NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4171177.stm

I didn't read the entire article (incoming false facts! =D) but to me the HRW seems condescending by expecting everyone to live according to their ideals.

Just because individuals in a large country decide decide to break the law by abusing prisoners doesn't mean the country cannot be a leader in moral and human rights.

Does the UN abuse Human Rights? Why yes, I think they do. There is not a single government entity that somewhere down the line does not abuse human rights.

Does the UN abuse Human Rights? Why yes, I think they do. There is not a single government entity that somewhere down the line does not abuse human rights.

I don't think the UN can really be considered a government, since it has no way to enforce anything that it says, except by relying on the 'good nature' and willingness of it's members to create a better world.

Considering various aspects of US domestic and foreign policy it definitely is NOT a leader in human rights nor "morals."

Considering various aspects of US domestic and foreign policy it definitely is NOT a leader in human rights nor "morals."pls elaborate (which domestic and foreign policies?) kthxbai
I'd like to agree with you but I have no idea what you just said.

I have just one simple request: I want reporting to be proportional. If we kill, say, one prisoner in Fallujah, the French kill a hundred protesters in Ivory Coast, and the Sudanese kill 100,000 civilians in refugee camps in Darfur, I want one story, a hundred stories, and a hundred thousand stories respectively. Is that too much to ask for?

You might say that the US should be held to a "higher standard". That's bullshit. That means that everybody else should be held to a lower standard. Right now everybody else gets a free pass for anything, no matter how heinous, and the US gets slammed for anything, no matter how isolated an incident it is.

P.S. Two other small requests: I want any barbaric things that the terrorists have done to get regular airtime (with proper comentary, namely "when we find the people responsible, we will kill them"). Networks refuse to run a lot of footage now because it would be "incitement". Second, I want blame to be firmly placed with the people who do something, and not with those who supposedly "made them do it". Blaming the US for Syrians killing Iraqis in Iraq is just not on.

You might say that the US should be held to a "higher standard". That's bullshit. That means that everybody else should be held to a lower standard. Right now everybody else gets a free pass for anything, no matter how heinous, and the US gets slammed for anything, no matter how isolated an incident it is.


I think the point is that the USA claims to fight economically, politically, and militarily in the name of "Human Rights", they claim this themselves. Therefore, they -must-, for other people to take them seriously, have a squeeky clean human rights record. They'll just be seen as hypocrites otherwise.

If the usa is improving global human rights (I'm not saying that they are) then I don't really care what their own country is doing, as long as the job gets done. The article you linked in the original post seems useless, vague and full of random buzz words.

If the usa is improving global human rights (I'm not saying that they are) then I don't really care what their own country is doing, as long as the job gets done. The article you linked in the original post seems useless, vague and full of random buzz words.

So you don't care if Human Rights are improved across the world, even if Human Rights are abused in the USA? Like I said, it will be seen as hypocritical.

I think the point is that the USA claims to fight economically, politically, and militarily in the name of "Human Rights", they claim this themselves. Therefore, they -must-, for other people to take them seriously, have a squeeky clean human rights record. They'll just be seen as hypocrites otherwise.

I fail to see the logic. Yes, we slip occasionally, and we have things in our past that I'm not particularly proud of. I don't understand where the higher standard comes from. Does that mean that if we said that we were out to subjugate, conquer and pillage, all of a sudden everyone would start giving us a free pass, and in fact wouldn't even report any of the bad things we do at all? Because, hey, we're not hypocrites. I don't get it. All I want is the *same* standard, not higher or lower.

As usual, European news agencies are slamming the US, though their 'facts' are questionable and their conclusions even more questionable.

Do your homework. The USA treats people alot better than alot of countries, not just the obviously heinous countries (China, former Iraq) who are never grilled even half as hard as America is.

:sniper:

Well, the article seemed to assume that the Abu Ghraib stuff was orchestrated by the US government and not by individuals breaking the law.

And I've still not seen any solid evidence of torture at Guantanamo Bay. The Red Cross after all said no comment about the issue, and they inspected the facility fairly thoroughly.

Does that mean that if we said that we were out to subjugate, conquer and pillage, all of a sudden everyone would start giving us a free pass, and in fact wouldn't even report any of the bad things we do at all?

If you did those things in the name of Human Rights (as you do now), then yes, you would be blatant hypocrites. You expect everyone to follow your example, by being the pinacle of Human Rights. Yet you abuse them, and wonder why people still follow your example.

Do your homework.

Yes sir! :p ;)

If you did those things in the name of Human Rights (as you do now), then yes, you would be blatant hypocrites. You expect everyone to follow your example, by being the pinacle of Human Rights. Yet you abuse them, and wonder why people still follow your example.

I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said, *if* we became the evil empire that was out to conquer everyone, *and said so openly*, would everyone suddenly stop caring about any of the bad things we do? The same way they don't care about any of the evil powers (large or small) that exist today?

Every country has its vices and virtues, its strengths and weaknesses. No country is without its faults. Every one of them abuses human rights to a certain extent in at least one area or another.

I think you didn't read what I wrote. I said, *if* we became the evil empire that was out to conquer everyone, *and said so openly*, would everyone suddenly stop caring about any of the bad things we do? The same way they don't care about any of the evil powers (large or small) that exist today?

I thought you might be able to read between the lines of what I was saying, but obviously you can't. If you did it in the name of Human Rights you would be hypocrites, but if you didn't, then you obviously wouldn't be hypocrites.
Obviously, we'd have a problem on our hands, since the raging 'Uncle Sam' has decided that he needs a bit more living space, but at least you wouldn't be claiming something that isn't true.

Until you tell me which human rights you're talking about I say the difference is the usa discourages hr abuse and they want other countries to follow that example (therefore they are not hypocrites in this aspect). I will say the effort the usa government makes is much more reasonable than other countries, some incidents just happen to be more difficult to enforce.
edit: For example if Iraqi (random example) government tortured prisoners I wouldn't expect Iraqi's to protest.

Until you tell me which human rights you're talking about I say the difference is the usa discourages hr abuse and they want other countries to follow that example (therefore they are not hypocrites in this aspect). I will say the effort the usa government makes is much more reasonable than other countries, some incidents just happen to be more difficult to enforce.
edit: For example if Iraqi (random example) government tortured prisoners I wouldn't expect Iraqi's to protest.

How about the prisoner abuses in Iraq, for a start? Guatanamo Bay is almost entirely seen as a big pile of human rights abuses... holding people without charging them of any crimes, and not letting lawyers see them?
The British government is pretty good for human rights, I think, but we don't claim to be 'crusaders' in this area.

The obviously heinous countries (China, former Iraq) are never grilled even half as hard as America is.

Which are dictatorships, i.e., they are assumed to be henious, and don´t care too much about public opinion. :rolleyes:

Dog bites man is not news - man bites dog is.

Look at it this way:

The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence is EVERYWHERE. We have an army of 600,000+. So what if 10 or so nutjobs decide to torture some people. Whoop-di-do. I don't see anyone complaining about any other country. If the Sudanese burn a refugee camp and kill thousands of innocents, it will be on T.V for maybe a day or two on some public television station like PBS. If ONE U.S. soldier HURTS an Iraqi, it's put on EVERY news new network, like TV 5.(France), DW-TV(Germany), the BBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, ABC, you name it, it's on that channel for a month. And then EVERYONE, no matter how much of a horrible rights record they have(*cough*Russia, France, China, Syria*cough*) will attack the U.S. for ONE case. Even if the BRITISH do it, they get ALOT less time on the air than the Americans(and the British are there for Human Rights too).

So in other words, if one person does something the whole U.S. government doesnt support it, so don't think we're crazy baby-killers. We have saved alot more people than others, and trust me, if the Cold War had ended differently, then modern-day SUDAN's Human Rights would look good compared to the Soviets.

Just a question, but is the Geneva Convention part of the Human Rights thingy?

Look at it this way:

The United States is the most powerful nation in the world. Our influence is EVERYWHERE. We have an army of 600,000+. So what if 10 or so nutjobs decide to torture some people. Whoop-di-do. I don't see anyone complaining about any other country. If the Sudanese burn a refugee camp and kill thousands of innocents, it will be on T.V for maybe a day or two on some public television station like PBS. If ONE U.S. soldier HURTS an Iraqi, it's put on EVERY news new network, like TV 5.(France), DW-TV(Germany), the BBC, FOX, CBS, CNN, ABC, you name it, it's on that channel for a month. And then EVERYONE, no matter how much of a horrible rights record they have(*cough*Russia, France, China, Syria*cough*) will attack the U.S. for ONE case. Even if the BRITISH do it, they get ALOT less time on the air than the Americans(and the British are there for Human Rights too).

So in other words, if one person does something the whole U.S. government doesnt support it, so don't think we're crazy baby-killers. We have saved alot more people than others, and trust me, if the Cold War had ended differently, then modern-day SUDAN's Human Rights would look good compared to the Soviets.

Yes, exactly. I was trying to make the same point but you made it rather eloquently.

Does the US abuse human rights? Well, yes, but of rather few people and quite rarely, and not as part of policy. When it happens, the people responsible tend to go to jail. Does everybody else? You bet, a thousand times more. Does the US get all the negative press anyway? Yep, you know it.

Just a question, but is the Geneva Convention part of the Human Rights thingy?

I think it's focused mainly on the rights of Enemy Combatants(which terrorists don't fall under), although I'm sure theres other stuff in there.

Well, nice to see people realize that the United States is the only true source of evil left in this world. I can imagine how happy-go-lucky it would be without it? Good times, I can picture it now.. so carefree and whimsical.

Why are you people comparing yourselves to places like the Sudan, and saying that justifies human rights abuses committed by the U.S? The Sudan isn't out there aggressively promoting their brand of democracy or economic policies and shouting "do as we say, not as we do". If you really want to lead by example, then you need to deal with human rights abuses as they arise, in a way that shows the world you take these things seriously. If you truly believe the rhetoric your government is spreading, then you need to stand up and say, "No nation is flawless, but in the U.S, we admit our mistakes, try as best as we can to fix them, and work hard to avoid ever making those mistakes again." That is a goal worth working toward. Instead, you deal with the prisoner abuse as though it was a 'few bad apples' as the over-used term goes, which leads the rest of the world to think that either you're lying, or your armed forces are seriously flawed and unable to monitor themselves.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are a promoter (and that means active, not just a passive supporter of) freedom and democracy, or you are an opportunist that uses this rhetoric only when it suits you, caring only for yourself. Be honest. If you want to act like savages, go ahead, but don't feel hurt when we decide we don't want to import your particular brand of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.

I think it's focused mainly on the rights of Enemy Combatants(which terrorists don't fall under), although I'm sure theres other stuff in there.

You are so silly, terrorists fall under a higher authority than the Geneva Convention. Now their innocent victims do not, they are simply in the way of God's plan and deserve to be murdered in cold blood. Down with the great western devil!

Oh, and to those upset about bad press...

You don't seem to mind that you are exporting your culture throughout the world, and that many people love aspects of that culture. You only seem to mind being criticised. Again, if you don't want to be in the news, mind your own business, and be low key. However, rather like Hollywood, I suspect that any press is good press in many U.S politician's eyes. When people stop talking about you, good or bad, it will probabably be because you have become insignificant...a thing no American seems prepared to cope with. Why else flout your huge military and economy?

Just a question, but is the Geneva Convention part of the Human Rights thingy?

No. Geneva Convention is part of the laws of war (sort of).

Human rights are what is in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" written by the UN is a big steaming pile of crap.

Incidentally, about the Geneva Convention, one point that people always miss is that if *you* break the laws of war first, then they don't apply to you. If you engage in terrorism, there are *no* rules about how you have to be treated. If, for example, we catch somebody not wearing a uniform in the act of setting up a bomb in a school, we can torture them and then kill them, and that is perfectly legal, at least under international law.

Look at it this way:

The United States is the most powerful nation in the world.

But are you the most important? That seems to be your underlying attitude (not you personally, but your government).

"No nation is flawless.." Especially the Americans. No matter what, they are always wrong. It is a simple fact.

Especially the Americans. No matter what, they are always wrong. It is a simple fact.
Whenever they do something wrong, it is shown, usually because they make such a huge cock-up of it.

No. Geneva Convention is part of the laws of war (sort of).

Human rights are what is in the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" written by the UN is a big steaming pile of crap.

You may not like the UN (obviously), but in what way is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a "big, steaming pile of crap"? Which rights do you not agree with?

Well, nice to see people realize that the United States is the only true source of evil left in this world. I can imagine how happy-go-lucky it would be without it? Good times, I can picture it now.. so carefree and whimsical.

A world without the U.S....

Fades into imaginary land

/Soviet Tanks roll through Paris, France as the Eifel Tower comes crumbling down/

/New Delhi and Karachi obliterated due to Nuclear Strikes/

/Great Britain, the last bastion of the Free World, comes under naval bombardment from Soviet Ships/

/The fifty countries that made up the United States invading one another/

/Arab Armies storm Jerusalem and tear down the wailing wall as Jewish Extremists blow up the Dome of the Rock/

/North Korean forces bombard Seoul/

/100 Pro-democracy protesters hung from the Berlin Wall/

/Maoist rebels raise the communist flag above Kathmandu/

/Radical Indonesian Government assaults Sydney by air, sea, and land/

/FARC rebels burn fields of Columbia/

/Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro invade Panama to gain the Panama Canal/

Fades back to real world.

Yup, the world would be SO much better!

Well, without Americans there would be no news to report right? I mean, every other nation out there is a shining example of enlightenment that should be followed.

Especially the Americans. No matter what, they are always wrong. It is a simple fact.
Either your comment is serious, and very narrow minded, or was satirical and wallowing in self-pity. Either way, a little sad.

Well, without Americans there would be no news to report right? I mean, every other nation out there is a shining example of enlightenment that should be followed.
Seems that you only know sarcasm, so OK. You know what they say about sarcasm and wit, but I'll leave you alone on that.

No other country claims that they should be followed as an example. Simple.

A world without the U.S....

Fades into imaginary land

/Soviet Tanks roll through Paris, France as the Eifel Tower comes crumbling down/

/New Delhi and Karachi obliterated due to Nuclear Strikes/

/Great Britain, the last bastion of the Free World, comes under naval bombardment from Soviet Ships/

/The fifty countries that made up the United States invading one another/

/Arab Armies storm Jerusalem and tear down the wailing wall as Jewish Extremists blow up the Dome of the Rock/

/North Korean forces bombard Seoul/

/100 Pro-democracy protesters hung from the Berlin Wall/

/Maoist rebels raise the communist flag above Kathmandu/

/Radical Indonesian Government assaults Sydney by air, sea, and land/

/FARC rebels burn fields of Columbia/

/Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro invade Panama to gain the Panama Canal/

Fades back to real world.

Yup, the world would be SO much better!


Why yes, let them all blow each other back into the Bronze Age.. that is my underlying point. Because every other person that pokes a stick at the Americans comes from a nation that is a pillar of justice and equality.

A world without the U.S....

*snip*

I'm sure the British Empire felt the same way about the world crumbling apart without them...too bad it didn't happen. You can speculate all you like, but the U.S does exist, and there is no changing that. Trying to get us to shiver in our boots with the fear of "what would happen if" is a little pointless. Sounds a little like, "You don't appreciate me! So, I'm just going to run away! That's right, RUN AWAY!" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Why yes, let them all blow each other back into the Bronze Age.. that is my underlying point. Because every other person that pokes a stick at the Americans comes from a nation that is a pillar of justice and equality.
Are Americans arrogant enough to believe that they, and they alone, are the only people that could have made the world a better place?
If America didn't exist, perhaps we'd all be making fun of someone else, talking about their Human Rights abuses, and how they have elected an idiot as a President yet again. Or maybe not...

Well, without Americans there would be no news to report right? I mean, every other nation out there is a shining example of enlightenment that should be followed.
Without the U.S, another nation would rise to power. They could be worse, they could be better. No point in speculating, and no point in whining about bad press.

I have just one simple request: I want reporting to be proportional. If we kill, say, one prisoner in Fallujah, the French kill a hundred protesters in Ivory Coast, and the Sudanese kill 100,000 civilians in refugee camps in Darfur, I want one story, a hundred stories, and a hundred thousand stories respectively. Is that too much to ask for?

You might say that the US should be held to a "higher standard". That's bullshit. That means that everybody else should be held to a lower standard. Right now everybody else gets a free pass for anything, no matter how heinous, and the US gets slammed for anything, no matter how isolated an incident it is.

P.S. Two other small requests: I want any barbaric things that the terrorists have done to get regular airtime (with proper comentary, namely "when we find the people responsible, we will kill them"). Networks refuse to run a lot of footage now because it would be "incitement". Second, I want blame to be firmly placed with the people who do something, and not with those who supposedly "made them do it". Blaming the US for Syrians killing Iraqis in Iraq is just not on.

You touch on a very good point in this post...

America is held accountable to a higher standard, and that is because the rest of the free world DOES look to America as a moral compass and standard by which to set their goals. Many nations do so grudgingly, and love the opportunity to gloat over our failures to achieve our own lofty standards, but they're *still* looking to us as the benchmark.

That in and of itself speaks mountains. The UN does have the ability to mobilize armed forces, and those armed forces *have* been caught, tried and convicted of civil rights absues in the past. Any nation, or any organization, which is empowered with military responsibility, will run into this situation eventually, to some degree.

Being the target of international criticism and focus of the nature that America is subject to is a good thing. It shows that other nations are jealous, bitter, and wishing failure upon us... and generally not getting their full-fill of what they want. If we were doing as poorly as their own nations, they wouldn't care. It is the over-achiever in any group that gets the most negative criticism from his peers.... simply because he raises the bar, makes the status quo look unacceptable.

Sour grapes from liberal european socialists... that *is* the root of most of this. How long has the Iraqi prison abuse scandal remained a hot news item? Is it THAT important? Honestly... in the overall scheme of things, in relation to other events? How many of you saw the videos of Saddam Hussien's soldiers throwing tied and bound dissenters from a 3rd story building onto the packed dirt ground?

It sounds to me like our abuse of prisoners was mostly psychological... and while a lot of shrinks might argue that psychological scarring can be just as traumatic as physical, I'll take being piled up with a bunch of naked men, being forced to simulate sexual acts, over being electrocuted, cut, maimed and broken, any *effin'* day of the week. The truth is, the mind recovers far better from trauma than the body. The point is, the story is being held onto by the media out of proportion to the crime, and regardless of the fact that we are taking highly visible measures to correct the issue. That is just America baiting... even within our own media, our own nation. And it only happens because we're successful. If we were doing as crappy as other nations, there wouldn't be an issue.

They're comparing themselves to 'inhumane' places because they think places such as uk are doing a good job with regards to human rights. For the tortured prisoners they're saying they (reasonably) tried to do their best to prevent the event from occuring but it was a 'few bad apples' that didn't fear consequences. How would you (reasonably) have expected them to do better? Just because they try to internationally export their culture that gives other countries the right to say the human rights in their country is flawed? What's wrong with 'flouting' an economy or military by taking constructive action with it?

Why are you people comparing yourselves to places like the Sudan, and saying that justifies human rights abuses committed by the U.S? The Sudan isn't out there aggressively promoting their brand of democracy or economic policies and shouting "do as we say, not as we do".

Justifies? Hardly. However you do have to keep things in perspective. I don't see any way in which a reasonable person can see Abu Ghraib as being remotely as bad as Darfur, and yet it gets all the press and Darfur gets none.

If you really want to lead by example, then you need to deal with human rights abuses as they arise, in a way that shows the world you take these things seriously. If you truly believe the rhetoric your government is spreading, then you need to stand up and say, "No nation is flawless, but in the U.S, we admit our mistakes, try as best as we can to fix them, and work hard to avoid ever making those mistakes again." That is a goal worth working toward. Instead, you deal with the prisoner abuse as though it was a 'few bad apples' as the over-used term goes, which leads the rest of the world to think that either you're lying, or your armed forces are seriously flawed and unable to monitor themselves.

It was a "few bad apples". The people in question are going to jail for a long time. One has already been convicted to seven years, and I'm sure the rest will be as well.

I should point out that they were being court-martialled well before this was in the papers. So, yes, our military can monitor themselves pretty well.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are a promoter (and that means active, not just a passive supporter of) freedom and democracy, or you are an opportunist that uses this rhetoric only when it suits you, caring only for yourself.

No, *you* can't have it both ways. Either you care about freedom and democracy (and people not being slaughtered by the thousands), or you don't. You can't only pay attention when it is the US doing something wrong, and ignore much, much worse from others.

Why yes, let them all blow each other back into the Bronze Age.. that is my underlying point. Because every other person that pokes a stick at the Americans comes from a nation that is a pillar of justice and equality.
By this, you are implying that your nation is better than every other nation. No one is saying they are better than you...they are saying you aren't as good as you SAY you are. Your actions don't fit your words. That is the essence of hypocrisy. Like a priest that buggers children.

I'm sure the British Empire felt the same way about the world crumbling apart without them...too bad it didn't happen. You can speculate all you like, but the U.S does exist, and there is no changing that. Trying to get us to shiver in our boots with the fear of "what would happen if" is a little pointless. Sounds a little like, "You don't appreciate me! So, I'm just going to run away! That's right, RUN AWAY!" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Wouldn't that make us Canada?

Please don't take my sarcasm the wrong way. What I am trying to point out is that everyone is quick to point out the great Satan but fails to see their own house is not in order. The bully on the block always gets the most attention. I spent over an hour reading a thread where a collection of asinine and pompous asses had nothing better to do than comment on how all Americans are obese idiots that sit around all day watching NASCAR.

By this, you are implying that your nation is better than every other nation. No one is saying they are better than you...they are saying you aren't as good as you SAY you are. Your actions don't fit your words. That is the essence of hypocrisy. Like a priest that buggers children.

By this you are implying that Americans as a whole think they are better than everyone else. Again, that is setting a stereotype and assuming everyone from coast to coast thinks the same way.

America is held accountable to a higher standard, and that is because the rest of the free world DOES look to America as a moral compass and standard by which to set their goals.

It is the over-achiever in any group that gets the most negative criticism from his peers.... simply because he raises the bar, makes the status quo look unacceptable.
I was with you until this:

Sour grapes from liberal european socialists... that *is* the root of most of this. How long has the Iraqi prison abuse scandal remained a hot news item? Is it THAT important? Honestly... in the overall scheme of things, in relation to other events? How many of you saw the videos of Saddam Hussien's soldiers throwing tied and bound dissenters from a 3rd story building onto the packed dirt ground?
You're comparing apples to oranges again...do you compare the 'overachiever' to the class clown? Then you go onto forgive the torture that went on "because it wasn't as bad as what so and so did!" You condradict a very good point. Either you want to be held to a higher standard, because you want to be a role model, or you decend to the same level as the clowns out there. Choose.

Please don't take my sarcasm the wrong way. What I am trying to point out is that everyone is quick to point out the great Satan but fails to see their own house is not in order. The bully on the block always gets the most attention. I spent over an hour reading a thread where a collection of asinine and pompous asses had nothing better to do than comment on how all Americans are obese idiots that sit around all day watching NASCAR.
That post at least showed how strongly they have an opinion. It also shows how much television can influence someone's opinion on something.

All I am saying is that America cannot claim to be 'perfect in every way' on their Human Rights issues. They claim to be 'perfect in every way' when they tell people to follow their example. You wouldn't want to tell people to follow your example if it wasn't perfect. (At least I wouldn't) If you aren't perfect, then people will criticise you. (They may still criticise you for being perfect, though)

By this you are implying that Americans as a whole think they are better than everyone else. Again, that is setting a stereotype and assuming everyone from coast to coast thinks the same way.
No. Just implying that -you- think that way.

You may not like the UN (obviously), but in what way is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights a "big, steaming pile of crap"? Which rights do you not agree with?

Well, okay maybe that's a bit of an exaggeration. It does list a lot of things that are natural rights, but then throws in stuff like:

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.


"Elementary education shall be compulsory" is a right?!?

Then you go onto forgive the torture that went on "because it wasn't as bad as what so and so did!"Define forgiveness of torture.

edit: Because don't understand why you would say that without responding to
It was a "few bad apples". The people in question are going to jail for a long time. One has already been convicted to seven years, and I'm sure the rest will be as well.

I should point out that they were being court-martialled well before this was in the papers. So, yes, our military can monitor themselves pretty well.

"Elementary education shall be compulsory" is a right?!?
Perhaps it's a right for people not have to listen to idiots that haven't gone through Elementary education?

Justifies? Hardly. However you do have to keep things in perspective. I don't see any way in which a reasonable person can see Abu Ghraib as being remotely as bad as Darfur, and yet it gets all the press and Darfur gets none.
That's true...and very, very wrong. I hate the fact that I get to see stories about cats in trees rather than Dinkas being slaughtered in Darfur...the world turns a blind eye again. I don't agree that the U.S deserves as much good or bad press as it gets. Nonetheless, you can't expect to get all the good and none of the bad.



It was a "few bad apples". The people in question are going to jail for a long time. One has already been convicted to seven years, and I'm sure the rest will be as well.

I should point out that they were being court-martialled well before this was in the papers. So, yes, our military can monitor themselves pretty well.

See...this hasn't been covered well in the news...and perhaps an effort should be made to make it very clear to the world what the consequences are in the U.S for this kind of thing...what are the jail terms, what is being done so this won't happen again, and so on.



No, *you* can't have it both ways. Either you care about freedom and democracy (and people not being slaughtered by the thousands), or you don't. You can't only pay attention when it is the US doing something wrong, and ignore much, much worse from others.
You assume that is all I pay attention to. It isn't. I care about it all...but I also care that you use your power so arbitrarily...where was the U.S during the genocide in Rwanda? Or right now in Darfur? You run around like a vigilante, shooting up your enemies, with no thought to the signals you are sending to governments in other, ignored nations. You want to be globocop, but only on your own terms. Forgive me if I don't support your unilateralism.

Wouldn't that make us Canada?
;)
Don't hear us bitching about bad press, do you?

By this you are implying that Americans as a whole think they are better than everyone else. Again, that is setting a stereotype and assuming everyone from coast to coast thinks the same way.
No, I'm implying that YOU think this way.

Damn...just when it's getting interesting...well, see you all tomorrow!

I think no matter how hard the may try, Americans will always be held to a higher standard and ridiculed more strongly because of the way they present themselves to be holier than thou. You cannot set a double standard in front of the rest of the world and not expect to draw criticism? Iraq has alleged WMD, lets invade them! I can bet you they would not pack up the military and set up camp in Rwanda if they were suspected of having WMD. Agenda. That is what is making Americans such a laughingstock. You can see right through the facade.

I'm sure the British Empire felt the same way about the world crumbling apart without them...too bad it didn't happen. You can speculate all you like, but the U.S does exist, and there is no changing that. Trying to get us to shiver in our boots with the fear of "what would happen if" is a little pointless. Sounds a little like, "You don't appreciate me! So, I'm just going to run away! That's right, RUN AWAY!" Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

No but with us it WOULD be true! If the U.S. had just sat on its butt during the cold war, then that WOULD happen. Why? Because the U.S.S.R. was out for world Domination. If the U.S. had lost the Cold War, then Communists everywhere would win because the allies COULDN'T support themselves without the industrial and military might of the United States. So those were VERY possible situations(and a few of them, I.E. The Pakistan/India one, the FARC one, and the Nepal one are STILL possible).

where was the U.S during the genocide in Rwanda? Or right now in Darfur? You run around like a vigilante, shooting up your enemies, with no thought to the signals you are sending to governments in other, ignored nations. You want to be globocop, but only on your own terms.

Amen. I agree wholeheartedly.

First of all. No nation is better than any other nation.
But when you have to explain why you have the right to start a war or to attend a war, you are already lost.
Noone have to explain peace, but everyone who wants to start a war always have to tell everyone why it is ok, good or even neccesary.
But it never is.
US is fighting the rest of the world, and thats a fact, they dont care about UN or anyone else, and fear is the tool to get friends.
They dont care about anything besides their own fear.
Its to bad, there are so many nice people in the world and sometimes, the are betrayed by a fool, no specific nations mentioned, but they are...
So, what I mean is, war is never good, it is always bad, so why continue....
:fluffle:

Where was China during anything?
Point: Lot's of countries don't do lots of things.
edit: So why are you encouraging them to not help anyone?

How many of you saw the videos of Saddam Hussien's soldiers throwing tied and bound dissenters from a 3rd story building onto the packed dirt ground?

Actually, there's a lot worse than that. Saddam and friends videotaped a lot of the stuff they did, if you want to see it:

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.844,filter.all/event_detail.asp
[WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC]

Is this incitement? You bet. I want goddamn incitement. I want a compilation of all the head-cutting videos to play on TV, frequently, together with the clip of people jumping off the WTC. I don't want people to cry for mommy when they see that, I want them to get fighting mad. I want the crap that is on Palestinian and Iranian TV to be translated and play on CNN, along with Moqtada's sermons. I want everyone to know exactly what we're fighting FOR and AGAINST. I don't want any bullshit about "moral equivalence" between us and them from people who don't have a clue about what is going on in the real world.

You assume that is all I pay attention to. It isn't. I care about it all...but I also care that you use your power so arbitrarily...where was the U.S during the genocide in Rwanda? Or right now in Darfur? You run around like a vigilante, shooting up your enemies, with no thought to the signals you are sending to governments in other, ignored nations. You want to be globocop, but only on your own terms. Forgive me if I don't support your unilateralism.

Oh, and where were the FRENCH in Rwanda? Where were the GERMANS. Rwanda wasn't the U.S.'s fault or anyones fault. NO ONE came to their aide. No one.

Also, I don't see the French deploying soldiers in Dharfur. Or Germans. Or Italians? Or Dutch? We have donated large sums of money to many many crisis'. We can run the world ourselves, y'know. So if your countries actually DID something then we wouldn't have to stick our noses everywhere.

Not everyone in the US supports that war. Remember what the premise was. The evil dictator and his cronies were cooking atoms and making nukes that would be used for deviant purposes. i.e. we need to protect our oil interests in the region. Do you really think the American public would have supported the war without making up some cock and bull story?

It seems to me a little ridiculous that people are criticizing the US for intervention in places where there was considerable genocide, fear, torture, panic, oppression, starvation, war, rape, and every other form of evil, and yet wonder where we were at other genocides. I agree that there should have been more help in Rwanda and currently in Sudan. But the second the US goes in there, its going to be labled as another example of us trying to sell our materialistic domineering western culture to the poor, tribal and ancient disputes of a tiny nation better left alone.

Is this incitement? You bet. I want goddamn incitement. I want a compilation of all the head-cutting videos to play on TV, frequently, together with the clip of people jumping off the WTC. I don't want people to cry for mommy when they see that, I want them to get fighting mad. I want the crap that is on Palestinian and Iranian TV to be translated and play on CNN, along with Moqtada's sermons. I want everyone to know exactly what we're fighting FOR and AGAINST. I don't want any bullshit about "moral equivalence" between us and them from people who don't have a clue about what is going on in the real world.
And then we want to see those pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse, the people holed up in Guatanamo being lorded over by US Soldiers, and then we want to see the American soldier shooting a wounded foreign soldier that was offering no resistance.

You are of course assuming that the media reports the whole truth?

The head-cutting was legal and they got away with it and are likely to do it again at the next chance they get.

How many of those americans do you think are going to have an opportunity to be torturing prisoners ever again?

And then we want to see those pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse, the people holed up in Guatanamo being lorded over by US Soldiers, and then we want to see the American soldier shooting a wounded foreign soldier that was offering no resistance.

1. You're acting like British soldiers don't do the same(at least with Iraqi Prisoners and wounded soldiers too)

2. I'll show you those pictures AFTER I show you the pictures of U.S. forces helping to re-build schools, homes, and lives. After I show you U.S. soldiers helping to re-stock hospitals, treat wounded Iraqi civilians, and treatings HUNDREDS of wounded foreign soldiers that were offering no resistance.

And then we want to see those pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse, the people holed up in Guatanamo being lorded over by US Soldiers, and then we want to see the American soldier shooting a wounded foreign soldier that was offering no resistance.
Fine, but we show them the order in which they occur, and the events that claim more intentional casualties get more airtime. In which case their side's screwed. Oh, BTW, we don't know there was no resistance offered, seeing as the reporter wasn't in the room during the whole incident. He came in at the very end.

The head-cutting was legal and they got away with it and are likely to do it again at the next chance they get.

How many of those americans do you think are going to have an opportunity to be torturing prisoners ever again?

There isn't much of a stink raised when individuals get kidnapped and beheaded. Now prisoner abuse, that makes juicy headlines. I think they should throw the book at anyone even remotely connected to the prisoner abuse. The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should be allowed fair treatment, not be cast away on some island with no human rights.

I'll show you those pictures AFTER I show you the pictures of U.S. forces helping to re-build schools, homes, and lives. After I show you U.S. soldiers helping to re-stock hospitals, treat wounded Iraqi civilians, and treatings HUNDREDS of wounded foreign soldiers that were offering no resistance.

Agreed. According to people I've talked to, what the media fails to focus on is that a good portion of the country is at peace. In the words of one man, "It makes a better headline to talk about cruelty than about hope." No, we aren't saints, and perhaps that does need to be drilled into the world's consciouness. Its a good thing war is so foul, otherwise people might start to like it. But the fact that we are going in and helping people as a final result, thats gotta count for something.

And then we want to see those pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse, the people holed up in Guatanamo being lorded over by US Soldiers, and then we want to see the American soldier shooting a wounded foreign soldier that was offering no resistance.

So fucking what, we've seen all that already. We should see it too, in proportion... like one in a hundred.

That should be "wounded terrorist", by the way... and just before that happened, another terrorist in a neighboring building who was pretending to be dead detonated a bomb that killed a Marine. Not that you'd ever hear that on TV.

;)
Don't hear us bitching about bad press, do you?

Quite often I hear Canadians bitching about no press at all...

"Hey... we're 'AMERICANS' too!!!"

:)

Sorry... had to do it.

As far as where I lost you...

I didn't say it was justifiable. I said it was ridiculious. There was an issue, we're addressing it, move on...

But no... the press must KEEP harping on it... It becomes like the conservatives attacking Clinton... at some point, you've got NOTHING, you're sticking to the SAME point that has been beaten into the ground, and it just gets old. I'm a Republican... again, for the record. But at some point, let it go. Gore should have done the same thing with the first Bush W. election. The defeat in the last election was a DIRECT impact of Gore's bad form in Florida, IMHO. I didn't vote for Bush the second time around, too, also for the record, again.

And yes, when you look at the big picture, the international bias... illustrates how RIDICULIOUS it is to focus on American abuses of prisoners compared to the human and civil rights injusticies that go on ALL over the rest of the world. England has a horrible record with their treatment of suspects from Northern Ireland. See "Sins of the Father" for a Hollywood version of this. How come THOSE injusticies aren't on the cover of BBC or CNN on a daily basis? They weren't when they happened, they weren't years later...

I'm not saying we shouldn't hope to do better (in my opinion, mind you, doing better means NOT GETTING CAUGHT... If applying electrodes to the balls of an Iraqi keeps an airliner from hitting another skyskraper, I'm *all* for it...). Although, ideally, in a perfect world we would all get along and wouldn't have to do things like this to each other.

And really, once you cut past all the idealism, that is what this is ALL about. We got caught, finally, and the rest of the world, which has SO often be caught in the act, is gloating. Because *every* nation does it to protect *their* interests... all those conventions are about giving the warm fuzzies to the people and then going about business as usual, covertly.

Quite often I hear Canadians bitching about no press at all...

"Hey... we're 'AMERICANS' too!!!"

:)

Sorry... had to do it.

As far as where I lost you...

I didn't say it was justifiable. I said it was ridiculious. There was an issue, we're addressing it, move on...

But no... the press must KEEP harping on it... It becomes like the conservatives attacking Clinton... at some point, you've got NOTHING, you're sticking to the SAME point that has been beaten into the ground, and it just gets old. I'm a Republican... again, for the record. But at some point, let it go. Gore should have done the same thing with the first Bush W. election. The defeat in the last election was a DIRECT impact of Gore's bad form in Florida, IMHO. I didn't vote for Bush the second time around, too, also for the record, again.

And yes, when you look at the big picture, the international bias... illustrates how RIDICULIOUS it is to focus on American abuses of prisoners compared to the human and civil rights injusticies that go on ALL over the rest of the world. England has a horrible record with their treatment of suspects from Northern Ireland. See "Sins of the Father" for a Hollywood version of this. How come THOSE injusticies aren't on the cover of BBC or CNN on a daily basis? They weren't when they happened, they weren't years later...

I'm not saying we shouldn't hope to do better (in my opinion, mind you, doing better means NOT GETTING CAUGHT... If applying electrodes to the balls of an Iraqi keeps an airliner from hitting another skyskraper, I'm *all* for it...). Although, ideally, in a perfect world we would all get along and wouldn't have to do things like this to each other.

And really, once you cut past all the idealism, that is what this is ALL about. We got caught, finally, and the rest of the world, which has SO often be caught in the act, is gloating. Because *every* nation does it to protect *their* interests... all those conventions are about giving the warm fuzzies to the people and then going about business as usual, covertly.


I agree with ye!

This is a must-read about exactly what US policy has been regarding treatment of prisoners.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html

Summary: we're *way* too nice.

Is this incitement? You bet. I want goddamn incitement. I want a compilation of all the head-cutting videos to play on TV, frequently, together with the clip of people jumping off the WTC. I don't want people to cry for mommy when they see that, I want them to get fighting mad. I want the crap that is on Palestinian and Iranian TV to be translated and play on CNN, along with Moqtada's sermons. I want everyone to know exactly what we're fighting FOR and AGAINST. I don't want any bullshit about "moral equivalence" between us and them from people who don't have a clue about what is going on in the real world.
Again, you are saying: "Look at what these bad people do! The crimes we commit are not as terrible!"

Then to be fair, let us show the video of your "School of the Americas" training camps, which taught the rudiments of torture to foreign nationals to use back in their own coutries. Let's plaster the photos of the Mai Lai massacre all over the television, show photos of the boy slain by a U.S soldier after having sex with him in Iraq, the countless photos of the murdered and disappeared throughout Latin America that were targetted by governments the U.S ushered into power. Let's be fair and balanced and show EVERY atrocity of every nation on earth so that we never forget none of us are perfect, and that we humans, whatever our nationality can do horrible things to each other with the flimsiest of excuses.

Or rather than becoming numb, let us deal openly and fairly within the boundaries of our self-imposed ideological systems with aberrations. Let us condemn the violence of others with the clean conscience of knowing we refuse to be abusers of human rights too.

Why are you justifying crimes committed by your government? Do your American ideals include blind obedience, no matter what? I feel perfectly free to criticize my own government when it messes up...and to criticize our police forces when they leave a Native teenager out in a field to freeze to death, or when they kidnap protest organisers, or accept bribes from organised crime. I recognise my nation's faults, but I am confident that because we are a democracy, and grounded in firm ideals that respect human rights, we can overcome corruption and be a world leader in terms of respecting diversity and PROTECTING the rights of others. Your nation is not so different, I think, and yet you are outraged that anyone would dare criticize it.

Don't compare yourselves to other nations, when what you want is for nations to compare themselves to yours. Don't you want the world to follow your example? Isn't that what your entire foreign policy is geared toward? Then you need to realise that every terrible act administered and approved by your government (including past actions, such as putting puppet dictators into power, but never apologizing or admitting your error) is going to be looked at by despotic regimes as an invitation to continue committing their own crimes. Your nation can never be perfect...but it should strive, whenever possible, to come close to perfection. If that means admitting mistakes, past and present, and dealing with them in an open and accountable manner, then you must make room for criticism. You must model appropriate ways of dealing with internal problems as well as external ones, because the world's eyes are on you. Justifying crimes committed by your government, or by agents of that government simply because "so and so is meaner than we" is immature. Until your nation can PROVE that its system works, and is better than the system in more controlled and despotic nations, you will continue to fuel your detractors with legitimate reasons to reject your political and economic models.

Oh, and where were the FRENCH in Rwanda? Where were the GERMANS. Rwanda wasn't the U.S.'s fault or anyones fault. NO ONE came to their aide. No one.

Also, I don't see the French deploying soldiers in Dharfur. Or Germans. Or Italians? Or Dutch? We have donated large sums of money to many many crisis'. We can run the world ourselves, y'know. So if your countries actually DID something then we wouldn't have to stick our noses everywhere.

You say that you can't run the world yourself, and yet that seems to be exactly what you wish to do. You act unilaterally when it suits you, and then demand support after the fact. You wag your finger in the faces of countries who stray out of the boundaries of international co-operation, yet you spurn the only (deeply flawed, yes) international organisation we really have in favour of "liberating Iraq". You want the freedom to do as you please, to any nation on earth, AND without interference from other nations other than military and moral support, yet you complain constantly about the cost of being the only super power, and whine that you "can't do it all!" Which is it? Do you want to be part of an international community that cares about the welfare of ALL Earth's citizens? Or do you want to be judge, jury and enforcer of your own ideals and damn the eyes of anyone who opposes you? Be a rogue, or be a team player...you can't be both.

The nations you mention keep themselves within the boundaries of the UN and various treaty organisations. As an international community after the second world war, we wanted to make sure no nation on Earth could simply invade another country with impunity, yet YOU WANT THAT RIGHT, while denying it to others. You impose a double standard...do as we say, not as we do. You act in your own interests, and get upset when other nations are not interested in furthering American foreign policy. If you truly acted in a spirit of internationalism, you would have tried as hard to rally the world to intervene in Rwanda, and now in Darfur as you are trying to drum up support for your presence in Iraq. You "stick your noses everywhere" not because the rest of the world is turning a blind eye, but rather because certain issues mean nothing to Americans.

As for my own country...we have a paltry 32 million people, and a limited military, yet we are known throughout the world as peacemakers, not warmongers. We stretch our capabilities to the limit in order to improve international relations. As much as we can, we help: we help rebuild, we help monitor, we help educate. We do not impose, we do not demand, and we do not invade sovereign nations with flimsy excuses and little evidence. We screw up sometimes, but we still have the respect of the international community, something you seem to care little for, all the while desperately lamenting the lack.

It seems to me a little ridiculous that people are criticizing the US for intervention in places where there was considerable genocide, fear, torture, panic, oppression, starvation, war, rape, and every other form of evil, and yet wonder where we were at other genocides. I agree that there should have been more help in Rwanda and currently in Sudan. But the second the US goes in there, its going to be labled as another example of us trying to sell our materialistic domineering western culture to the poor, tribal and ancient disputes of a tiny nation better left alone.
Iraq was suffering under a despot, no doubt. However, he was YOUR despot...you actively helped him take power. That he turned and bit the hand that fed him seems to be the main provocation to the Bush dynasty. Iraq was also crippled by economic sanctions that never took the food out of Saddam's mouth, but punished his people and rallied them around a man that they despised in order to face a common enemy. The situation there was serious, but not as desperate as the genocide going on in Darfur...nor as the apalling massacres in Rwanda.

You need to decide if you truly intend to intervene in desperate situations outside your borders. Is that your role? Or are you going to act only in your own interests? Your country is sending mixed messages...we aren't sure you are heartless to the plight of others, because you constantly take a leading role in pointing out abuses and condemning them. On the other hand, you have also taken an active part in promoting abuse, and you ignore immediate issues in favour of ones that apply only to you.

If you wish to intervene in the international arena, you must have criteria set in place to determine where your intervention is most necessary. That should include areas where imminent and extreme violence threatens a large segment of the population. In this, the international community must support one another, and that means having other nations participate in such intervention. It is not your job to make everyone do this...but your involvement in international organisations and your willingness to step out of the boundaries of American interest would do wonders for your image in the eyes of the world. It would also make a very real difference to the millions of people living in fear of their lives.

Throwing up your hands in disgust and saying, "Screw you all, we'll just do what suits us best, and you can say what you want" is fine too..but don't get upset when we all so that: say exactly what we want.

1. You're acting like British soldiers don't do the same(at least with Iraqi Prisoners and wounded soldiers too)

2. I'll show you those pictures AFTER I show you the pictures of U.S. forces helping to re-build schools, homes, and lives. After I show you U.S. soldiers helping to re-stock hospitals, treat wounded Iraqi civilians, and treatings HUNDREDS of wounded foreign soldiers that were offering no resistance.
I would like to see those pictures....just as I would like to see pictures of Iraquis and Palestinians and muslims around the world who contribute to society in meaningful and peaceful ways. It's too easy to name them the enemy, call them terrorists and savages, and offer as proof the minority of them who actually fit this description. Much as it is easy to malign your entire nation for the actions of a few. (by that I mean individuals as well as government officials enacting policies abroad) Let's be fair and balanced to ALL people.

There isn't much of a stink raised when individuals get kidnapped and beheaded. Now prisoner abuse, that makes juicy headlines. I think they should throw the book at anyone even remotely connected to the prisoner abuse. The prisoners in Guantanamo Bay should be allowed fair treatment, not be cast away on some island with no human rights.
Not much of a stink? Are you kidding? People around the world were horrified and outraged! Muslims around the world are being viewed with hatred and suspicion because of these very public horrors. It even managed to drum up a little more support for your cause...but I'm sure you prefer to continue feeling hard done by, so...as you will.

Agreed. According to people I've talked to, what the media fails to focus on is that a good portion of the country is at peace. In the words of one man, "It makes a better headline to talk about cruelty than about hope."
That is too true...the media focuses on the bad stories because that's what they think people want. There are certainly more good things going on in the world than bad, but try finding a single successful news outlet that report things in the proper proportion. It says something about our societies that we focuse so single-mindedly on these things. Not only that, but it makes us unduly anxious, and feeling like the world is a much more dangerous place than it actually is for the majority of humans. Sad.

I would like to see those pictures....just as I would like to see pictures of Iraquis and Palestinians and muslims around the world who contribute to society in meaningful and peaceful ways. It's too easy to name them the enemy, call them terrorists and savages, and offer as proof the minority of them who actually fit this description. Much as it is easy to malign your entire nation for the actions of a few. (by that I mean individuals as well as government officials enacting policies abroad) Let's be fair and balanced to ALL people.

Hey, I NEVER said ANYTHING bad about the Muslims. I have lived a LARGE proportion of my life in Muslim Countries(Pakistan, Bangladesh), so I would NEVER call them Terrorists or savages. Don't put words in my mouth.

Here is a good question!

what about the Human Rights Abuses in Africa done by France, Britain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands? It has been idely recorded but it is never discussed! why?

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Do bears crap in the Kremlin?

no as who gave them promision to invade Iraq :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
:fluffle:

no as who gave them promision to invade Iraq :sniper: :gundge: :mp5:
:fluffle:


Is that "permission"?

You don't need permission. IIRC, the US *was* acting on its own interpretation of a UN Security Council resolution.

Even without that, you don't need "permission". The UN is not world government.

Is that "permission"?

You don't need permission. IIRC, the US *was* acting on its own interpretation of a UN Security Council resolution.

Even without that, you don't need "permission". The UN is not world government.

Yeah. The U.N. is more like a support group.

By declaring the U.N "outdated" the United States rejected something it helped to create simply because it best suited it at the time. Now they've come crawling back because they're starting to feel the heat in Iraq which they had been dying to get into. I find that quite ironic and sad.

Hey, I NEVER said ANYTHING bad about the Muslims. I have lived a LARGE proportion of my life in Muslim Countries(Pakistan, Bangladesh), so I would NEVER call them Terrorists or savages. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting words in your mouth...I'm repeating the words of many people in both of our countries, who have reacted to these incidents with emotion rather than logic. Muslims ARE being targetted and labelled as a direct response to 911 and other recent world events.

Here is a good question!

what about the Human Rights Abuses in Africa done by France, Britain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands? It has been idely recorded but it is never discussed! why?
Because they are in the past and are not still being committed (unless you are referring to recent events of which I am ignorant?) Certainly these abuses should be remembered...and dealt with (none of these countries has adequately admitted or apologized for them), but these nations are not currently committing abuses in African countries (again, that I know of).

I'm not putting words in your mouth...I'm repeating the words of many people in both of our countries, who have reacted to these incidents with emotion rather than logic. Muslims ARE being targetted and labelled as a direct response to 911 and other recent world events.

I agree. I think the U.S had the perfect chance to sit back and re-think their foreign policy which I feel directly influenced the World Trade Center attacks on september 11th. Instead they choose to act as Osama Bin Laden predicted they would. Strike back aggresively. In regards to muslims being targetted you are correct, they have been singled out at being responsible as a whole which is not true. A small minority of fundamentalists are to blame as many in the muslim world do not hold these same radical views. America has there own radicals, so although some would think we are different we are very much the same in that regard.

Because they are in the past and are not still being committed (unless you are referring to recent events of which I am ignorant?) Certainly these abuses should be remembered...and dealt with (none of these countries has adequately admitted or apologized for them), but these nations are not currently committing abuses in African countries (again, that I know of).

I agree. Good answer!

By declaring the U.N "outdated" the United States rejected something it helped to create simply because it best suited it at the time. Now they've come crawling back because they're starting to feel the heat in Iraq which they had been dying to get into. I find that quite ironic and sad.

We are not "crawling back". The U.N. is NOT the world government. We could CHOOSE to follow the U.N. if we wanted, but they can't sanction us for it. I think of it as, "Well you screwed up by giving Saddam billions of dollars, so why don't you help us instate a democratic government here?".

I agree. I think the U.S had the perfect chance to sit back and re-think their foreign policy which I feel directly influenced the World Trade Center attacks on september 11th. Instead they choose to act as Osama Bin Laden predicted they would. Strike back aggresively. In regards to muslims being targetted you are correct, they have been singled out at being responsible as a whole which is not true. A small minority of fundamentalists are to blame as many in the muslim world do not hold these same radical views. America has there own radicals, so although some would think we are different we are very much the same in that regard.
So explain the massive amounts of aid to victims of the recent SE Asian tsunami, most of whom are muslim.

We are not "crawling back". The U.N. is NOT the world government. We could CHOOSE to follow the U.N. if we wanted, but they can't sanction us for it. I think of it as, "Well you screwed up by giving Saddam billions of dollars, so why don't you help us instate a democratic government here?".

but by skipping ahead and not waiting for U.N justification of the war the U.S was intervening on it's own terms. They instigated it and thought they could handle it, which it has turned out they are having trouble with. I just think that the U.S could have done a way better job long term instead of rushing into it. Which they did.

but by skipping ahead and not waiting for U.N justification of the war the U.S was intervening on it's own terms. They instigated it and thought they could handle it, which it has turned out they are having trouble with. I just think that the U.S could have done a way better job long term instead of rushing into it. Which they did.

But then, America did have authorization to attack!

So explain the massive amounts of aid to victims of the recent SE Asian tsunami, most of whom are muslim.
The thing with natural disasters is, there are no bad guys...everyone is an innocent victim. There are no sides to take. I think everyone is suprised by the outpouring of sympathy towards the victims of the tsunami, and perhaps it is inspired in part by the helplessness many people feel in terms of international issues. We don't know how to help the people involved in wars and civil conflicts, but we know we can donate money to help these people. In wars, people say things like..."it's part of their culture"...in a natural disaster, we realise that these things could happen to anyone, anywhere at anytime. For once, we see the 'other' as merely human, rather than as a member of a group.

So explain the massive amounts of aid to victims of the recent SE Asian tsunami, most of whom are muslim.

I'm talking about inside the United States many people view Muslims with suspicion and dislike. In regards to outside many people in the U.S are not like what I have described and are very generous which has been duly noted by the world community. This event was extremely hyped up by the media and was seen as something new to focus people attentions on. I can't say for sure why there was such a massive outpouring of support. But whatever the reason Americans as well as many other countries have responded with massive amounts of aid. So to wrap up my answer, many people were very generous and gave much to the people of South East Asia, but then again there were people who didn't.

That reminds me...

Can you believe that some people believe that the U.S. MADE the Tsunami hit (mostly) muslim countries?

The NERVE of some people!

But then, America did have authorization to attack!
Ummm actually no they didn't. Yes there was a vote but if you remember the U.S didn't bother to get the results they just "skipped" ahead and attacked. So unfortunatly they didn't get U.N approval. The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S is now coming back to the U.N to help them with them with humanitarian and democratic reform. I find this very ironic since it now suits them to do so. I think this just proves them very hyporitical.

That reminds me...

Can you believe that some people believe that the U.S. MADE the Tsunami hit (mostly) muslim countries?

The NERVE of some people!

The people who were spreading that particular message where mostly clerics and fundamentalist muslism who take any chance to slander the United States. But weren't Evangelical Christians spreading the word that Muslims where the root of all evil, trying to destroy America etc.

Ummm actually no they didn't. Yes there was a vote but if you remember the U.S didn't bother to get the results they just "skipped" ahead and attacked. So unfortunatly they didn't get U.N approval. The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S is now coming back to the U.N to help them with them with humanitarian and democratic reform. I find this very ironic since it now suits them to do so. I think this just proves them very hyporitical.

Hey, we told Saddam to leave in 48 hours. He decided not too so we bombarded their arse, killed his sons, crushed his army, and captured him.

Anyhoo, what about the French "Peace keepers", who went to the Ivory Coast and began blasting people to bits. And they are STILL blasting people to bits. Why doesn't anyone report on that?

That reminds me...

Can you believe that some people believe that the U.S. MADE the Tsunami hit (mostly) muslim countries?

The NERVE of some people!
Hehehe...then again, some people wear tin-foil on their heads to keep out the alien mind rays.....

Ummm actually no they didn't. Yes there was a vote but if you remember the U.S didn't bother to get the results they just "skipped" ahead and attacked. So unfortunatly they didn't get U.N approval. The point I'm trying to make is that the U.S is now coming back to the U.N to help them with them with humanitarian and democratic reform. I find this very ironic since it now suits them to do so. I think this just proves them very hyporitical.

hmmm... Check your fact sheet!! It is called a violation of UN Resolutions! Therefor, America was entitled to uphold the resolutions as was every country since a UN Security Council Vote is BINDING!!!

Hehehe...then again, some people wear tin-foil on their heads to keep out the alien mind rays.....

Thats right.

I mean, come on people! Aliens don't travel thousands of light years just to put anal probes up a hillbillies bottom!

Hey, we told Saddam to leave in 48 hours. He decided not too so we bombarded their arse, killed his sons, crushed his army, and captured him.

Anyhoo, what about the French "Peace keepers", who went to the Ivory Coast and began blasting people to bits. And they are STILL blasting people to bits. Why doesn't anyone report on that?

What about the civil war in Liberia that America was involved in but didn't stop? thousands died in that conflict but the U.S didn't care because it didn't suit there economic needs at the time.

What about the civil war in Liberia that America was involved in but didn't stop? thousands died in that conflict but the U.S didn't care because it didn't suit there economic needs at the time.

Hold it, hold it, HOLD IT!

This is getting no-where. All we're doing is saying where one Western Country screwed up in Africa. No one came to Help Rwanda, the French torture people in Ivory Coast, the Americans sit on their lazy bottoms while thousands die in a civil war, the U.N. thought it could save Somalia(yeah, right), everyone is sitting on their rich arses saying "Oh, we'll help Sudan" and then nothing happens.

I'll just say this: Every western nation sucks except for Switzerland. The end.

Hey, we told Saddam to leave in 48 hours. He decided not too so we bombarded their arse, killed his sons, crushed his army, and captured him.
Yes, well, giving yourselves the power to decide who lead a country is kind of what got you into trouble in the first place, isn't it? Not only did you kill his sons, but you paraded their heads around Iraq on a sort of macabre celebrity tour. Very civilized...but hey, you're just responding to "what these people understand", right? Crushed the pathetic remnants of the Iraqi army...VERY impressive...too bad you didn't crush the actual resistance...how DARE they not face you 'mano a mano', even though they are wildly outnumbered and outgunned...guerilla warfare is just so unfair!

Anyhoo, what about the French "Peace keepers", who went to the Ivory Coast and began blasting people to bits. And they are STILL blasting people to bits. Why doesn't anyone report on that?
I did hear a bit about that...and you're right...it SHOULD be plastered all over the news...as far as I know, many news agencies did report on it. I hope the guilty parties are punished to the full extent of the law, and reparations made by the French government. Much as I hope the same for the U.S soldiers who are doing the same in Iraq.

Hold it, hold it, HOLD IT!

This is getting no-where. All we're doing is saying where one Western Country screwed up in Africa. No one came to Help Rwanda, the French torture people in Ivory Coast, the Americans sit on their lazy bottoms while thousands die in a civil war, the U.N. thought it could save Somalia(yeah, right), everyone is sitting on their rich arses saying "Oh, we'll help Sudan" and then nothing happens.

I'll just say this: Every western nation sucks except for Switzerland. The end.

Amen to that. I agree I think we are all getting ahead of ourselves including me. Lets just agree that the western world could do more but unfortunatly doesn't. Done and done.

Yes, well, giving yourselves the power to decide who lead a country is kind of what got you into trouble in the first place, isn't it? Not only did you kill his sons, but you paraded their heads around Iraq on a sort of macabre celebrity tour. Very civilized...but hey, you're just responding to "what these people understand", right? Crushed the pathetic remnants of the Iraqi army...VERY impressive...too bad you didn't crush the actual resistance...how DARE they not face you 'mano a mano', even though they are wildly outnumbered and outgunned...guerilla warfare is just so unfair!

That's a flame-bait. So I won't respond.

That's a flame-bait. So I won't respond.

Go ahead, responde! I DARE you!

Amen to that. I agree I think we are all getting ahead of ourselves including me. Lets just agree that the western world could do more but unfortunatly doesn't. Done and done.

I'll agree to that!

The United States has come into this predicament before Vietnam to name a prominent one. I think Iraq is quickly becoming another one of these conflicts.

Go ahead, responde! I DARE you!

NOOOO! Must....resist...

Here. Have a cookie.

Here is a good question!

what about the Human Rights Abuses in Africa done by France, Britain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands? It has been idely recorded but it is never discussed! why?
Actually your question is not a good one in that it totally evades answering the topic at hand. :eek:

Whilst I would agree that it is dangerous to label the USA a serial human rights infringer on the grounds of certain limited numbers of individuals that go against their own country's laws (e.g. the prison abusers), the fact is it's laughable to think of the USA as a moral example to the rest of the world on the grounds of its internal policies alone.

I can't hold up any country that happily executes its citizens, effectively allows millions of people to suffer because they can't afford to purchase private health services, an education system that in parts of the country is based on theocracy etc etc as a moral and human rights bastion.