NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm a swedish and socialist but I have to mention one thing the Bush regime was smart with. By banning cameras from the prisoncamps they found a good they to prevent another torture scandale involving U.S. soldiers. Because Amnesty and other organisation and invividuals have protest againt and reported the americans mistreatment and torture of prisoners, before and afterward. But the only time the media and the public have really reacted was then it was pictures of it. If you can't see it don't have happen seem to be philosofy that work.

If you can't see it don't have happen seem to be philosofy that work.

yes, the ostrage theorum is alive and well in Soviet Amerika.

lol, people are taught that if something isnt on TV, then its not important.

If we needed to know, it would be on TV.

ON TV!

smartness? oh for god's sake...

Give him a break- He said he's Swedish, so English isn't his first language.

smartness? oh for god's sake...

A Bush supporter correcting someone's English... GOD I LOVE IRONY!

I'm a swedish and socialist but I have to mention one thing the Bush regime was smart with. By banning cameras from the prisoncamps they found a good they to prevent another torture scandale involving U.S. soldiers. Because Amnesty and other organisation and invividuals have protest againt and reported the americans mistreatment and torture of prisoners, before and afterward. But the only time the media and the public have really reacted was then it was pictures of it. If you can't see it don't have happen seem to be philosofy that work.
Tjenare grabben! Nordbagge bak tastene! ;)

Yes, it's quite true. And this 'if you can't see it don't have happened' is also the reason why everyone think the US is just as bad as Saddam, and the reason why they compare mistreatment done by the US with real torture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing the actions of the US in this case. I'm merely pointing out that real torture is a thousand times worse. When you start applying power tools and electricity to various body parts, then we're talking torture. (Or when you have to listen and watch when it's done to your wife and children...)

This did go on in Saddams regime. But since Iraq was never as open as the US is, as you said, 'if you can't see it don't have happened'.

How often did you hear people being outraged about the evils going on in Iraq? How often did you hear people demand that actions were taken to stop this evil? I don't think very often.

And, paradoxally, when actions were taken that stopped this, these actions were even condemned. And the lesser evil following in these actions have attracted much more criticisms than the greater evil that was stopped.

And the reason... The US is an open democracy, allowing its fault to be seen at criticised. Iraq never was. So you're right about 'if you can't see it don't have happened'. But I think you're applying it to the wrong people.

Tjenare grabben! Nordbagge bak tastene! ;)

Yes, it's quite true. And this 'if you can't see it don't have happened' is also the reason why everyone think the US is just as bad as Saddam, and the reason why they compare mistreatment done by the US with real torture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing the actions of the US in this case. I'm merely pointing out that real torture is a thousand times worse. When you start applying power tools and electricity to various body parts, then we're talking torture. (Or when you have to listen and watch when it's done to your wife and children...)

This did go on in Saddams regime. But since Iraq was never as open as the US is, as you said, 'if you can't see it don't have happened'.

How often did you hear people being outraged about the evils going on in Iraq? How often did you hear people demand that actions were taken to stop this evil? I don't think very often.

And, paradoxally, when actions were taken that stopped this, these actions were even condemned. And the lesser evil following in these actions have attracted much more criticisms than the greater evil that was stopped.

And the reason... The US is an open democracy, allowing its fault to be seen at criticised. Iraq never was. So you're right about 'if you can't see it don't have happened'. But I think you're applying it to the wrong people.


Some thing that you can see if you take a little time to browse the web, is that many of these dictators (Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos and even the Taliban and Saddam Hussein) were once allies of the Americans and that many of the people who commited these acts of torture where trained on American soil in Fort Benning, Georgia.

EL JARDIN, why are you digging up eight-month-old threads?
:confused:

NOTE:
Wow, I think this thread is older than my forum account.

NOTE:
Wow, I think this thread is older than my forum account.

It's definitely older than mine...

EL JARDIN, why are you digging up eight-month-old threads?
:confused:

NOTE:
Wow, I think this thread is older than my forum account.


Because I think history is important.

Some thing that you can see if you take a little time to browse the web, is that many of these dictators (Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos and even the Taliban and Saddam Hussein) were once allies of the Americans and that many of the people who commited these acts of torture where trained on American soil in Fort Benning, Georgia.

Actually we never helped the taliban. and only members of south america and central america can be trained in the US. And the school of Americas was used to put professionalism into the militaries of south and central america. Now you can pick on the few bad eggs and thats fine but thats not the purpose of the school of americas. and if you know what the real purpose was then your better than most that i have met.

A Bush supporter correcting someone's English... GOD I LOVE IRONY!

Actually, that's not ironic at all.

First, I assume you have issues with Bush's use of English. Why would a Bush supporter automatically speak English poorly?

Second, it's not cool to make fun of someone's speech impediment.

If you want to belittle Bush's policies, go for it. If you hate the man for appearing smug or whatever, that's fine. But disabilities are not cool to make fun of.

We actually did arm Afghanistan back in the 80's and early 90's when the former Soviet Union was occupying their country. We trained them, armed them and after it was over they used the guns, ammo, and knowledge to attack us. Doesn't seem grateful, which is all the more reason we should be the 911 of the world.

As for the tv stuff about the war in Iraq, I don't think there should be cameras in prisons or any place where military is holding prisoners. There are ways we get information from prisoners, and most of modern America is not ready to see it, or even know about it. Its a 'need to know' basis, and they don't need to know.

it's not cool to make fun of someone's speech impediment.

In this case, it is, because Bush fucked his speech with drug and alcahol abuse. It's not a natural impediment.

Actually we never helped the taliban. and only members of south america and central america can be trained in the US. And the school of Americas was used to put professionalism into the militaries of south and central america. Now you can pick on the few bad eggs and thats fine but thats not the purpose of the school of americas. and if you know what the real purpose was then your better than most that i have met.

1980 - Soviet troops install a puppet regime in Kabul. The U.S., Pakistan, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia offer support to mujahideen "freedom fighters" as they begin a guerrilla war against the Soviets. These mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan). Reagan referred to these mujahideen as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments.

1980 - Soviet troops install a puppet regime in Kabul. The U.S., Pakistan, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia offer support to mujahideen "freedom fighters" as they begin a guerrilla war against the Soviets. These mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (under the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan). Reagan referred to these mujahideen as "freedom fighters ... defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability."

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments.

Great now figure out that the mujahideen were kicked out by the Taliban and you will see how silly this reply was.

Great now figure out that the mujahideen were kicked out by the Taliban and you will see how silly this reply was.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments.

wow great so when did Osama bin Laden become the leader of the Taliban. Never!! it never happened once the Taliban formed we told them to deal with it because the Soviets were gone.

A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahideen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Services) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments.
Just because some of the mujahdeen got funding dosen't mean everyone did.


Q: The CIA says there was a relationship with you during the Afghan-Soviet war.

OBL: [Does not answer question]

Q: Going back to the previous question of you and the CIA and American support for the war against the Soviets . . .

OBL: This is misinformation by the Americans. Every Muslim the minute he can start differentiating, carries hate towards Americans, Jews and Christians, this is part of our ideology.

Ever since I can recall I felt at war with the Americans and had feelings of animosity and hate towards them. So what they say happened between them and myself is out of the question.

It is only because the Americans were occupying the region that they threatened to use military force should the Soviets conduct such an intervention. So the Americans would be lying if they claim they had supported us. We challenge them to provide evidence supporting such claims.

They were a burden on us and on the mujahideen in Afghanistan, for we were performing our obligations in protecting Islam in Afghanistan even though this obligation of ours was at times serving, though without our consent, interests of America.

When the interests of two sides coincide at times, this does not amount to co-operation. We regard them with animosity and there are statements going far back with us calling for a boycott of American products, and even the necessity to attack American forces and America's economy.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&amp

What the hell? I didn't know you could dig up a year old thread. :eek:

wow great so when did Osama bin Laden become the leader of the Taliban. Never!! it never happened once the Taliban formed we told them to deal with it because the Soviets were gone.

And it was this attitude that allowed Osama bin Ladin to attack the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.

Going back to the point about US sponsored torture - the Americanos are very clever in that they export terror suspects to places like Syria (BBC radio 4 did a particular interview with an innocent Canadian muslim who was arrested at JFK and then sent to Syria) and let the Syrians carry out the proper torture (the aforementioned power tools and violence) no doubt with a CIA man in attendance.

Open democracy? Then tell me why so few people seem to know about PNAC the focus group who really control US foreign policy...

Just because some of the mujahdeen got funding dosen't mean everyone did.


http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/07/wbin07.xml&amp


I am not a supporter of Osama bin Laden but the best way to defeat your enemy is to try to think like them. I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to bring about peace, equality and democracy to the world. But has American foreign policy done this? Is current policy giong to do this? If you think so please explain.

Going back to the point about US sponsored torture - the Americanos are very clever in that they export terror suspects to places like Syria (BBC radio 4 did a particular interview with an innocent Canadian muslim who was arrested at JFK and then sent to Syria) and let the Syrians carry out the proper torture (the aforementioned power tools and violence) no doubt with a CIA man in attendance.

Open democracy? Then tell me why so few people seem to know about PNAC the focus group who really control US foreign policy...

I'd say it's bevause no american political science major really believes that one person or a small group can completly run any aspect of the US Gov't. The PNAC might have influence even a lot but i don't it runs US Foreign Policy.

(oh and i'm a member of US Foreign Policy, but i don't deal with the Middle East)

:o grave digger.

We actually did arm Afghanistan back in the 80's and early 90's when the former Soviet Union was occupying their country. We trained them, armed them and after it was over they used the guns, ammo, and knowledge to attack us. Doesn't seem grateful, which is all the more reason we should be the 911 of the world.

As for the tv stuff about the war in Iraq, I don't think there should be cameras in prisons or any place where military is holding prisoners. There are ways we get information from prisoners, and most of modern America is not ready to see it, or even know about it. Its a 'need to know' basis, and they don't need to know.

Hang on....Afganistan as a country attacked no-one, they used the guns, ammo and knowlage to try to defend themselves while the Americans attacked them.

I am not a supporter of Osama bin Laden but the best way to defeat your enemy is to try to think like them. I have no quarrel with anyone who wants to bring about peace, equality and democracy to the world. But has American foreign policy done this? Is current policy giong to do this? If you think so please explain.
I think it has. America's foreign policy ultimately is designed to further America's interests. Sometimes this means installing dictators, but more often the desireable result is for democracy. So while it's not orthodoxly pro-democracy, more often than not I would say it is. In the past four years America has pushed forward democracy, with varying degrees of success, in Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, although its ultimately too early to tell.

:o grave digger.

o monkey pimp.

My question was...

Has American foreign policy done this? (Bring about peace, equality and democracy to the world.) Is current policy giong to do this? If you think so please explain.

I think it has. America's foreign policy ultimately is designed to further America's interests. Sometimes this means installing dictators, but more often the desireable result is for democracy. So while it's not orthodoxly pro-democracy, more often than not I would say it is. In the past four years America has pushed forward democracy, with varying degrees of success, in Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, although its ultimately too early to tell.


1. You talk about America's best interests requiring the installation of dictatorships. Does this not give people who live under those dictatorships the right to blame American foreign policy for their problems?

2. Do the people of Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon have a right to blame the American foreign policy for their problems if their countries fail?

I'd say it's bevause no american political science major really believes that one person or a small group can completly run any aspect of the US Gov't. The PNAC might have influence even a lot but i don't it runs US Foreign Policy.

(oh and i'm a member of US Foreign Policy, but i don't deal with the Middle East)


As a member of U.S. foreign policy then you should be aware that it is multi-national corporations that dictate the policies of the American government. And since you are a member of U.S. foreign policy then I won't have to go to the archives to prove this point.

My question was...

Has American foreign policy done this? (Bring about peace, equality and democracy to the world.) Is current policy giong to do this? If you think so please explain.
And I said it did (has/will), but not in every case.




1. You talk about America's best interests requiring the installation of dictatorships. Does this not give people who live under those dictatorships the right to blame American foreign policy for their problems?
If they're still living under an American-installed dictator, yes.

2. Do the people of Liberia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon have a right to blame the American foreign policy for their problems if their countries fail?
Yes and no, depending on how and why they fail.

As a member of U.S. foreign policy then you should be aware that it is multi-national corporations that dictate the policies of the American government. And since you are a member of U.S. foreign policy then I won't have to go to the archives to prove this point.

This is a generalisation. Multi-National corporations have a lot of influnce but are not the be all end all. Foreign policy is decided on information and an analysist of that information. like cost, outcomes, pressures (like Multi-nationals) but also public opinion and foreign countries. We in the US are not slaves to Multi-Nationals when it comes to foreign policy but econmic issues do play a role. I would say our dealing with the kosovo is an example of the US doing the right thing not because multi-nationals made us. Also support of Afganhistan against the Russians more that we didn't like them then Multi-NAtionals. Also when i get my intel reports not many refer to Multi-Nationals or come from Multi-nationals. I would say that your over simplifiying a complex issue.

Tjenare grabben! Nordbagge bak tastene! ;)

Yes, it's quite true. And this 'if you can't see it don't have happened' is also the reason why everyone think the US is just as bad as Saddam, and the reason why they compare mistreatment done by the US with real torture.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not excusing the actions of the US in this case. I'm merely pointing out that real torture is a thousand times worse. When you start applying power tools and electricity to various body parts, then we're talking torture. (Or when you have to listen and watch when it's done to your wife and children...)

This did go on in Saddams regime. But since Iraq was never as open as the US is, as you said, 'if you can't see it don't have happened'.



And oddly enough, many of the tortures and rapes sponsored by sadaam and his lovely boys WERE VIDEOTAPED. Something to hold over survivor's heads and keep everyone in check.
No one was concerned about Iraqi's civil rights before the US came in. Apparently, they had no civil rights at all until that time.

And oddly enough, many of the tortures and rapes sponsored by sadaam and his lovely boys WERE VIDEOTAPED. Something to hold over survivor's heads and keep everyone in check.
No one was concerned about Iraqi's civil rights before the US came in. Apparently, they had no civil rights at all until that time.

So I guess it's okay that they don't have any civil rights now.

This is a generalisation. Multi-National corporations have a lot of influnce but are not the be all end all. Foreign policy is decided on information and an analysist of that information. like cost, outcomes, pressures (like Multi-nationals) but also public opinion and foreign countries. We in the US are not slaves to Multi-Nationals when it comes to foreign policy but econmic issues do play a role. I would say our dealing with the kosovo is an example of the US doing the right thing not because multi-nationals made us. Also support of Afganhistan against the Russians more that we didn't like them then Multi-NAtionals. Also when i get my intel reports not many refer to Multi-Nationals or come from Multi-nationals. I would say that your over simplifiying a complex issue.

Who were the top ten contributors of George Bushes re-election campaign?

Who were the top ten contributors of Jim Kerry's campaign?

Who profits everytime the U.S. declares war?

Who were the top ten contributors of George Bushes re-election campaign?

Who were the top ten contributors of Jim Kerry's campaign?

Who profits everytime the U.S. declares war?

Foreign Policy is not just war. To add to that i've never even been asked about War i study and help work on plans in south east asia. and Pakistan