NationStates Jolt Archive

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

Name a country that can. ;)

Well it could led, but not on its high horse of freedom and liberty.

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

Well MIddle east is not that much killing, what about south east asia, 4 million dead civilians, then they made Pinoche preisident, they Used black death row inmates as ginny pigs in experiments[including crash tests!!]
They contributed to the nrake down of old Yugoslavvia, and are inderectly to blame for war in balkans, and now they have "peace troops there", who are occupaying and they have made bosnians serbs kroats who were like brothers hate each other, thay killed half a mil in indonisa, they supported taliban and help overthrow the only normal AFghan Goverment..

I could go on and on, they are the SCUM of the planet,

DEATH TO AMERICA

VIVA LE REVOLUCION

americans- :confused: :confused: :confused: :sniper: -me

You're far too focused on Iraq, P&E. The U.S. has done far worse things in it's past, all the way back to the years immediately following the Revolution, and continuing up to this very day. Do some research; you ain't seen nothin' yet.

But Goofballs has it right-on. Few are the innocent countries [Switzerland, mebbe?]. He who has strength is he who leads. It's not always about example, sadly.

Name a country that can. ;)
No man is perfect. Countries are run by men therefore no country is perfect.

Not in the current administration.

If a good President is elected in 2008, then maybe.

Not in the current administration.

If a good President is elected in 2008, then maybe.
Jesse Ventura!

You're far too focused on Iraq, P&E. The U.S. has done far worse things in it's past, all the way back to the years immediately following the Revolution, and continuing up to this very day. Do some research; you ain't seen nothin' yet.

But Goofballs has it right-on. Few are the innocent countries [Switzerland, mebbe?]. He who has strength is he who leads. It's not always about example, sadly.

Although I am no expert, I am aware of America's behavior outside Iraq. But, I don't want to make this a laundry list of America's atrocities (I would have to spend a couple days typing stuff out for this post). However, what has happened in Iraq has received most publicity in America. And, I mean to question America's leading role more than point out what it has done wrong.

No man is perfect. Countries are run by men therefore no country is perfect.

Precisely.

I think it's more fair to judge a country not on whether it has committed human rights abuses, but how it deals with them when discovered.

\
americans- :confused: :confused: :confused: :sniper: -me

Terrible English, an unfounded argument and a death threat.

That's a Trifecta right there.

Precisely.

I think it's more fair to judge a country not on whether it has committed human rights abuses, but how it deals with them when discovered.

This can be said if human right were violated once or even a few times throughout the history of a country. But, not when it happens over and over again.

This can be said if human right were violated once or even a few times throughout the history of a country. But, not when it happens over and over again.

It always happens over and over again.

Terrible English, an unfounded argument and a death threat.

That's a Trifecta right there.

It is not a death threat, it is more of a feeling i express through smilyes..

No, I don't believe they can any more. In time perhaps they might be able to gain back the respect and honour they once had with the rest of the world. Although I think the damage done by this current administration will last for years, if not decades. I think it will take a long time for the United States to earn back the trust of the world, and even if possible, I don't think it will ever be quite the way it was. Too much has happened over the last few years. Some times you can get passed some thing for the sake of trade and business and foreign relations. But once respect is lost, it some times never really is returned. I think we all know this from our own lives, that is the way it works.

It is not a death threat, it is more of a feeling i express through smilyes..
I felt threatened. I reported you. C'est la vie.

Jesse Ventura!


That would be as funny as Arnold getting elected as Governor of California.

"Can US lead by example after human rights violations?"

Why yes, yes it can. But we learned it from watching European soccer matches. Honest we did.

No, I don't believe they can any more. In time perhaps they might be able to gain back the respect and honour they once had with the rest of the world. Although I think the damage done by this current administration will last for years, if not decades. I think it will take a long time for the United States to earn back the trust of the world, and even if possible, I don't think it will ever be quite the way it was. Too much has happened over the last few years. Some times you can get passed some thing for the sake of trade and business and foreign relations. But once respect is lost, it some times never really is returned. I think we all know this from our own lives, that is the way it works.
I'll have to disagree with you on this, Steph. I use History as my guide in today's politics, and again, I turn to history when looking at the current situation between America and Europe [as I assume this is the relationship you're referring to].

History in Europe is absolutely full of examples of shifting alliances - of trusts lost and won, alliances made and broken, at the tip of a hat. All it takes is some purpose - more conveniently, some threat - to unite countries. More recent examples include WWI and WWII; in both cases, countries with centuries-long rivalries united and fought together against a common enemy, and while there's nothing like war to make new friends, I think a lesson that can be extracted from this is that international politics doesn't work the same was as interpersonal relations. Nations have "national psyches," so to speak, but ultimately nations are guided by reason, realpolitik and law, and because of this, they aren't subject to the same irrationalities you and I are prone to, Steph. The way I see it, the current diplomatic problems between the governments of of Europe and the government of the United States can and will be resolved in the next five years, barring some terrible disaster; they both need each other in the years ahead. I would point out that certain leaders in the European community - France, Germany - are already beginning to cozy back up to the U.S. government, though not exactly in the warmest of fashions. So maybe it's already happening.

A valid criticism of this would be "The governments are allying again, but the people will never trust each other again, and that's what is most important." I would argue that the propaganda shift in the government would effectively change the opinion of the people in the decade following the realignment.

So... yeah. To summarize, nations don't work the same way as humans, Steph, and the comparison is inherently flawed in that nations, as a whole, don't have an irrational psyche. They are guided by realpolitik, and when the need arrives, they'll act upon it. The feelings of the people are ultimately just means to an end.

I felt threatened. I reported you. C'est la vie.

Why dont you just reply to what I said, the things i tought were evil, and if you are taking this so threatening then you have problems, I am joking, I do not hate americans, but I hate america, americans are people to, but what their Nation has done is not humane :headbang:

That would be as funny as Arnold getting elected as Governor of California.
Well Jesse did say that he was serious...

I'll have to disagree with you on this, Steph. I use History as my guide in today's politics, and again, I turn to history when looking at the current situation between America and Europe [as I assume this is the relationship you're referring to].

History in Europe is absolutely full of examples of shifting alliances - of trusts lost and won, alliances made and broken, at the tip of a hat. All it takes is some purpose - more conveniently, some threat - to unite countries. More recent examples include WWI and WWII; in both cases, countries with centuries-long rivalries united and fought together against a common enemy, and while there's nothing like war to make new friends, I think a lesson that can be extracted from this is that international politics doesn't work the same was as interpersonal relations. Nations have "national psyches," so to speak, but ultimately nations are guided by reason, realpolitik and law, and because of this, they aren't subject to the same irrationalities you and I are prone to, Steph. The way I see it, the current diplomatic problems between the governments of of Europe and the government of the United States can and will be resolved in the next five years, barring some terrible disaster; they both need each other in the years ahead. I would point out that certain leaders in the European community - France, Germany - are already beginning to cozy back up to the U.S. government, though not exactly in the warmest of fashions. So maybe it's already happening.

A valid criticism of this would be "The governments are allying again, but the people will never trust each other again, and that's what is most important." I would argue that the propaganda shift in the government would effectively change the opinion of the people in the decade following the realignment.

So... yeah. To summarize, nations don't work the same way as humans, Steph, and the comparison is inherently flawed in that nations, as a whole, don't have an irrational psyche. They are guided by realpolitik, and when the need arrives, they'll act upon it. The feelings of the people are ultimately just means to an end.

Yeah, you make some valid points. However I still would remain firm that it will take years to repair all the damage that has been done. I think it will take the rest of the world some time to trust the United States again. Which is (at least I believe) reasonable.

Why dont you just reply to what I said, the things i tought were evil, and if you are taking this so threatening then you have problems, I am joking, I do not hate americans, but I hate america, americans are people to, but what their Nation has done is not humane :headbang:

Well, some forums are very prone to joking. I don't consider this forum to be one of them. There's a lot of people here I frankly would be a little weary of meeting on a street because their views are so radically coupled with the government that they may not be averse to a bout of hypocrisy in the realm of shooting other people. I'd definitely carry a shiv and show some American agression if they decided to show me how awesome Norway is in a physical manner. :D

What I mean is, it seems a little silly that the same person that could say "A human never should die for his crimes" will come into another thread and wish death upon soldiers or say that Americans need to get shot or some other nonsense. That's right in the same frame as Pro-life abortion clinic bombers. It's purely silly.

Well Jesse did say that he was serious...


So did Ahhnuld. But that didn't degrade its comedic value.

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

Not sure how much contrition the world is looking for. Abu Gharib was due to untrained reservists being given to much responsibility. As far as I'm concerned, a few broken eggs at GB would be worth it if it led to info keeping Americans (or anyone, for that matter) safe.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

When you are fighting a war, people usually get killed and property gets destroyed. There's no nice way to do it. We did evacuate the city beforehand. I guess we could have not done that and really run up the casualties. Not sure about the secrecy thing you allude to. I saw plenty of reports during the battle, including the report about the killing of the wounded fighter in the mosque. As for medical aid, it's doubtful any of the chickens--t NGO's would have cared to enter a combat zone.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

This one is totally bogus. There was no wedding. The site was bombed, then inspected and documented by coalition forces, who found nothing but dead insurgents and weapons. After the Americans left, the site was re-arranged by the reactionaries (which is what the "insurgents" are) to look like a wedding. They then invited the "objective" al-Jazeera reporters to view the scene.

Do I believe that excesses have occurred in Iraq and in the past? Sure, but not just on the part of the U.S. It's all relative, I suppose.

Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis. Over a million people died in his war against Iran alone. Now the world cheers these butchers on while hundreds of Iraqis are killed by suicide bombers.

Those intrepid Germans and Japanese killed millions in WWII. To their credit, the Germans apologized, unlike the Japanese. Both nations, especially the Germans, were kept safe for 50 years by American power so they could re-build and spend their taxes on domestic priorities. Hey, you're welcome!

Soviet Russian dictators killed millions of their own, as did the Chinese communists. Not a word of contition.

Hell, the French ran roughshod over Asia and Africa for 150 years. In fact, they still treat parts of Africa as their own fiefdom. Ask the crowds they've fired into in Ivory Coast if they feel "protected".

There needs to be a little perspective here. Glad I could help.

Rixtex's point is something I've wondered about myself. There are plenty of atrocities going on around the world. Dictatorships rising, genocides, quiet apartheids, all that wonderful shite. Yet it seems as though while all of these terrible things are going on around the world, America is the only thing worth commenting on. Russia is moving towards authoritarianism more every day; China continues to violate human rights; Kashimir is a warzone; Africa is a continental tragedy; deathsquads and revolution wracks South America constantly; yet all anyone is concerned with is the United States. What is the U.S. doing? What role did it have in everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time? Give me a break.

Normally I discount the idea that if you're on top, everyone wants to knock you down, but after awhile it becomes irrational of me to set that aside.

That's why I don't worry too much about this issue, P&E. Because everyone is always going to be nipping at America's heels, so long as it is the one in the lead. And since everyone is still desperately trying to seem better than us - morally, mentally, spiritually, physically, diplomatically, whateverly - I figure that means we're still in the lead.

I'd have to say hell no! to the question whether the US are fit to lead by example. Sorry yanks.

I'd have to say hell no! to the question whether the US are fit to lead by example. Sorry yanks.
The question wasn't if they were fit or not it simply asked if they could.

The question wasn't if they were fit or not it simply asked if they could.

Oh... Right... Ehh, I'd have to say "yes they can, but not with massive international backing". Sorry yanks.

Well MIddle east is not that much killing, what about south east asia, 4 million dead civilians, then they made Pinoche preisident, they Used black death row inmates as ginny pigs in experiments[including crash tests!!]
They contributed to the nrake down of old Yugoslavvia, and are inderectly to blame for war in balkans, and now they have "peace troops there", who are occupaying and they have made bosnians serbs kroats who were like brothers hate each other, thay killed half a mil in indonisa, they supported taliban and help overthrow the only normal AFghan Goverment..

I could go on and on, they are the SCUM of the planet,

DEATH TO AMERICA

VIVA LE REVOLUCION

americans- :confused: :confused: :confused: :sniper: -me

You were warned. Three day forumban.

The question wasn't if they were fit or not it simply asked if they could.

The spirit of the question is to ask if they are fit to lead by example...... let's not play symantics.....


In response to Rixtex and Trammwerk:

First of all, I'd like to point out that Rixtex starts by saying that the examples I have given were either justified or fake and therefore, don't qualify as atrocities. Then, he goes on to say that all these other governments have commited atrocities without accountability, implying that America should be pardoned for whatever it did. Trammwerk supports the latter half of this. Correct if I am wrong about that, but the contradiction is obvious here. First you say we did nothing. Then, you say everyone else did it so why can't we?

#1 To blame Abu Gharib on a few soldiers, to me, is a joke. Soldiers do not act on their own volition but are told what to do from the higher ups. Furthermore, Abu Gharib is not an isolated incident. Last I heard, stories are surfacing about British soldiers doing the same. It seems to be systematic. Furthermore, how many people at Guantanamo have had a fair trial. Furthermore, many people wouldn't pass it off as "a few broken eggs at GB would be worth it if it led to info keeping Americans (or anyone, for that matter) safe." It is in violations of Gueneva conventions and UN charters of treating POWs. Things that the US agreed to. Credibility is at stake if you don't care about those things.

#2 is looked as a human rights violation by most of the international community, the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent. People who have been there, either during or afterwards, agree that it was human rights violation. Sorry if you disagree with everyone.

#3 Do you have evidence to back up what you claim? Also, I know people who live in Iraq to this day who tell me stories of what US soldiers do over there. I don't think they're lying to me.

You ask why everyone picks on the US. First of all, the US is the most powerful country and a world leader. In my opinion, I think that carries some responsibility. Furthermore, the US has been harping at China for decades about human rights violations. One of the reasons sited by the Bush administration to start the war in Iraq is human rights violations by Saddam Hussein. They also claim that Iran is guilty of human rights violations. Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy in this? Why should I ever believe another US politician when it comes to human rights and not think that there is a hidden agenda behind it?

Finally, saying that everyone else does it so why can't we is not an excuse. Are we animals? Or, are we trying to progress soceity and the world in a better state?

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D95F.htm
Here's one of a few reports I found in a quick search. All the weddings mentioned are in Afghanistan. They have a tradition over there of shooting AK-47s rounds into the air. That's a dangerous thing to do when there are warplanes in the area.
THe military admits one of there bombs went astray after one of their B-52s came under fire. War ain't perfect, weapon system aren't perfect. There will always be mistakes.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D95F.htm
Here's one of a few reports I found in a quick search. All the weddings mentioned are in Afghanistan. They have a tradition over there of shooting AK-47s rounds into the air. That's a dangerous thing to do when there are warplanes in the area.
THe military admits one of there bombs went astray after one of their B-52s came under fire. War ain't perfect, weapon system aren't perfect. There will always be mistakes.

It seems oftenly there are convenient excuses such as a bomb goes astray. I will give you the benfit of the doubt however. In fact, maybe you're right, there was no wedding. There are still cases of human rights violations. As I said earlier, I didn't intend for this post to be a discussion of does the US commit them. If you think that they don't, then this is probably not the post for you.

The US will need to make formal appologies and pay restitution to its victims before it occupies any sort of moral high ground.

The US will need to make formal appologies and pay restitution to its victims before it occupies any sort of moral high ground.


That's exactly what I'm thinking.

You were warned. Three day forumban.

This is quite extreme. Sure Middlesea Terra was a bit over the top but that's just because she/he was passionate about it. I would hardly take it as a death threat.

But Goofballs has it right-on. Few are the innocent countries [Switzerland, mebbe?]. He who has strength is he who leads. It's not always about example, sadly.
Tuvalu is the only country ever without a human rights violation.

And now, soon, the whole country is going to be under water because of the right wing f-ckers who claim global warming doesn't exist. :headbang:

I certainly didn't mean to imply the U.S. should be pardoned. We haven't done anything to be pardoned for. We rid the world of a jerk who didn't believe the world would ever call him on his atrocities. And, I didn't imply that the rest of the world does it, so why can't the U.S. We didn't invade to provide sustenance for a Thousand Year Reich or a Co-Prosperity Sphere. If we can walk away sometime in the near future and hand over to an elected government, we'll be happy to leave. You can believe (and obviously do) that the U.S. has sinister intentions. I won't even try to dissuade you because for all the times Americans are called arrogant, I find the anti-Americanism on these boards worse.

If it makes any difference, I was opposed to the way the war began. I think Bush should have led like his father did and built a true coalition. It would never have happened, of course. Iraq's neighbors don't want a Shia/Kurd nationstate, democracy or not, on their doorstep. The French and Russians didn't want us to find out what they had been up to there for ten years. So, if it was up to me, it wouldn't have happened. Saddam would still be torturing and killing his own people. And the rest of the world would still not care.

However, we did invade. It did happen. There is nothing to do but try to make the best of it. If we did not stay, the Kurds and Shias would not have a chance. They were too long under the Sunni/Baathist jackboot. The insurgents are reactionaries who only want what they lost: absolute power over the Iraqi people so they can loot the wealth of their nation.

Cynically, it's worked out nicely for us. Instead of having to worry about all these Jihadists making their way to our shores, Iraq has acted like a terrorist magnet and drawn them in like flies to a buglight, where they have been zapped.

I certainly didn't mean to imply the U.S. should be pardoned. We haven't done anything to be pardoned for. We rid the world of a jerk who didn't believe the world would ever call him on his atrocities. And, I didn't imply that the rest of the world does it, so why can't the U.S. We didn't invade to provide sustenance for a Thousand Year Reich or a Co-Prosperity Sphere. If we can walk away sometime in the near future and hand over to an elected government, we'll be happy to leave. You can believe (and obviously do) that the U.S. has sinister intentions. I won't even try to dissuade you because for all the times Americans are called arrogant, I find the anti-Americanism on these boards worse.

If it makes any difference, I was opposed to the way the war began. I think Bush should have led like his father did and built a true coalition. It would never have happened, of course. Iraq's neighbors don't want a Shia/Kurd nationstate, democracy or not, on their doorstep. The French and Russians didn't want us to find out what they had been up to there for ten years. So, if it was up to me, it wouldn't have happened. Saddam would still be torturing and killing his own people. And the rest of the world would still not care.

However, we did invade. It did happen. There is nothing to do but try to make the best of it. If we did not stay, the Kurds and Shias would not have a chance. They were too long under the Sunni/Baathist jackboot. The insurgents are reactionaries who only want what they lost: absolute power over the Iraqi people so they can loot the wealth of their nation.

Cynically, it's worked out nicely for us. Instead of having to worry about all these Jihadists making their way to our shores, Iraq has acted like a terrorist magnet and drawn them in like flies to a buglight, where they have been zapped.


Sorry, that's not enough text. You're gonna have to write more than that.

*yawn*

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

Even with these events.. the US still leads the world in Human Rights and civil rights...its laws are as well directly reflective.. you say Guantanamo..and the Suprme court has already made several key decisions on that incident... Abu Gharib was an isolated incident and is not reflective of a systematic problem.

for Fallujah.. who are you to decide what is nessesary ? Would it have been better to leave the city in chaos under the control of terrorist factions ? Better for the US .. Better for the average Iraqi ? Medical aid does flow into the city.. but obviously humanitarian groups are not allowed to enter such a hostile area when in the middle of military operations.. because it only threatens their lives and the lives of soliders who are forced to protect them.

and keeping the whole thing secrete ? what secrete.. it was known the attack was going to take place 2 months before it happend.. reporters weren't allowed in because of the hostile nature of the area.. Even then how many pictures of Fallujah did we get during the seige of the city.. for the weeks the military operations were being conducted... countless.

The actions of this administration and the last 4 years have been nothing in comparision to countless acts across the histories of every major power.. Infact these last 4 years have been conservative if anything considering a war was conducted with such few deaths... even if you count in every death of every IRaqi insurgent and US solider.. This war can be considered one of the least destructive wars ever waged in modern history

China has more human rights violations in one week then what Guantaimo bay and Abu Gharib equate to.

There is nothing to do but try to make the best of it.


If people in power actually believed this, then it's time to put your soldiers in check. That coupled with a sincere effort to make the quality of life better there, then US might be able to live down what has happened over there. That would beat any apology/monetary restitution.

Even with these events.. the US still leads the world in Human Rights and civil rights...its laws are as well directly reflective.. .


This simply is not true... ask any black man living in america before civil rights for blacks. As for the rest of it, as I said in post #33, I didn't intend for this post to be a discussion of does the US commit humna rights violations. If you think that they don't, then this is probably not the post for you.

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

1. Abuse and humiliation, when proven, were met with severe penalties and changes in practices. May I suggest that your ire be directed at those who truly engaged in torture and slaughter: the Saddam Hussein regime.

2. In combat, things get broken and people die. It's the nature of the beast.

3. As I recall, that incident was in Afghanistan and was prompted by people firing guns into the air and faulty intelligence ( which is at best a chancy thing ).

"Can US lead by example after human rights violations?"

If not US, who?

1. Abuse and humiliation, when proven, were met with severe penalties and changes in practices. May I suggest that your ire be directed at those who truly engaged in torture and slaughter: the Saddam Hussein regime.

2. In combat, things get broken and people die. It's the nature of the beast.

3. As I recall, that incident was in Afghanistan and was prompted by people firing guns into the air and faulty intelligence ( which is at best a chancy thing ).

"Can US lead by example after human rights violations?"


again, see post #33 or #42

If not US, who?

This doesn't qualify the US as an exemplary role model.

This simply is not true... ask any black man living in america before civil rights for blacks. As for the rest of it, as I said in post #33, I didn't intend for this post to be a discussion of does the US commit humna rights violations. If you think that they don't, then this is probably not the post for you.

... well ... im talking about now.. not 30 or 40 years ago... Even if you wanted to talk about those times... there were (and still are) countless cases of equal or worse in tolerance accross the globe ESPECAILLY in Europe... So black Civil right still dosn't put us in some type of "Deficit of humanity" in comparison to the world at large

... well ... im talking about now.. not 30 or 40 years ago... Even if you wanted to talk about those times... there were (and still are) countless cases of equal or worse in tolerance accross the globe ESPECAILLY in Europe... So black Civil right still dosn't put us in some type of "Deficit of humanity" in comparison to the world at large


well I'm glad you haven't racked up the most hate points

This doesn't qualify the US as an exemplary role model.
Name one nation that either as empire or even as the dominant power during its era and time which was "an exemplary role model."

again, see post #33 or #42



This doesn't qualify the US as an exemplary role model.

There is no such a thing as an exemplary role ... when you weigh the history of the US against all of histories events.. we still end above 99% of the worlds nations... and those above us are not influencial enough to have an impact.

So the question still remains.. IF not US then who ?

And im not saying the US dosn't violate human rights (to a certain extent) but that extent of violation hardly puts us in such a position that we can not remain a role model for most other countires... because lets face it.. most other countries dont even have an idea of what human rights are.

well I'm glad you haven't racked up the most hate points

yes.. we are not perfect.. but in comparison to most of the world.. we are far closer to it.. our violations are almost cases of triffling compared to conitents like Africa.. or regions like the Middle east and South east asia. In your eyes the violations of the US are horrendous.. but then you dont wake up everyday in Dahfur seeing hundreds of thousands of people burned at the stake for their heritage... Your perspective is being skewed

1. To blame Abu Gharib on a few soldiers, to me, is a joke. Soldiers do not act on their own volition but are told what to do from the higher ups. It seems to be systematic.

2.Furthermore, how many people at Guantanamo have had a fair trial.
1. Unlike you, I don't have the luxury of viewing an entire army as a single entity. In reality, there are many, many things which happen in the field of which higher level commanders are totally unaware.

2. The "detainees" at Guntanamo Bay are not covered under the laws which pertain to POWs since they did not operate as a uniformed fighting force, wear uniforms, or sign the Geneva Accords. Neither do they fall under US law, most of them, since they are not US citizens ( this last is my own opinion ). Considering their status, they are being treated with exemplary care and restraint.

There have been nations/empires to show restraint with their armies and tolerance over a dominant peoples. The persian and islamic empires both showed this at the peak of their eras. I would consider that to be exemplary role models.

To Eutrusca:
In regards to your point on number two, these are technicalities to justify the behavior. Because you're not a US citizen doesn't make you an animal. Because you're not wearing a uniform, doesn't make you an army fighting for the same cause.

Again, if you don't believe the US commits atrocities then this isn't really the post for you.

To Invidentia:
It is very arrogant of you to think that the US is "far closer" to perfection than others (whose perspective is skewed?). The severity and quantity of US astrocities is debateable. I think they're just as bad as anybody else's. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact the US has committed them still mars their reputation. If I am China and the US comes to me about human rights violations, I would throw it back in their face and tell them to take a look in the mirror. It's one of those situations where let the person who is without sin casts the first stone.

The US can lead by example, but it will require a change of leadership and policy as well as the passage of time. Obviously, it must also start setting a good example.

To answer the question: kinda.

There have been nations/empires to show restraint with their armies and tolerance over a dominant peoples. The persian and islamic empires both showed this at the peak of their eras. I would consider that to be exemplary role models.

To Eutrusca:
In regards to your point on number two, these are technicalities to justify the behavior. Because you're not a US citizen doesn't make you an animal. Because you're not wearing a uniform, doesn't make you an army fighting for the same cause.

Again, if you don't believe the US commits atrocities then this isn't really the post for you.

To Invidentia:
It is very arrogant of you to think that the US is "far closer" to perfection than others (whose perspective is skewed?). The severity and quantity of US astrocities is debateable. I think they're just as bad as anybody else's. But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The fact the US has committed them still mars their reputation. If I am China and the US comes to me about human rights violations, I would throw it back in their face and tell them to take a look in the mirror. It's one of those situations where let the person who is without sin casts the first stone.

Well.. it depends on what you think severity is.. i gage human rights..a nd the records of human rights on human rights violations.. not civil rights violations... Looking at guantanimo you maybe apauled.. but considering genocide throughout the worlds history... guanatnimo is a drop in the bucket which makes few if any ripples. You can certainly make a case against the United States current record on "Human rights" but it is one which could be fiercly and effectivly challenged.. (Unlike Chinas record on human rights)

As for your argument about the on the status of "POWs" while you can think that way ... (not wearing a uniform, doesn't make you an army fighting for the same cause. ) the law is made specific so that we know exactly what consititues an enemy army and there for can allot the proper rights of Prisoners of War. The very fact that the law is worded the way it is tells us that the detainees in Guanatimo actually arn't POWs as sad as it maybe...

Finally in the case of Abu Gharib .. i would simply like to add to Eutrusca's that even IF they were ordered (which there exists no evidence to support the position) they were certainly not ordered to enjoy it... (smiling and inticing the actions) and so we can easily allot personal fault unto each of those individuals. The simple fact is.. by the code of the military, soldiers are not drones.. they are to take orders and place upon them a certain level of screwtiny.. because if the order was given to commit those acts they were clearly violations of human rights (any compitent person would identify them as such) and the orders would be nullified of authority.
Similar case and point a soldier would be held responsible he if followed an order to mow down children hiding in a church.. because the validity and authority of the order would be called into question

Well.. it depends on what you think severity is.. i gage human rights..a nd the records of human rights on human rights violations.. not civil rights violations... Looking at guantanimo you maybe apauled.. but considering genocide throughout the worlds history... guanatnimo is a drop in the bucket which makes few if any ripples. You can certainly make a case against the United States current record on "Human rights" but it is one which could be fiercly and effectivly challenged.. (Unlike Chinas record on human rights)

As for your argument about the on the status of "POWs" while you can think that way ... (not wearing a uniform, doesn't make you an army fighting for the same cause. ) the law is made specific so that we know exactly what consititues an enemy army and there for can allot the proper rights of Prisoners of War. The very fact that the law is worded the way it is tells us that the detainees in Guanatimo actually arn't POWs as sad as it maybe...

Finally in the case of Abu Gharib .. i would simply like to add to Eutrusca's that even IF they were ordered (which there exists no evidence to support the position) they were certainly not ordered to enjoy it... (smiling and inticing the actions) and so we can easily allot personal fault unto each of those individuals. The simple fact is.. by the code of the military, soldiers are not drones.. they are to take orders and place upon them a certain level of screwtiny.. because if the order was given to commit those acts they were clearly violations of human rights (any compitent person would identify them as such) and the orders would be nullified of authority.
Similar case and point a soldier would be held responsible he if followed an order to mow down children hiding in a church.. because the validity and authority of the order would be called into question


OK, the point still stands. The US hypocritically goes around accussing others of human rights violations while it commits its own.

There have been nations/empires to show restraint with their armies and tolerance over a dominant peoples. The persian and islamic empires both showed this at the peak of their eras. I would consider that to be exemplary role models.

key words "dominated people".. Rome as well showed tolerance over the people they conqured.. which is why Rome was so successful in its endevors.. However the fact that they conqured people show they had no respect for other cultures and empires to exist on their own.... Your comparing apples and oranges...
Compare the way those empires treated prisoners of war with the way America treats its detainees... in the time of empires prisoners were exectured or enslaved.. What exactly is the comparison here ?

you call it restraint of armies ? I call it natural attrition of military after years of warfare.. thats how these empires came to be in the first place. As well as limitations by competing forces... Rome simply did not stop its warfare because they suddenly had respect for the surrounding peoples.. they stoped because their military forces were extended and competiting forces were limiting their actions.. I am only using the case of Rome because i know it best.. but this case is as well transferable onto all other empires including the Persian (Ottaman Empire)

OK, the point still stands. The US hypocritically goes around accussing others of human rights violations while it commits its own.

yet the degrees of human rights violations are far apart... Are you to say we as people cannot confront murderes for disrespecting the nature of laws, because we disreguard traffic laws ?

We aproach China because it imprisions people at will merely for their political views, not even actions... and may exectute people at will... This is far beyond the situation in which a man fighting American forces in Afganistan is held for 2 years in Guantanimo as a threat to national security...

you call it restraint of armies ? I call it natural attrition of military after years of warfare.. thats how these empires came to be in the first place. As well as limitations by competing forces... Rome simply did not stop its warfare because they suddenly had respect for the surrounding peoples.. they stoped because their military forces were extended and competiting forces were limiting their actions.. I am only using the case of Rome because i know it best.. but this case is as well transferable onto all other empires including the Persian (Ottaman Empire)

When I said restraint of armies, I meant that oftenly when an army is victorious over a city, they'll go in and kill innocent people, rape women, and destroy or rob property. Although I haven't heard of cases of rape in Iraq, I have heard of cases of killing innocent people and destroying and stealing property.

yet the degrees of human rights violations are far apart... Are you to say we as people cannot confront murderes for disrespecting the nature of laws, because we disreguard traffic laws ?

We aproach China because it imprisions people at will merely for their political views, not even actions... and may exectute people at will... This is far beyond the situation in which a man fighting American forces in Afganistan is held for 2 years in Guantanimo as a threat to national security...

I wouldn't downplay what the US has done in Iraq as a "disregard to traffic laws" while China and other countries would be the murderers. Far from it. The US actions are as bad as what China has done and as bad as committing murder.

When I said restraint of armies, I meant that oftenly when an army is victorious over a city, they'll go in and kill innocent people, rape women, and destroy or rob property. Although I haven't heard of cases of rape in Iraq, I have heard of cases of killing innocent people and destroying and stealing property.

by american forces ? i would like to see those articles.. ive read no such thing

I wouldn't downplay what the US has done in Iraq as a "disregard to traffic laws" while China and other countries would be the murderers. Far from it. The US actions are as bad as what China has done and as bad as committing murder.

this is simply where we must agree to disagree... as far as im concerned resolution 441 made it quite clear what would happen (even if the UN was able to enforce its own resoultions as always) if saddam failed to comply with weapon inspectors (as hans blix so stated in his report)... coupled with the fact that if the US really saw the bad intelegence it had as credible and valid.. it had every right and responsiblity to act in the manner that it did (given Iraqs history of defiance and ellusiveness).. and in no way is comparable to exectuting citizens for political ideologies

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

Well, in war, things are not so neat. I just say too damn bad. We have to win and forget the naysayers and traitors who would like us to apologize for trying to win. We didn't apologize for bombing the heck out of German cities in WWII even those caused a lot of civilian casualites. Too damn bad, in war people die. Doing what it takes to win requires no apologizes.

by american forces ? i would like to see those articles.. ive read no such thing

I don't have articles for you, just word of mouth from people who lived there. Although, I did watch a Sunday morning show that showed a US tank flattening a civilian car for no apparent reason. The reporter said they later found out it was someone's taxi cab. Soldier boy's repsonse was "that's what you get when you lose"

this is simply where we must agree to disagree... as far as im concerned resolution 441 made it quite clear what would happen (even if the UN was able to enforce its own resoultions as always) if saddam failed to comply with weapon inspectors (as hans blix so stated in his report)... coupled with the fact that if the US really saw the bad intelegence it had as credible and valid.. it had every right and responsiblity to act in the manner that it did (given Iraqs history of defiance and ellusiveness).. and in no way is comparable to exectuting citizens for political ideologies

This touches on a whole different subject. This is arguing the justification to go to war, not the justification for the US to behave the way it did during the war.

Well, in war, things are not so neat. I just say too damn bad. We have to win and forget the naysayers and traitors who would like us to apologize for trying to win. We didn't apologize for bombing the heck out of German cities in WWII even those caused a lot of civilian casualites. Too damn bad, in war people die. Doing what it takes to win requires no apologizes.

OK, let's say you've won Craigerock and have won in this manner. How do you think it will affect American reputation and sway every time a US politician sites human rights violations?

I don't have articles for you, just word of mouth from people who lived there. Although, I did watch a Sunday morning show that showed a US tank flattening a civilian car for no apparent reason. The reporter said they later found out it was someone's taxi cab. Soldier boy's repsonse was "that's what you get when you lose"

... a tank flatening a car does not equate pilliaging and murder.. but rather indifference to property... which maybe the case in that atmosphere i would not be surprised.... and word of mouth from "people who live there" is notoriously unreliable.. some how Im betting a high degree of bias.. if pilliaging of Iraqi citizens was a common occurance .. the Media.. weather it be the conservative American meida or liberal European media would have picked it up by now as they salavate regularly for all tid bits of news worth information ... and I surely would have heard of it (as I am a news juckie watching every bit of news from as many sources as i can get)

OK, let's say you've won Craigerock and have won in this manner. How do you think it will affect American reputation and sway every time a US politician sites human rights violations?

up until now... it has had little eftect... you say after Iraq we are unable to hold the position of morality credibly.. which is to suggest we could before.. despite.. vietnam.. korea... world war 2... the atom bombs ?!? (and incidents such as suggested by the fellow on the bombing of Germany).... Our past is much uglier then our present.. yet it has had no effect thus far.

OK, let's say you've won Craigerock and have won in this manner. How do you think it will affect American reputation and sway every time a US politician sites human rights violations?

It is not US Policy that needs to change, it is the attitudes of our so-called allies that need to change. In the end, if the world were to stand united with the United States there would be a lot less opposition from the enemy and a lot less casualities. There is a propaganda war going on against the US that only serves the enemy, and causes further bloodshed. Unite with US policy and lives will be saved.

What do you think of these photos:

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html

Are these the people you are defending?

it doesn't affect american credibility. try this:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/03/content_421497.htm

... a tank flatening a car does not equate pilliaging and murder.. but rather indifference to property... which maybe the case in that atmosphere i would not be surprised.... and word of mouth from "people who live there" is notoriously unreliable.. some how Im betting a high degree of bias.. if pilliaging of Iraqi citizens was a common occurance .. the Media.. weather it be the conservative American meida or liberal European media would have picked it up by now as they salavate regularly for all tid bits of news worth information ... and I surely would have heard of it (as I am a news juckie watching every bit of news from as many sources as i can get)


Word of mouth is not unreliable. I highly doubt these people are lying to me. And the media has a bias.

it doesn't affect american credibility. try this:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/03/content_421497.htm

The United States hardly needs a lecture on human rights from China. :headbang: Like I said, there is a propaganda war going on and as far as I can tell you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If everyone united behind US policy there would be less bloodshed, not more.

You never did answer my questions from my last post....

The United States hardly needs a lecture on human rights from China. :headbang: Like I said, there is a propaganda war going on and as far as I can tell you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If everyone united behind US policy there would be less bloodshed, not more.

You never did answer my questions from my last post....

Yes, the world would be easier if they would blindly go with the US. However, the US serves up as much propoganda as anyone else. Sorry if this makes me your problem.

China has as much right to lecture the US about human rights as the US has to lecture China about human rights. This is my point: the US hypocritically telling people they're in violation of human rights. What the US has done is in no way less atrocious than what China does.

Yes, the world would be easier if they would blindly go with the US. However, the US serves up as much propoganda as anyone else. Sorry if this makes me your problem.

China has as much right to lecture the US about human rights as the US has to lecture China about human rights. This is my point: the US hypocritically telling people they're in violation of human rights. What the US has done is in no way less atrocious than what China does.

Just wait till they invade Taiwan, they will make the so-called human rights abuses in Iraq look like nothing. Would you criticize China if they did the same thing in Taiwan that we have done in Iraq?

Just wait till they invade Taiwan, they will make the so-called human rights abuses in Iraq look like nothing. Would you criticize China if they did the same thing in Taiwan that we have done in Iraq?

Sure I would. I would hope the international community would too. However, I don't think the US would have a right to.

Sure I would. I would hope the international community would too. However, I don't think the US would have a right to.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure you didn't have a double-standard against the US. Going back to your first post in this thread. I do have a couple of comments in defense of the US.

-- With regard to Abu Graib, first of all, yes those abuses were humiliating but considering the interviewers were trying to save American military lives by extracting information to prevent planned attacks -- these techniques may have been necessary. Where the abuses were unauthorized, I believe the US government has come clean by prosecuting those involved. Most undemocratic nations wouldn't even bother with that.

-- With regard to Camp Delta, in Gitmo, nearly the same thing as the last paragraph on Abu Graib. These guys were terrorists from Bin Ladin's camps in Afghanistan. They needed to have information extracted. I personally don't have a problem with water boarding and other non-lethal techniques to extract information.

Also, read posts 4 and 5. These people seem to know how to pick out US atrocities better than I do.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure you didn't have a double-standard against the US. Going back to your first post in this thread. I do have a couple of comments in defense of the US.

I dislike the US but I try not to have a double standard. It seems the US does have a double standard by accusing other nations of human rights violations while they commit their own. Despite what you think about Abu Gharib and Guantanomo, it seems there is a general consensus that the US carries out acts that can be considered inhumane.

Also, read posts 4 and 5. These people seem to know how to pick out US atrocities better than I do.

I understand there are abuses that even the US government recognizes as such. The problem is the piling on by the America-haters who fail to recognize the US's good faith efforts to come clean by prosecuting rogue cops and individuals who commit these acts. Quite frankly, even if we did not violate any human rights in Iraq, the Chinese would find something else to criticise about us, because their perception about American society is so far off base. We are a democracy and we have the rule of law, this alone allows for the investigation of abuses and the prosecution thereof.

I understand there are abuses that even the US government recognizes as such. The problem is the piling on by the America-haters who fail to recognize the US's good faith efforts to come clean by prosecuting rogue cops and individuals who commit these acts. Quite frankly, even if we did not violate any human rights in Iraq, the Chinese would find something else to criticise about us, because their perception about American society is so far off base. We are a democracy and we have the rule of law, this alone allows for the investigation of abuses and the prosecution thereof.

I fail to see America's good faith efforts... I read a lieutenant who ordered his men to throw iraqis in the tigris river received 6 months sentence. 6 month sentence (let alone many people)? this is fair for drowning someone? Only if they do to him what was done to iraqis in Abu Gharib.

Furthermore, China critisized the US only after the US critisized them.

read this article if you're interested in what prompted me to start this thread:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F2FE97C-9D4E-48A0-BBFD-FF30F3635E83.htm

About a year or so ago, I was not very political, but I woke up to the realization there is an enemy not only against the US from outside our borders, but an enemy from inside that wants nothing less than the destruction of American society and institutions like democracy, family and church and they will do and say anything including lies to carry out their goal. A large part of this is being carried out in the legal system and in the media.

These same people are these America-haters that never fail to be be so damn negative all the time and never think about the positive.

I fail to see America's good faith efforts... I read a lieutenant who ordered his men to throw iraqis in the tigris river received 6 months sentence. 6 month sentence (let alone many people)? this is fair for drowning someone? Only if they do to him what was done to iraqis in Abu Gharib.

Furthermore, China critisized the US only after the US critisized them.

Then you are blinded by the disease of liberalism if you fail to see that at least he had his day in court. In China or other countries, a court hearing would be a dream come true. You and I can not judge the evidence that was weighed in the court. There might have been mitigating evidence to the contrary.

As far as China criticizing the US only after the US has criticized them. I don't think so. Mao Tse Tung made anti-US 'ism pervade rural chinese society even before his revolution.

Then you are blinded by the disease of liberalism if you fail to see that at least he had his day in court. In China or other countries, a court hearing would be a dream come true. You and I can not judge the evidence that was weighed in the court. There might have been mitigating evidence to the contrary.

As far as China criticizing the US only after the US has criticized them. I don't think so. Mao Tse Tung made anti-US 'ism pervade rural chinese society even before his revolution.

Who accused who first isn't my point (I should have never gotten into that). The point is its hypocrisy to accuse someone of something that you're doing.

here is the article on the drownings

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6793776/

Also, how many of these go untried?

Commenting on the two reports, Mickie Spiegel, China researcher at the New York based Human Rights Watch, said: "Though I believe the US report on China tries to reflect accurately what is happening, American actions (in Iraq) has made it easier for the Chinese to criticise America, and makes it easier for more abusive governments to justify their own actions.

Ok, I read the article. I pulled the above and see your point. You know, the chinese attitude is a real "cop out", a very unprincipled action. If they were sincere about protecting human rights, they would do so on principle and not wait for the US to lead. After all they have the most people in the world, why not take the moral high ground and stand up for what is right regardless what the US does. I don't think nations like Switzerland (mentioned earlier in this thread) ever had to look at the United States, and go, hey, "I want to be like them, they developed a political system protecting human rights and political freedom on principle, not on what the world thinks of them.

Commenting on the two reports, Mickie Spiegel, China researcher at the New York based Human Rights Watch, said: "Though I believe the US report on China tries to reflect accurately what is happening, American actions (in Iraq) has made it easier for the Chinese to criticise America, and makes it easier for more abusive governments to justify their own actions.

Ok, I read the article. I pulled the above and see your point. You know, the chinese attitude is a real "cop out", a very unprincipled action. If they were sincere about protecting human rights, they would do so on principle and not wait for the US to lead. After all they have the most people in the world, why not take the moral high ground and stand up for what is right regardless what the US does. I don't think nations like Switzerland (mentioned earlier in this thread) ever had to look at the United States, and go, hey, "I want to be like them, they developed a political system protecting human rights and political freedom on principle, not on what the world thinks of them.


I'm not saying China or China's government is benevolent and impeccable. It is probably as corrupt as the US government. But, that's not the topic of the post.

I'm not saying China or China's government is benevolent and impeccable. It is probably as corrupt as the US government. But, that's not the topic of the post.

Roger that, not the topic of your post. Nice discussing this with ya. I got to go ..... this is a good stopping point..

Roger that, not the topic of your post. Nice discussing this with ya. I got to go ..... this is a good stopping point..

ok

Word of mouth is not unreliable. I highly doubt these people are lying to me. And the media has a bias.

media does have a bias.. American media in favor of America.. European media in favor of... >.> anti-america ? however you want to place it.. america is shown in poor light as often as possible...

reguardless.. this media bias would have capitlized on the issues you posed has it occured... because that is the nature of the bias.. to put down america ... so again i say.. i would have heard of it, had it been reported

media does have a bias.. American media in favor of America.. European media in favor of... >.> anti-america ? however you want to place it.. america is shown in poor light as often as possible...

reguardless.. this media bias would have capitlized on the issues you posed has it occured... because that is the nature of the bias.. to put down america ... so again i say.. i would have heard of it, had it been reported

ok, the guy that drowned the iraqis... that should suffice of at least one example

Who accused who first isn't my point (I should have never gotten into that). The point is its hypocrisy to accuse someone of something that you're doing.

here is the article on the drownings

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6793776/

Also, how many of these go untried?

yet by making the point that only after the iraq war we are able to maintain the stance we had in the area of Human rights is to suggest we had it before.. HOwever Before the Iraq war we had even more Human rights violations (arguable in every case of course) and they had no effect on our moral stance ... (examples... atom bombs.. vietnam, korea, ww2's carpet bombing ... etc) Yet no one argued the credibility of the United States when it critizised the USSR for its Human rights violations or China or Saddam or god only knows how many counties in Africa... How has Iraq with its violations (As you claim) which are clearly pale in comparison to say .. Hiroshima.. changed the enviornment ? other then the fact that this is fresh meat on the bone which will disipate within the next 4 to 5 years (politics holds a short memory afterall)

ok, the guy that drowned the iraqis... that should suffice of at least one example

... an isolated incident which was brought to trial and had a verdict.. I fail to see how this is reflective of a more systematic pilliage and plunder issue your trying to suggest in comparison to old empires pilliaging and buring the nations they conqured...

yet by making the point that only after the iraq war we are able to maintain the stance we had in the area of Human rights is to suggest we had it before.. HOwever Before the Iraq war we had even more Human rights violations (arguable in every case of course) and they had no effect on our moral stance ... (examples... atom bombs.. vietnam, korea, ww2's carpet bombing ... etc) Yet no one argued the credibility of the United States when it critizised the USSR for its Human rights violations or China or Saddam or god only knows how many counties in Africa... How has Iraq with its violations (As you claim) which are clearly pale in comparison to say .. Hiroshima.. changed the enviornment ? other then the fact that this is fresh meat on the bone which will disipate within the next 4 to 5 years (politics holds a short memory afterall)

I think you have a point there. It doesn't make it right but things like this take a backseat for other reasons.

yet by making the point that only after the iraq war we are able to maintain the stance we had in the area of Human rights is to suggest we had it before.. HOwever Before the Iraq war we had even more Human rights violations (arguable in every case of course) and they had no effect on our moral stance ... (examples... atom bombs.. vietnam, korea, ww2's carpet bombing ... etc) Yet no one argued the credibility of the United States when it critizised the USSR for its Human rights violations or China or Saddam or god only knows how many counties in Africa... How has Iraq with its violations (As you claim) which are clearly pale in comparison to say .. Hiroshima.. changed the enviornment ? other then the fact that this is fresh meat on the bone which will disipate within the next 4 to 5 years (politics holds a short memory afterall)

I was thinking about this. I thought maybe the fact that pictures have been taken and therefore it has been more graphic than it has been in the past might make things different this time around. However, to drop the atom bomb on civilians twice is one of the worst atrocities I can think of (ranks right up there with Hitler) and yet people still went along with the US when they cited Saddam's human rights record as a reason to go to war. So, I'm thinking that you really might be right about this. Which kind of sucks, basically it means people can get away with all kinds of sh-t.

I was thinking about this. I thought maybe the fact that pictures have been taken and therefore it has been more graphic than it has been in the past might make things different this time around. However, to drop the atom bomb on civilians twice is one of the worst atrocities I can think of (ranks right up there with Hitler) and yet people still went along with the US when they cited Saddam's human rights record as a reason to go to war. So, I'm thinking that you really might be right about this. Which kind of sucks, basically it means people can get away with all kinds of sh-t.

yeah, people dont seem to see back and remember, america killed 4 million civilian asians, they got pinoche to power..

They are right up there with Hitler, but they didnt kill "Untermenchen", they killed "gooks".. And then there is the other things they participated in, how they shot at students, and the west, and the united states who secratly helped franco against the elected goverment..

But the Us empire will fall like all others, one day the revolutin will come and all men will be like brothers..

Until then gods speed to the men of the iraqi resisytance fighting for theit contry and people..

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.
Considering what we know now about the US and what is going to happen during the next years as long as Bush is in power, I dobut it. The US is flawed in it's make-up so deeply that it is on the edge of splitting into 2 nations. I don't see the US ever gaining back the respect it once had, before we had things like the Internet. Since the age of rapid information-transmission, the world has amuch easier time, seeing behind the facades of governments. The US government was successful in hiding it's dark true face throughout the last 50 years. This is now over and with the true face and intentions of the US revealed, nobody can ever again trust that nation.

Ein Deutscher']Considering what we know now about the US and what is going to happen during the next years as long as Bush is in power, I dobut it. The US is flawed in it's make-up so deeply that it is on the edge of splitting into 2 nations. I don't see the US ever gaining back the respect it once had, before we had things like the Internet. Since the age of rapid information-transmission, the world has amuch easier time, seeing behind the facades of governments. The US government was successful in hiding it's dark true face throughout the last 50 years. This is now over and with the true face and intentions of the US revealed, nobody can ever again trust that nation.

I don't think it is that deeply divided. It's not on the brink of civil war.

No, I don't believe they can any more. In time perhaps they might be able to gain back the respect and honour they once had with the rest of the world. Although I think the damage done by this current administration will last for years, if not decades. I think it will take a long time for the United States to earn back the trust of the world, and even if possible, I don't think it will ever be quite the way it was. Too much has happened over the last few years. Some times you can get passed some thing for the sake of trade and business and foreign relations. But once respect is lost, it some times never really is returned. I think we all know this from our own lives, that is the way it works.

boohoo how will we ever recover not having the respect of the tin pot dictatorships and Euro socialist states :rolleyes:

What I mean by human rights violations:

1) Abuse and humiliation of POWs in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib.

2) The way Fallujah was handled, meaning unecessary killing and destruction, trying to keep the whole thing a secret by keeping reporters out, keeping medical aid to the city out.

3) Other abuses carried out in Iraq, such as the killing of people attending a wedding.

1) terrorists are not POW's

2) what were we supposed to do, invite the terrorists over to sit around the campfire and sing kumbajah? Shock and awe, that's what wins wars.

3) but collaborating with Saddam to keep him in power like France and Germany did, that's not a violation?

Iraq is far better off now than it was 2 years ago. Unlike worthless Euro socialist states we don't cower and retreat when faced with the terrorists and their religion of death and destruction.

Ein Deutscher']Considering what we know now about the US and what is going to happen during the next years as long as Bush is in power, I dobut it. The US is flawed in it's make-up so deeply that it is on the edge of splitting into 2 nations. I don't see the US ever gaining back the respect it once had, before we had things like the Internet. Since the age of rapid information-transmission, the world has amuch easier time, seeing behind the facades of governments. The US government was successful in hiding it's dark true face throughout the last 50 years. This is now over and with the true face and intentions of the US revealed, nobody can ever again trust that nation.

we are one nation, a nation of republican states and republican states with a few heavily democratic counties. What are the liberals gonna do? Secede? Don't make me laugh!

And you are lucky I chose the name I did for this game, otherwise I would give you a lesson on countries behaviour and being respected, considering you are from Germany.

1) terrorists are not POW's

2) what were we supposed to do, invite the terrorists over to sit around the campfire and sing kumbajah? Shock and awe, that's what wins wars.

3) but collaborating with Saddam to keep him in power like France and Germany did, that's not a violation?

Iraq is far better off now than it was 2 years ago. Unlike worthless Euro socialist states we don't cower and retreat when faced with the terrorists and their religion of death and destruction.

We've already discussed this in the forum. Besides, it seems you're trying to get a reaction out of people more than anything.