal; they didn't let him use his cane because his hands were tied. They handcuffed and put plastic hoods on my father, my uncle and my brother. I heard my father say, "I can't breathe. . ." They pushed him into the vehicle. My father was in very bad condition at that time. He couldn't talk because of the bag. . . . I could hear him gasping . . . After that, my father stopped moving . . . [An] officer told me my father died from a heart attack.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

Maher Arar (born 1970) is a Syrian living in Canada with dual Canadian-Syrian citizenship and a telecommunications engineer who was deported to Syria and tortured, in an alleged example of the United States policy of rendition.

He was detained during a layover at John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunis. He was held in solitary confinement in the U.S. for nearly two weeks, questioned, and denied meaningful access to a lawyer. The U.S. Government suspected him of being a member of Al Qaeda and deported him, not to Canada, his current home, but to his native Syria, even though the nation is known to use torture on suspects.[1] He was detained in Syria for almost a year, during which time he was, according to the findings of the Arar Commission, regularly tortured, until his release to Canada.

The Canadian government has publicly cleared Arar of any links to terrorism, and gave him a $10.5 million Canadian dollar settlement. The Syrian government reports it knows of no links of Arar to terrorism. The United States government, however, refuses to clear Arar’s name and continues to have both him and his family on a watchlist.

The following article is well worth reading in its entirety.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6
Outsourcing torture

The extraordinary-rendition program bears little relation to the system of due process afforded suspects in crimes in America. Terrorism suspects in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East have often been abducted by hooded or masked American agents, then forced onto a Gulfstream V jet, like the one described by Arar. This jet, which has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations, such as Bayard Foreign Marketing, of Portland, Oregon, has clearance to land at U.S. military bases. Upon arriving in foreign countries, rendered suspects often vanish. Detainees are not provided with lawyers, and many families are not informed of their whereabouts.

The most common destinations for rendered suspects are Egypt, Morocco, Syria, and Jordan, all of which have been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department, and are known to torture suspects.

This one too

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/507284_6

After interrogation, a sandbag was put over his head. When he tried to remove it, guards made him jump up and down for 20 minutes with his wrists tied in front of him and then 20 minutes more with his wrists bound behind his back with a plastic binder. The bound and head-bagged man was put to bed.
[snip]
The next morning, he was found dead. The body had "bloodshot" eyes, lacerations on his wrists from the plastic ties, unexplained bruises on his abdomen, and a fresh, bruised laceration on the back of his head. US Army investigators noted that the body did not have defensive bruises on his arms, an odd notation given that a man cannot raise bound arms in defense. No autopsy was performed. The death certificate lists the cause of death as unknown. It seems likely that Mr. Kenami died of positional asphyxia because of how he was restrained, hooded, and positioned. Positional asphyxia looks just like death by a natural heart attack except for those telltale conjunctival hemorrhages in his eyes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/13/AR2005111301061.html

Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html

The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors.
[…]
The Human Rights Watch report-as well as accounts given to Senate staff-describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up.
[…]
The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold-all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel-apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers-also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse.
[…]
Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")-or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture.
[…]
Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.
[…]
"Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."
[…]
The Human Rights Watch report describes the Captain, in particular, as deeply frustrated by his attempts to report the abuse to his own superiors, who repeatedly instructed him to keep quiet, to ignore what he'd seen and to consider the implications for his career.
[…]
The Captain also says he was told there were pictures of abuse that occurred at Camp Mercury similar to photos taken by Military Police at Abu Ghraib prison. It is not clear whether the Captain saw the pictures, but he has said, sources tell TIME, that the photos were so similar to what was depicted at Abu Ghraib that, when the scandal erupted, soldiers burned them out of fear that they too could be punished.
[…]
Since the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, hundreds of cases of alleged abuse have emerged based on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. government documents, prisoner legal filings and other sources. The Army alone says it has conducted investigations into more than 400 allegations of detainee mistreatment. To date, more than 230 Army personnel have been dealt with in courts martial, non-judicial punishments and other administrative actions.

http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=19298&c=36
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and "OGA" (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.

According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by "strangulation," "asphyxiation" and "blunt force injuries." An overwhelming majority of the so-called "natural deaths" were attributed to "Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease."

While newspapers have recently reported deaths of detainees in CIA custody, today's documents show that the problem is pervasive, involving Navy Seals and Military Intelligence too.

 

Saddam's trial was a farce. International observers criticised it as fundamentally unfair. And nothing needs to be said about his execution and how it was done.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805H.shtml
Saddam Hussein, a Biased Trial
By Barry Lando - Le Monde - Monday 17 October 2005

...the trial of the former dictator had all the ingredients to become a deplorable global media circus, in which the world's most eminent leaders, past and present, would find themselves in the position of co-defendants for complicity in certain crimes against humanity committed under Saddam's brutal reign. Such a thing would have been easily defensible for Saddam Hussein's lawyers.

Among those leaders figure, notably, American presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush father and son, Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Jacques Chirac, King Hussein, and Prince Fahd - without even counting the bureaucrats who directed the foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence services of their respective countries.
[...]
If - sinners by commission and omission - they had not supplied him with weapons, finance, intelligence, and diplomatic support, Saddam would never have been able to commit so many horrors.

I wondered for a long time how the Americans and their Iraqi allies would manage to avoid Saddam's trial being transformed into an explosive chronicle of the cynicism and cupidity that have fashioned the history of modern Iraq. God knows, Saddam and his trusted lieutenants, such as former Foreign Affairs Minister Tarik Aziz, must have fascinating stories to tell about the clandestine agreements they ran with highly placed political leaders and big companies from the world over.
[...]
However, the Americans and their Iraqi allies have discreetly resolved the problem of Saddam's trial. First of all, by deciding to avoid the jurisdiction of an international court or a group of independent jurists. Instead, they have established their own special Iraqi Tribunal.
[...]
The same logic would apply to Saddam's gassing of thousands of Kurds in Halabja, in 1988. Following the rules of the Tribunal, there's no way that allows Saddam's lawyers to make known that Iraqi chemical weapons were supplied principally by French, Belgian, and German companies whose engineers and chemists knew exactly what Saddam was preparing. Nor that the United States had previously supplied Saddam with satellite images that allowed him to attack Iranian troops with chemical weapons; or, furthermore, that for years the United States and its allies blocked international campaigns designed to condemn Saddam for his use of mustard and neuro-toxic gases.

 

I got it several pages ago, you hate my country to the point that you can see nothing else. That's fine, never thought anyone was perfect. People make mistakes, and it's easy to look back and criticize. Obviously it's easy enough to dig up the fuel for your hatred. Never seen someone go to such great lengths to justify such a negetive opinion.

Guess you can search Google, and find tons of stuff on what Bush did wrong, but nothing that feeds your rage, when it comes discussing a better solution to the terrorism problem. Best I can figure, you don't see that there is a problem with terrorism.

I'd like to see all nuclear weapons destroyed, nobody needs then, and hopeful nobody ever get in office in any country, that would actually use one. Personally, I'm very concerned about countries that have trouble feeding, providing health care, and other basic needs, looking toget into the nuclear weapons business

 

You misunderstand me...

When you said "For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent" in reply to my request for how you've "always criticised violations of human rights when they came from other countries" - I simply wanted to know what you meant by "America."

If that's too inconvenient, or if backing up your claim to equity is too inconvenient, then I will simply leave you to your day. May it be a pleasant one.

 

I am going to stay on the sideline of this one. I have been banned from 3 different US based forums for my views on Nukes, Invasions and GW Bush. (freedom of speech sucks).
What would however be interesting, would be a poll or 2, comparing views with nationality/region, as I find the general population of various nations (and regions) particularly polarized for one reason or another.

 

I got it several pages ago, you hate my country to the point that you can see nothing else.

No, you still don't get it. I do not hate your country, I hate what your government is doing. Furthermore it is not just me, which would be unimportant, it is the majority of the world who hates what America is doing.

That's fine, never thought anyone was perfect. People make mistakes,

That is a very weak admission. Like saying Hitler had his flaws. This is very serious stuff.

and it's easy to look back and criticize.

I wish this was something in the past but no, this is America today. This is what America is doing today, as we speak.

Obviously it's easy enough to dig up the fuel for your hatred. Never seen someone go to such great lengths to justify such a negetive opinion.

This is not about me. When my citations prove you were wrong, instead of accepting your opinion was wrong and condemning what America is doing you try to make it a flaw of me. You want to accuse me of providing excessive proof but you know full well you were denying what is evident and when I prove it with citations you just change the subject. This is not about me. This is about what America is doing and you just will not clearly declare that what America is doing is wrong. You will go to any lengths to avoid calling what is clearly evil "evil".

Guess you can search Google, and find tons of stuff on what Bush did wrong, but nothing that feeds your rage, when it comes discussing a better solution to the terrorism problem. Best I can figure, you don't see that there is a problem with terrorism.

Best I can see you still insist, in spite of all the evidence I have presented, that all these immoral things being done somehow help or even have some relation to the "war on terra". It is patently false and absurd and yet you somehow insist in implying that.

Like somehow *I* have to come up with a solution to a problem or else America is free to disregard all decency. This is like a Palestinian saying that it is OK for some Palestinians to resort to terrorism as long as the palestinian problem exists and asks me how I would resolve it. It is a false dichotomy. I do not have to have a solution to the Palestinian problem in order to condem any form of terrorism and, furthermore, even if I did want to propose a solution to the Palestinian problem, I would not do it in a thread condemning terrorism because (a) it somehow seems to accept the premise and (b) it sidetracks the discussion which is about terrorism never being acceptable. It is not about terrorism never beeing acceptable once we have solved the palestinian problem.

This thread is about America's terrorism of state and that is *never* acceptable. That is an absolute, unqualified "never". Because if some things are soemtimes acceptable then the Constitution and the declaration of Human Rights mean nothing. There are mere suggestion to be respected or not as the ruler in charge sees fit.

I have shown you evidence that other countries have dealt with terrorism within the rule of law and human rights but you seem to ignore that.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=3234

After three and a half months of hearings from over 300 witnesses and four months of deliberations, a Spanish court pronounced a sentence on the twenty-eight accused in the “11-M” trial on October 30. The court announced that an autonomous terrorist cell of a ‘jihadi type’ was responsible for planning and carrying out the Atocha train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, which killed 191 people and wounded over 1,000.

No torture, no abridgment of rights, no shameful things of the type America is doing. Just plain, old fashioned, rule of law. You know, like America likes to boast but only pays lip sevice to these days.

This has the added advantage that the Muslim community feel they are being treated fairly, as it should be. Then you have friends in that community who are willing to denounce those who may be planning something. It makes prevention easier. It makes people less likely to be radicalized. I mean, it is just common sense. What America is doing, OTOH, is just unnecessarily making enemies left and right. This is pretty stupid.

I'd like to see all nuclear weapons destroyed, nobody needs then, and hopeful nobody ever get in office in any country, that would actually use one. Personally, I'm very concerned about countries that have trouble feeding, providing health care, and other basic needs, looking to get into the nuclear weapons business

Yes, I already quoted

"The aggressor is always peace-loving; he would prefer to take over our country unopposed."
- Carl von Clausewitz

You can be as concerned as you want but it is not America's role to tell other countries what they can and cannot do and as long as America is trying to do just that then other countries will seek ways of defending themselves from America.

 

You misunderstand me...

When you said "For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent" in reply to my request for how you've "always criticised violations of human rights when they came from other countries" - I simply wanted to know what you meant by "America."

I am not sure I understand but I'll try to answer. When I say "For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent" when referring to accusations of Saddam Hussein having used chemical weapons and using this as a justification for the invasion of Iraq. In any case it provides no justification except in the minds of those who somehow believe America has a God given right to rule other countries but it is obscene that the American government and American individuals would use this argument when it was America who supported Saddam Hussein in such deeds. If Saddam Hussein was going to be tried for crimes against humanity then Donald Rumsfeld should have been there right beside him. The trial was a sham. That was not Justice, it was victor's "justice". It was rigged and it was a shame. Maybe justice could have been done in an international tribunal but America would not allow any posibility for a fair trial because evidence would be brought up which America did not want brought up. And the final execution was just shameful. The whole thing is a stain on America.

ETA: on re-reading the post I think it is quite clear in its meaning and speaks for itself.

By the way. Saddam Hussein was an evil man but he had the help from America while it suited America and they helped him with many of those crimes of which they later accused him, including the use of poison gas. For America to play holier than thou now is just indecent. They armed him and helped him use those arms for heavens sakes!

I am not sure if you are being difficult or if there really is something unclear in there.

 

I am going to stay on the sideline of this one. I have been banned from 3 different US based forums for my views on Nukes, Invasions and GW Bush. (freedom of speech sucks).
What would however be interesting, would be a poll or 2, comparing views with nationality/region, as I find the general population of various nations (and regions) particularly polarized for one reason or another.

I have no allegiance to any country or people, only to my ethics and sense of morality. I do not understand those who feel the need to defend indefensible actions of their governments. I think it is a very misguided thing which originates in insecurity. I think many Americans have never left their country and have no experience abroad and they feel now under siege, in great part because their government feeds that fear, and they feel they have to defend their government right or wrong or somehow the terrorists will come and get them. I think it is mainly ignorance. When I have talked to well-educated, well-travelled Americans I have not seen this mentality. They mostly realise the stupidity of all this and the damage it is doing but this class of people are a minority in every country and the American government now feeds of the votes of the scared, ignorant masses who would be ready to burn witches if GWB told them it would help.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0819-33.htm

Two years after the march from Selma to Montgomery Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. took the pulpit at Riverside Church in New York City and gave a speech titled “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence.” Today we can substitute “Iraq” for “Vietnam.” Dr. King spoke clearly:

“Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam.”

Ignore. That’s what the vast majority of Germans did in the 1930s as Hitler curtailed civil liberties and launched aggressive wars. [...] ...how it could possibly be that, highly educated and cultured as they were, the Germans for the most part could simply ignore. Why was it that the institutional churches, Catholic and Evangelical Lutheran, could not find their voice? Why was it that so few spoke out?
[..]
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. began by quoting a statement by Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” Dr. King added, “That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.”

And that time has come for us in relation to Iraq. But where are the Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Iraq?

There is Such a Thing as “Too Late”

Schuld
...schuldig bin ich Anders als Ihr denkt.
Ich musste früher meine Pflicht erkennen;
Ich musste schärfer Unheil Unheil nennen;
Mein Urteil habe ich zu lang gelenkt...
Ich habe gewarnt,
Aber nicht genug, und klar;
Und heute weiß ich, was ich schuldig war.

Guilt
I am guilty,
But not in the way you think.
I should have earlier recognized my duty;
I should have more sharply called evil evil;
I reined in my judgment too long.
I did warn,
But not enough, and clear;
And today I know what I was guilty of.

Albrecht Haushofer, professor from the University of Berlin, executed by the Nazis.

 

After three and a half months of hearings from over 300 witnesses and four months of deliberations, a Spanish court pronounced a sentence on the twenty-eight accused in the “11-M” trial on October 30. The court announced that an autonomous terrorist cell of a ‘jihadi type’ was responsible for planning and carrying out the Atocha train bombings in Madrid on March 11, 2004, which killed 191 people and wounded over 1,000.
No torture, no abridgment of rights, no shameful things of the type America is doing. Just plain, old fashioned, rule of law. You know, like America likes to boast but only pays lip sevice to these days.

This has the added advantage that the Muslim community feel they are being treated fairly, as it should be. Then you have friends in that community who are willing to denounce those who may be planning something. It makes prevention easier. It makes people less likely to be radicalized. I mean, it is just common sense. What America is doing, OTOH, is just unnecessarily making enemies left and right. This is pretty stupid.

So, since only one of the 20, 9-11 bombers survived and captured, America should have on tried him, and let the muslim comunity find and deal with the rest, instead going overseas looking for them ourselves?

Also, the topic of this thread had nothing to do with 'evil america', it was about nuclear weapons in the middle east. Yout position seems to be that every country should have nuclear weapons, to protect against the 'evil american government'. I think this is insane. Instead of 5 comercial jets, to large buildings, and over 3500 people, we could loose whole cities instead.

I understand your point that America is a little quick to jump into war, especially those that aren't our own. But how many of those countries have an American flag flying? What do we take away, that must be protected? Did america take Sadam's wealth and money, or is it all still in Iraq?

The cold war was bad enough with two countries battling to build more nuclear weapons the what would be need to destroy the world, regardless if they were launched or not. But you seem to support every country's right to start that war again. Seems many of those middle eastern countries do little to nothing to discourge terrorist bombings. Can we expect them to take much action when the terrorist bust into nuclear facilities and take what they need?

 

Harvey makes a statement and you rail against "America." I make a statement and you rail against "America."

It is not "America" that suggests everyone give up nukes, it is Harvey. Harvey is a person, not a nation.

It is not "America" that wants to hear your alleged speaking out against other human rights violations, it is me. I am a person, not a nation.

You ignore our questions and comments and use the opportunity to push your own agenda. This is exactly what American politicians do. This is why I observe that you have met the enemy and he is you. You have become the thing you claim to hate.

For what little it may be worth, I feel sad for you.

 

So, since only one of the 20, 9-11 bombers survived and captured, America should have on tried him, and let the muslim comunity find and deal with the rest, instead going overseas looking for them ourselves?

Since the war in Iraq is a diversion which has impeded the hunt for Usama Ben Laden this is a good question. Why did Bush decide to forget about going after those responsible for 9/11 and divert resources for a war in Iraq which had nothing to do with it. What do you think is the answer to this question?

Also, the topic of this thread had nothing to do with 'evil america', it was about nuclear weapons in the middle east. Yout position seems to be that every country should have nuclear weapons, to protect against the 'evil american government'. I think this is insane. Instead of 5 comercial jets, to large buildings, and over 3500 people, we could loose whole cities instead.

Well, you may think it is insane but what counts is that Iran feels threatened by America (and I think it is with good reason but that is beside the point), and they feel they need to protect themselves. Or is it that America is the only country which is entitled to protect itself?

I understand your point that America is a little quick to jump into war, especially those that aren't our own. But how many of those countries have an American flag flying? What do we take away, that must be protected? Did america take Sadam's wealth and money, or is it all still in Iraq?

This is so utterly stupid that it is beyond comprehension. America has destroyed the country, the infrastructure, the social and political organization, it has killed, maimed iraqis, it has taken away their freedom, it is trying to set up permanent military bases in their country, it has stolen their sovereingty and their oil. And you ask "what do we take away"?

The cold war was bad enough with two countries battling to build more nuclear weapons the what would be need to destroy the world, regardless if they were launched or not. But you seem to support every country's right to start that war again. Seems many of those middle eastern countries do little to nothing to discourge terrorist bombings. Can we expect them to take much action when the terrorist bust into nuclear facilities and take what they need?

Look, I do not like nuclear proliferation any more than you do but is a direct result, among other things, of American policies. It is America who has decided to upset the balance and to start attacking unilaterally and to pull out of limitation treaties. To expect the rest of the world to just roll over is just stupid. It ain't gonna happen. If you do not like the current climate of tension which leads to nuclear proliferation there is one principal cause and that is the policies of the American government. They have chosen force and tension over understanding and diplomacy. Or do you think the rest of the world would continue to play nice in spite of the new threat?

 

Harvey makes a statement and you rail against "America." I make a statement and you rail against "America."

No, I do not think that is a fair representation. He makes a statement which assumes America is a benevolent country which no one could have any reason to feel threatened by and I say that is not so. And when I say something which contradicts that you or him say it is not true or I hate America and when I provide cites you say it is just an isolated example and when I provide a basketful more of cites you just keep attacking *me* and you will do anything to not say "what the American government is doing is wrong and should be stopped". No, you will never say that, you keep dancing around the issues and excusing what the American government is doing without realizing that this is the mirror position of those who justify terrorist attacks against America. You are just extremes of the same fanatical mindset. "If my people do it then it is right." If you justify wars of aggression and other evils when America does it then it follows that you have to accept it just as well when others do it, that is my point.

It is not "America" that suggests everyone give up nukes, it is Harvey. Harvey is a person, not a nation.

And I am responding to Harvey and to you not to "America". But his arguments are based on the false notion that Amrica is good and right and the rest of the world is wrong and that is not how the world works. That is what I am trying to explain to him. That the majority of the world do not think that way. That the majority of the world see America as an extreme of which they want no part.

It is not "America" that wants to hear your alleged speaking out against other human rights violations, it is me. I am a person, not a nation.

It is to you and whoever is reading this that I post for. I have no illusion that "America" will be reading this.

You ignore our questions and comments and use the opportunity to push your own agenda.

Can you point me to any questions I have left unanswetred? Because you will notice I try to be particularly careful in addressing each and every point put to me. Have you noticed how I do that in every single post? Now, if you tell me what question of yours I have not answered I will do my best to address it. What is it?

This is exactly what American politicians do. This is why I observe that you have met the enemy and he is you. You have become the thing you claim to hate.

For what little it may be worth, I feel sad for you.

I have asked you to refrain from personal attacks before and the fact that you are a moderator here means you should be preventing this kind of behavior, not doing it yourself. If you do it again I shall ignore your posts and stop responding to you. I always take personal attacks as a sign that the other side is out of arguments.

 

The proposal of the OP is that other countries should not have nuclear weapons even if America does. And this is based on the premise that other countries are bad while the USA is good.

I do not accept the premise and I am pointing out why I do not accept the premise. I think there is some ignorance on the part of those who believe their point of view is the only good one and do not realize that it is just as subjective as others. America is not the world and does not rule the world and is not entitled to rule the world and Americans need to understand this. Most of the world is very different from the USA and does not want to be ruled according to America's wishes. As long as America wants to dominate other countries there will be friction and those people will fight back.

Cet animal est très mechant,
Quand on l'attaque il se défend.
(La Ménagerie, Theodore P.K.)

This animal is very wicked,
When attacked it will defend itself.

As they say, the cockroach divides the animals into those who are peaceful and non-aggressive, like the lion and the tiger, and those who are viciously aggressive, like the chicken and the lizard.

What I am trying to point out is that if you want to diminish nuclear proliferation you need to reduce tensions and make countries feel safe and when you are continually threatening other countries with military action this is not conducive to anything but defense buildup.

What I am trying to point out is that the premise that the USA is a peace loving nation is pure hogwash and propaganda because in fact it has attacked other countries a great number of times whereas the supposedly "dangerous" country, Iran, has not. The notion that Iran has any desire to attack America is pure made up bullshit by the neocons who want another war.

And yet many Americans, like a couple in this thread, just do not understand, just will not admit, no matter what the evidence, that America has done wrong or evil. They just will not do it.

If America wanted Iran could be a country on relatively good terms with America, similar to Saudi Arabia (which is much more fundamentalist BTW). It is America who is creating the tension, not Iran. And yet the American government and many Americans keep blaming Iran.

As long as America continues the present policy of aggression other countries will feel the need to defend themselves and there is nothing America can do about it. Attacking Iran, as much as many neocons want to do it, might delay Iran getting nukes but it would not prevent it and it would harden their resolve.

Not to mention the damage that would do to the already tarnished American standing in the world. Not to mention that America has its hands full in Iraq right now and it would be pure folly to open up another can of worms. I wouldn't put it past this president though.

 

The proposal of the OP is that other countries should not have nuclear weapons even if America does. And this is based on the premise that other countries are bad while the USA is good.

While i disagree with Mr. GS3's claims about Americans (not American policy though).
One should know only one country has used nukes as a weapon in history and i m sorry to say the president then didnt even feel remorse for his action. That was one crime even God would not forgive.

 

Since the war in Iraq is a diversion which has impeded the hunt for Usama Ben Laden this is a good question. Why did Bush decide to forget about going after those responsible for 9/11 and divert resources for a war in Iraq which had nothing to do with it. What do you think is the answer to this question?

I think he just changed tactics, since chasing around Afganistan didn't work out too well. Too easy for the to hide in plain site. Iraq is more of a duck-hunt, you sit and wait for the 'ducks' to come to you. Probably why no effort seems to have been made to close the borders. Iraq is a country that borders most every other middle eastern country, sort of like sitting in the middle of the pond, where 'ducks frequent...

Well, you may think it is insane but what counts is that Iran feels threatened by America (and I think it is with good reason but that is beside the point), and they feel they need to protect themselves. Or is it that America is the only country which is entitled to protect itself?

Nuclear weapons protect no one, are are a danger to everyone. Doesn't matter where on earth the bomb goes off, everyone gets to share in the results, even the people it's supposedly protecting. We've had them for more then 60 years, but haven't used them since WWII. Doesn't seem to support you views on America. If we didn't care about life, as control, why wouldn't we use them? We are responsable enough never to use them. Iran barely admits to having a weapons program, or an interest in pursuing nuclear weapons, how do you know their intent is purely for threat purposes? What of the next leader of Iran?

This is so utterly stupid that it is beyond comprehension. America has destroyed the country, the infrastructure, the social and political organization, it has killed, maimed iraqis, it has taken away their freedom, it is trying to set up permanent military bases in their country, it has stolen their sovereingty and their oil. And you ask "what do we take away"?

Not worth going into another 'Evil American' tirade...

Look, I do not like nuclear proliferation any more than you do but is a direct result, among other things, of American policies. It is America who has decided to upset the balance and to start attacking unilaterally and to pull out of limitation treaties. To expect the rest of the world to just roll over is just stupid. It ain't gonna happen. If you do not like the current climate of tension which leads to nuclear proliferation there is one principal cause and that is the policies of the American government. They have chosen force and tension over understanding and diplomacy. Or do you think the rest of the world would continue to play nice in spite of the new threat?

You can't blame America for everything... Bigger and better weapons have been a goal of most any warring people. It's also the natural order of the animal kindom. Being an American, I'll never accept that my country is the cause all evil in this world. It was here a long time before the europeans took the lands from the native people (bastards).