NationStates Jolt Archive

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420771) is ridiculous.
And so are most of the Bush-bashing comments.
Ok a little bit of fun is alright, but in a serious poll... grow up.

What is ridiculous? People see the US as a threat, and rightly so.

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420771) is ridiculous.
And so are most of the Bush-bashing comments.
Ok a little bit of fun is alright, but in a serious poll... grow up.

Why?

I am far more afraid of the US and it's nukes than say an Iran or a North Korea. The US, because of its influence and power could get away with a small nuke, whereas Iran/PRK cannot. In fact, to use a nuke would violate the very reason they want one - they want to be safe from US invasion. I guarentee you if either government was dumb enough to use one or sell it to someone who would, they would find the entire world armed and at their door.

I said so in that thread, and so, I think, did many others.

Unless I'm reading your meaning entirely wrong, in that case ignore me.

America and Norht Korea are most likely the only threats with nukes in the world..

nothing worng there with that poll and a FORUM. its called Democracy, ever heard of it?

The US, because of its influence and power could get away with a small nuke, whereas Iran/PRK cannot. In fact, to use a nuke would violate the very reason they want one - they want to be safe from US invasion. I guarentee you if either government was dumb enough to use one or sell it to someone who would, they would find the entire world armed and at their door.


The US could not get away with using nuclear weapons. They would become even more of an international pariah than they already are.

nothing worng there with that poll and a FORUM. its called Democracy, ever heard of it?

Yeah, cause the guy said no one should be voting, right?

I DONT think there are NO reasons to vote as you did, but I guess for most it was just like "threat? USA? of course!", because I have seen much stranger polls bashing the USA.

The US could not get away with using nuclear weapons. They would become even more of an international pariah than they already are.

The US is too large and powerful to be an international pariah. That's why it is the biggest threat, and also why it continues to get away with such acts as invading countries on the basis of lies. They believe they can get away with things, as they do get away with things. That's what makes them dangerous.

Why?

I am far more afraid of the US and it's nukes than say an Iran or a North Korea. The US, because of its influence and power could get away with a small nuke, whereas Iran/PRK cannot. In fact, to use a nuke would violate the very reason they want one - they want to be safe from US invasion. I guarentee you if either government was dumb enough to use one or sell it to someone who would, they would find the entire world armed and at their door.

I said so in that thread, and so, I think, did many others.

Unless I'm reading your meaning entirely wrong, in that case ignore me.

Our days of using nukes are over... unless Kim Jong Il is actually crazy enough to launch one against us (which he just might be).

That isn't that rediculous; the US could easily be seen as a threat. What is rediculous is when people put Bush in one of those, "Worst Dictator of all Time" polls, or something of the like. I mean, come on.

That isn't that rediculous; the US could easily be seen as a threat. What is rediculous is when people put Bush in one of those, "Worst Dictator of all Time" polls, or something of the like. I mean, come on.

yeah, lol.

And the sad thing is, Bush usually wins on those polls. I hate Bush, too, but he is in no way the "worst dictator of all time." Sheesh!

That isn't that rediculous; the US could easily be seen as a threat. What is rediculous is when people put Bush in one of those, "Worst Dictator of all Time" polls, or something of the like. I mean, come on.

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?

The US is too large and powerful to be an international pariah. That's why it is the biggest threat, and also why it continues to get away with such acts as invading countries on the basis of lies. They believe they can get away with things, as they do get away with things. That's what makes them dangerous.

Continues to get away with doing something once? Okay, if you say so...

There is a world of difference between using nuclear weapons and the invasion of Iraq. If you can't see that, I really don't know what to say.

The only reason the US would use nuclear weapons would be as a last resort. Tactical destruction is much better served by the use of cruise missiles and other smart weapons. No nation, no group, has the power or strength to endanger the US so far as to cause them to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear strike.

And if they don't strike first, then they aren't who the biggest worry should have been.

The US could not get away with using nuclear weapons. They would become even more of an international pariah than they already are.


Nonsense.

Who, may I ask would stop us if such a need for the detonation of such a device were called for?
All of you people who think that you have to worry about America setting off some sort of nuclear device is idiocy.

You need to worry about Iran or N Korea long before us.

The only circumstance that would make America use such a weapon is if another rouge nation did it first.

End of story.

That isn't that rediculous; the US could easily be seen as a threat. What is rediculous is when people put Bush in one of those, "Worst Dictator of all Time" polls, or something of the like. I mean, come on.

Thank you, I did not remenber which thread was much more ridiculous.

The US might use the logic some Hiroshima apologists use to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a nuke (or two or three) would safe more American soldier's lifes than a military campaign. They use this logic out of blindness and arrogance and this is exactly why I despise the US nukes more than any other country's nukes. The US has repeatedly shown it's contempt for international law and peace, thus is the largest danger to world peace.

Ein Deutscher']The US might use the logic some Hiroshima apologists use to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a nuke (or two or three) would safe more American soldier's lifes thna a military campaign. They use this logic out of blindness and arrogance and this is exactly why I despise the US nukes more than any other country's nukes. The US has repeatedly shown it's contempt for international law and peace, thus is the largest danger to world peace.

Yeah, and it takes a German to lecture us. You have no room to talk. We should have nuked Germany.

Ein Deutscher']The US might use the logic some Hiroshima apologists use to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki - a nuke (or two or three) would safe more American soldier's lifes than a military campaign. They use this logic out of blindness and arrogance and this is exactly why I despise the US nukes more than any other country's nukes. The US has repeatedly shown it's contempt for international law and peace, thus is the largest danger to world peace.
International ignorance and down right stupidity is by far the largest danger to world peace
:rolleyes:

Yeah, and it takes a German to lecture us. You have no room to talk. We should have nuked Germany.

Because obviously all Germans alive today are personally responsible for what the country did under Hitler, and are therefore evermore unable to have a valid opinion on discussion forums for all eternity. :rolleyes:

Because obviously all Germans alive today are personally responsible for what the country did under Hitler, and are therefore evermore unable to have a valid opinion on discussion forums for all eternity. :rolleyes:
Of course. Did you not know? We're all Nazis by default. Born with a mustache and natural hatred for jews.

Ein Deutscher']Of course. Did you not know? We're all Nazis by default. Born with a mustache and natural hatred for jews.

The sins of the father are visited upon you. Try to win a war next time.

Yeah, and it takes a German to lecture us. You have no room to talk. We should have nuked Germany.

Germany has done a lot more than could ever be expected to try and stop a return to its past e.g. the 5% clause, banning all nazi symbols,salutes, etc.

I would trust germany more now than I would trust the US. Germany doesnt throw its weight about (i can forgive the EU actions) as much as the US and could not get away with mass attacks on other countries without being stopped. Those among the populations of other countries who attack the germans of their past fail to notice the brutality of their own past. All are in the past and so they shouldnt be used as a debating point in the present

The sins of the father are visited upon you. Try to win a war next time.
If you're American - shame on your for your treatment of the Indians. If you're French - shame on your for your treatment of the Africans. If you're British - shame on you for the treatment of the real Indians in India. If you're Russian - shame on your for the treatment of your own people. Etc. etc. Your "argument" is so laughable, that I wonder why you even began with it. Hypocrit. :rolleyes:

Germany has done a lot more than could ever be expected to try and stop a return to its past e.g. the 5% clause, banning all nazi symbols,salutes, etc.

I would trust germany more now than I would trust the US. Germany doesnt throw its weight about (i can forgive the EU actions) as much as the US and could not get away with mass attacks on other countries without being stopped. Those among the populations of other countries who attack the germans of their past fail to notice the brutality of their own past. All are in the past and so they shouldnt be used as a debating point in the present

I was talking about the German people in general, they still have the same sense of apathy as they did when that Austrian blindly led you to total destruction. You people are the same types that butchered millions. I still have no respect for them. I'm glad my father completed all of his bombing missions in WWII, the death he rained down upon them was much deserved. :)

Don't feed the bloody troll people.

I was talking about the German people in general, they still have the same sense of apathy as they did when that Austrian blindly led you to total destruction. You people are the same types that butchered millions. I still have no respect for them. I'm glad my father completed all of his bombing missions in WWII, the death he rained down upon them was much deserved. :)

You clearly know nothing of history. What is this sense of apathy to which you refer? Are you really that ignorant, or is it all an act?

And the sad thing is, Bush usually wins on those polls. I hate Bush, too, but he is in no way the "worst dictator of all time." Sheesh!
hum-our

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?


You're right! Liberals finnally nailed one on the head! Now lets count all the wars of Jesus, God, Allah,...ect,

Actually, that's unfair, the others all acted independently. Bush had over half of Americans and Congress help him.

The fact that people this ignorant are alive is troubling. By the way, I'll let you say the Iraq war was started by Bush, but he did NOT start the Afghanistan war. Terrorists started that war and we finished it. But no, I'm sure you would much rather have them in power.

Please, ignore Motor City.

He/She is an idiot troll, let 'em starve.

Please, ignore Motor City.

He/She is an idiot troll, let 'em starve.
Alright :D

Actually, that's unfair, the others all acted independently. Bush had over half of Americans and Congress help him.

Hitler acted independently??? :confused:
As far as i know Germans voted for him and supported him, and that is as much as Americans did: voting for someone and supporting him.
(No this is not to be a comparsion of Hitler and Bush or something. I just want to emphasise that Hitler did not act idependently.)

Hitler acted independently??? :confused:
As far as i know Germans voted for him and supported him, and that is as much as Americans did: voting for someone and supporting him.
(No this is not to be a comparsion of Hitler and Bush or something. I just want to emphasise that Hitler did not act idependently.)
Oh , he did. He gave himself absolute power after the burning of the Reichstag.

I think it is silly too. A civilized country like the US is not going to allow the use of nuclear missiles.

I was talking about the German people in general, they still have the same sense of apathy as they did when that Austrian blindly led you to total destruction. You people are the same types that butchered millions. I still have no respect for them. I'm glad my father completed all of his bombing missions in WWII, the death he rained down upon them was much deserved. :)
I think the Germans are wrong bout most things, but your comment is blatantly racist.
And that site you linked yesterday was racist.
Why is it that I seem to be seeing a pattern here? Is it just my imagination?

I think it is silly too. A civilized country like the US is not going to allow the use of nuclear missiles.
Just like it is not breaking international law and not allowing torture and arbitrary detention?

Ein Deutscher']Just like it is not breaking international law and not allowing torture and arbitrary detention?
terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions or any other international laws. Hence, no laws are being violated if the terrorists at Guantanamo are being tortured.
Now if another country would like to claim these people as their citizens as part of a branch of their government, we would be happy to apply international law to them.
But then we would start bombing the crap out of whoever claims ownership of them.
But until a government claims them as part of its agents, the laws of POWs and Geneva do not apply to them.

What about these nuclear bunker-buster bombs. Aren't the Americans still developing them? Those aren't for retaliation in a nuclear war, those can only be to crack bunkers that are even sturdier than the normal ones.
As if the US Military wouldn't use them if they have them and get the opportunity.
And although that may not be a wipin-out a city kinda weapon, its nuclear nonetheless and its all about principle isnt it?
As far as I can say, I would say that neither Iran nor DPRK would actually use a nuke unless attacked, and in that case they can be forgiven, afterall the US uses them "as a last resort".
And with a country that seems to be powered by some sort of moral calling (god-sent maybe?) to wipe out "evildoers etc", and that thus is more important than international law (ie Abu Ghraib, Camp X-Ray, the whole kind-of-but-not-quite-torture thing, and the Iraq war in general), I am more worried that using nukes preemptively is very much on Bush's agenda.

terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions or any other international laws. Hence, no laws are being violated if the terrorists at Guantanamo are being tortured.
Now if another country would like to claim these people as their citizens as part of a branch of their government, we would be happy to apply international law to them.
But then we would start bombing the crap out of whoever claims ownership of them.
But until a government claims them as part of its agents, the laws of POWs and Geneva do not apply to them.
i couldnt care less if international law is applied to them, torture and arbitary imprisonment is still wrong

terrorists are not protected by the Geneva Conventions or any other international laws. Hence, no laws are being violated if the terrorists at Guantanamo are being tortured.
Now if another country would like to claim these people as their citizens as part of a branch of their government, we would be happy to apply international law to them.
But then we would start bombing the crap out of whoever claims ownership of them.
But until a government claims them as part of its agents, the laws of POWs and Geneva do not apply to them.
Actually - as usual and in good company with Whispering Legs - you are so wrong. The POWs in Gitmo even enjoy the protections of the US constitution. And their designation as "terrorists" has in most cases been invalidaded by the US Supreme Court or has not happened at all. Due to this - I think you are talking out of your ass without much information. As usual. Try not declaring everyone a terrorist for once and acknowledge that most people in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram are innocents who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up in US imprisonment. Not to mention that quite a number of nations have claimed "ownership" of their nationals and got them released with subsequent allegiations of torture and whatnot against the US by these same ex-prisoners - most of which didn't even get access to lawyers or their embassies and so on. We even had a case of a German national being kidnapped by the CIA and brought to Afghanistan, violating all sorts of laws and treaties.

I'm so tired of the argument that the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. The use of those bombs to force Japan into surrender have saved COUNTLESS more lives. Japan was prepared to fight till the very last man, woman, and child. Prime example: Civilians on the islands before Japan, Iwo Jima *spelling..?* for instance, were throwing themselves with their babies in their arms, off cliffs.

The US printed 500,000 purples hearts in advance for the invasion of Japan, to give you an idea, no new medals have been needed to be printed since then.

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?

Stalin started no wars? The his invasion of Finland to start the Winter War was what, simply huge numbers of pizza delivery folks who were mistaken for Soviet soldiers?

Japan did not need invading. It was dead in the water, no real airforce, the army was made up of civilians with sticks, the production was shot and the US airforce was slaughtering the remainder. Even if the US laid off and only hit military targets Japan would have collapsed.

we have a HUGE number of nuclear weapons of various payloads (havent we started making "small" tactical nukes?) many of the store right here in new mexico

why should i worry about north korea who is more likely to lob a nuke to japan or to have it end up somewhere in the pacific rather than california, when we only have to have one big lapse of security HERE in order to have a nuclear bomb go off?

i get mad at those people who suggest that bush knew about 9/11 in advance or that he wont give up power in '09, those things are stupid and ugly. but i think he could very well be told by his 'guys' that a nuke is needed somewhere and since he doesnt really think about stuff, he would agree to it.

i couldnt care less if international law is applied to them, torture and arbitary imprisonment is still wrong
you got to do what you got to do to protect innocent civilians. no one in guantanamo is innocent.

you got to do what you got to do to protect innocent civilians. no one in guantanamo is innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty. They are innocent.

Ein Deutscher']Actually - as usual and in good company with Whispering Legs - you are so wrong. The POWs in Gitmo even enjoy the protections of the US constitution. And their designation as "terrorists" has in most cases been invalidaded by the US Supreme Court or has not happened at all. Due to this - I think you are talking out of your ass without much information. As usual. Try not declaring everyone a terrorist for once and acknowledge that most people in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Baghram are innocents who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up in US imprisonment. Not to mention that quite a number of nations have claimed "ownership" of their nationals and got them released with subsequent allegiations of torture and whatnot against the US by these same ex-prisoners - most of which didn't even get access to lawyers or their embassies and so on. We even had a case of a German national being kidnapped by the CIA and brought to Afghanistan, violating all sorts of laws and treaties.
The US Supreme Court never said they all were protected by the US Constitution. It ruled that those who were US citizens were protected by the US Constitution. Non citizens are not covered by the constitution.
The rest are terrorists. Those who were given to britain and germany were given over as bones being tossed to dogs as reward for good behavior.
These people that in Guantanamo are guilty of supporting and condoning terrorism and massacres of Americans.
If Germany is harboring people who are sponsoring terrorism then Germany has to expect that we will go into their nation and grab such criminals when Germany refuses to act. Which in the case you cited, it did.

Innocent until proven guilty. They are innocent.
innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens of the United States.

innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens of the United States.

No, it does not. Look into human rights, oh and also ask yourself why it applies to non-US citizens who travel to the US.

No, it does not. Look into human rights, oh and also ask you're self why it applies to non-US citizen who travel to the US.
the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does not protect non US citizens.

the US Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does not protect non US citizens.

When? Where? Source! So why do foreigners get trials in the US?

You still did not comment on the human rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic u voted for him so shut up
or vote for someone else next time its not like hes a :mp5: so :upyours:

we dont live in a democracy we live in a republic u voted for him so shut up
or vote for someone else next time its not like hes a :mp5: so :upyours:

Silly. You live in a democratic republic (or are supposed to, anyway). There is nothing in the term republic that prevents you from being a democracy in the modern sense.

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?

Whoa im a conservative but ill agree with you that bush started one war iraq, which i personally agree with but thats besides the piont. The war in afghanistan was retaliation to the war the Alkida(sry if i spelled it wrong) started. Bush had perfectly good reasons to invade afghanistan. Well unless you call over 3,000 U.S. civilians dying, and the fact that afghanistan was harbouring the people who did it not a good reason. Theres a difference between starting a war and retaliating from an attack. And since when was bush even close to being able to be compared to either of those monsters(Hitler,Stalin). First of all bush isnt even a dictator he was elected and second of all bush didnt hunt down jews and gypsees and all of the other ethnic groups hitler did or start the spread of communism. All of this is rather childish i think you have every wright to dislike bush for the wars we are in and anything he does but there's a line between disliking and just plain hating because you apperently have nothing better to do. I mean come on people complaining about how bush is a dictator besides the fact that its stupid doesnt do anything why dont you just chill out his terms gonna be over in a couple years then you can vote for whoever you want to be in office. So please for the sake of all the rest of the people around you STFU AND STOP WHINEING ABOUT IT!!!

When? Where? Source! So why do foreigners get trials in the US?

You still did not comment on the human rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)
human rights are subject to treaties and a nation's willingness to to abide by said treaties.
there are no nations in the world that in a position to force treaty obligations on the US.
In fact, the US often ignores decisions by the world court that go against it.
Not all foreigners get trials in the US, many are deported.

you got to do what you got to do to protect innocent civilians. no one in guantanamo is innocent.

Okay hotshot, you claim no-one in Guantanamo Bay is innocent? Well then, by all means - prove their guilt.

Oh you won't/don't care to? Alright.

Pipe down then.

human rights are subject to treaties and a nation's willingness to to abide by said treaties.
there are no nations in the world that in a position to force treaty obligations on the US.
In fact, the US often ignores decisions by the world court that go against it.

That is fucking sick. That is one of the most goddamn twisted and fucked up things I have seen on this forum.

human rights are subject to treaties and a nation's willingness to to abide by said treaties.
there are no nations in the world that in a position to force treaty obligations on the US.

I notice how you fail to prove your statement that foreigners are not protected by the US constitution, especially when it comes to "innocent until proven guilty". Unsurprising (especially as the SCOTUS did rule that the people in Guantanamo did have rights).

Oh, and the US constitution binds you to international treaties.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

In fact, the US often ignores decisions by the world court that go against it.

That doesn't change the fact that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to every human, regardless of nationality. That the US is a humans rights violator changes nothing.

Not all foreigners get trials in the US, many are deported.

Deportations are also governed by law, and if you try foreigners with crimes, the "innocent until proven guilty" still applies.

innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens of the United States.

Never mind the technical legalities - why should this be so? What moral or ethical reason is there to deny non-citizens the same rights? Do we actually care about freedom or not?

If the US were to use a nuclear weapon, we would probably see an instant revolt in the Senate, with the democrats filibustering to no end, we'd see the Republicans lose resoundedly in 2006, and 2008. I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens gained several seats in the House if the US used a nuclear weapon in a first strike capacity.

No US President would authorize the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive role. Come on, the US is not some insane caricature of a cowboy with a gun, no matter how much some people would claim that it is.

Please, ignore Motor City.

He/She is an idiot troll, let 'em starve.

It's not nice to call names!

When? Where? Source! So why do foreigners get trials in the US?

You still did not comment on the human rights. (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Come to America and try to purchase a handgun from an honest dealer with your passport.

This is an interesting article relating to this thread:
U.S. under fire at nuclear arms control meeting (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-05-25T223518Z_01_N25250998_RTRIDST_0_INTERNATIONAL-NUCLEAR-ARMS-DC.XML)


By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States is sending the wrong signal to signatories of the global pact against nuclear weapons by backing out of previous arms control pledges, arms experts and diplomats said on Wednesday.

The 188 parties to the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty are near the end of a monthlong conference that participants said would almost certainly fail to agree on any steps to improve the pact aimed at halting the spread of nuclear arms.

"The chances are very slim," said Abdul Minty, head of South Africa's delegation, "There is a big divide ... The U.S. is developing new nuclear weapons and we want to know against whom."

Minty complimented U.S. officials for eventually permitting agenda items they would have preferred to ignore. But he said America's refusal to reaffirm its "unequivocal commitment" to disarmament was problematic for many treaty signatories.

Washington has been exploring the idea of developing smaller atomic weapons -- "mini nukes" or "bunker busters."

The U.N.-sponsored conference, which began on May 2 and ends on Friday, bogged down from the start in wrangling over the agenda and allocation of work among committees.

Nuclear activists and diplomats blamed the delays on a dispute between Iran and the United States over what Washington sees as Tehran's atomic weapons ambitions -- a charge Iran denies.

Jonathan Granoff, president of U.S.-based Global Security Institute, assailed the Bush administration for renouncing the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which Washington signed during the Clinton administration but had not ratified.

"Why should anyone expect that any commitments we make now would be treated any differently five years from now, if the commitment we made 10 years ago can be so readily dispensed with," Granoff said.

One U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bush administration would never agree to a pact like the test ban treaty "that limits our options in a state of war."

Some analysts condemned this as irresponsible. "The principle that the U.S. is establishing is that governments can renege on the commitments of their predecessors in office," observed Joseph Cinincione, an arms expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain tried to agree on a joint statement that included language on Iran and North Korea, which says it already has nuclear weapons, U.S. and European diplomats said on Tuesday.

However, a senior diplomat involved in the conference said the five powers had so far failed to agree on a text. "It's very unlikely at this point," he said. "They've been unable to agree on disarmament and other issues."

Diplomats said there would probably be no consensus statement out of the conference, confirming it was the failure many participants had expected it would be.

But another diplomat said it was unfair to blame the United States, saying critics were missing the point of the conference. "This is not about disarmament, it's about stopping proliferation," the diplomat said.

U.S. and other officials have accused Iran and Egypt of using the non-aligned block of developing states as a vehicle to push anti-American and anti-Israel agendas.

Egypt pushed the conference to call on Israel, which is assumed to have some 200 nuclear warheads, to sign the nonproliferation treaty, which it has not done.

To know about any of these proceedings at the UN, your average American

---I'm looking into a certain Anti-German "My daddy was a war criminal and I'm proud of it!"-Direction---

citizen would actually have to know how America behaves on the diplomatic stage.
But all they hear is:
"Those pansy Liberals from the UN want to destroy us together with the evil-doing non-anglosaxon enemies of the hour!"
So obviously they would believe that America wouldn't use those things, they would believe that there actually would be enough opposition to any given war time announcement by the POTUS of A in political circles to stop a preemptive strike against and they would believe that Kim Jong Il, or Jacques Chirac or Kofi Annan would come into their bedroom at night and bomb them with nukes..... ;)

The U.S. Constitution only applies to U.S. Citizens - no Nation can make a law that provides rights to citizens of another nation, i.e. U.S. cannot make a law stating that all Canadians have to eat bacon - the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Foreign nationals that are tried in the U.S. are afforded the 'benefit of the doubt' because that's simply how our legal system works - not because they have any rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. In fact, foreign nationals are often deported or tried according to the laws of their nation. Just because those laws coincide with our Constitution does not mean they are protected by our Constitution. I'll bet most of you didnt know that minors are not protected by the U.S. Constitution either...As the Constitution only applies to citizens, and one must be 18 to be considered a full citizen, the Constitution does not protect any minor's rights (usually this is irrelevant because they are protected by their guardians, who's rights are protected. But...true nonetheless.)


Stalin and Hitler are not villanized for the wars they started. Rather, they are villanized (and rightly so) for the genocide they ordered to be carried out. Bush has yet to order genocide. Of course, it's convenient for the Liberals to focus on a single aspect of what Hitler and Stalin are villanized for and relate that to their current 'enemy.' If you'd like, I can prove that apples and oranges are the same - after all, they both grow on trees. We'll just ignore all other pertinent facts (like: color, texture, flavor, etc.) and I've proven my argument, no?


As for the torture of terrorists, or suspected terrorists. Do I condone it? No. Is it illegal? No. Is the U.S. looked poorly upon by the rest of the world for it? Yes. Is the U.S. the only 'civilized' Nation to abuse terrorist prisoners? Hardly. Just because the media doesnt cover it doesnt mean it doesnt happen, people. What you see is what the media wants you to see. And let's face it - the media is biased.


Now that a few lingering arguments have been cleared up, back to the original topic please...

As for the torture of terrorists, or suspected terrorists. Do I condone it? No. Is it illegal? No. Is the U.S. looked poorly upon by the rest of the world for it? Yes. Is the U.S. the only 'civilized' Nation to abuse terrorist prisoners? Hardly. Just because the media doesnt cover it doesnt mean it doesnt happen, people. What you see is what the media wants you to see. And let's face it - the media is biased.


Now that a few lingering arguments have been cleared up, back to the original topic please...
Actually, it is illegal for US soldiers to torture terrorists or suspected terrorists. It's even against the law for the US to turn over suspects to countries that we know are going to torture them. And we don't even have to go into international law for that--it's written right into the US code. Not that that's stopping us--after all, when you control the prosecutor, you control what laws get enforced, and the torture statutes are being enforced only on the very lowest levels of military personnel. But hey, as they say, shit flows downhill, and privates are at the bottom of every hill there is.

Your second point is half correct--we do see what the media wants us to see, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the media has a particular political bias. In the case of the US, it means that the media has a hardon for glamour stories that are easy to cover--the Michael Jackson trial, the runaway bride, who's left on the goddamn island, etc. Sending reporters to Uzbekistan to investigate what's happening to the prisoners we've sent there via our barbaric "extraordinary rendition" policy is expensive and it ain't sexy, and those are two things that beancounters at the corporate media don't like to hear. That's why we don't see it--not because of any political bias, but because it's expensive and not sexy.

The Supreme Court ruled that, since Guantanamo Bay is under exclusive control of the US since the war against the Spanish a long time ago, the prisoners at Camp X-Ray have access to US Courts. A number of them have already started to do that, I believe.
Whether or not the constitution applies or not I don't know, although if you look at the people who wrote it, one could infer a certain amount of compassion into it.

Is the U.S. the only 'civilized' Nation to abuse terrorist prisoners? Hardly. Just because the media doesnt cover it doesnt mean it doesnt happen, people. What you see is what the media wants you to see. And let's face it - the media is biased.

The idea that the American media is liberallly biased against America or against Conservatives is the greates spin to have ever succeeded. Looking at a big media spectacle, you will mainly see right-wing opinions being voiced. Enough research has been done on that for the Iraq War.
I actually read an interesting article about that in the "New Leader" today. The belief that the media is liberally biased comes from the (neutral) reporting on blacks trying to gain equal rights with all kinds of little disobediences, and from the reporting on the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.
Not the reporting was biased, but (mainly conservative) people perceived it as such just for the fact that it was being covered at all. They felt uncomfortable watching it, and since it was broadcasted to them, the people on the other end (ie journalists) had to support these social changes, otherwise why would they broadcast such things?
This was mainly in the south apparently (I remember reading Alabama and Florida).
And I do challenge you to find another Western Country that kidnaps people and treats them horrendously, just for the sake of being seen to do something (or for any other sake for that matter).
I find such an assertion quite offensive actually. I can only speak for my country, Germany, but in some places (ie Western Europe) there is such a thing as principles. The wars have moved things on, and now there is some thing that are NEVER justified. And torture (or quasi-torture like sleep depravation or stress positions) is such a thing. No matter whether the White House claims it to be legal today or not.

PS: As far as I am concerned, the kidnapping of a person of German territory is such a showing of disrespect that I would have liked my Government to react in the strongest way possible.

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?

Stalin had Soviet artillery fire at their own village, blamed it on Finland and invaded. So there is at least one (though this wasn't proven until the fall of the Soviet Union).

The US Supreme Court never ruled that foreigners were protected by the US Constitution.
The case that many are referring to, actually only states that the courts have the right to review the actions of the executive branch in regards to the detainees on Guantanamo and other US territories. No where did it say foriegners held on Guantanamo had rights under the US Constitution.

But their right to trial in a court can be revoked once they are declared combatants in which case they become subject to military tribunals which out of court jurisdicition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3867067.stm

http://www.jenner.com/news/news_item.asp?id=12520724

the reason the US Supreme Court gave for them being allowed access was:

that their home nations were not at war with the US,

they denied being involved in acts of aggression against the US or in acts of terrorism to kill Americans

they had not been seen by a tribunal

they hadn't been charged with anything (ie they were not formally declared enemy combatants)

they are imprisoned on territory that is under US control

habeas places a burden on the person holding the person, not on the person himself

US law 2241 does not differentiate between US citizens and non US citizens on the subject of Habeas Corpus

US Courts have always been open to nonresident aliens

the petitions were filed on behalf of 2 Austalians and 12 kuwaitis. (both nations that are not at war with the United States of America). The fact their home nations were not at war with the US was the only thing that saved their asses and got their cases into the US court system.


++++
the Kuwaitis were captured and falsely imprisoned by Afghan villagers while in the process of providing humanitarian aid. The villagers were looking to make a quick buck on the confusion of the times.

Australian David Hicks was captured by the Northern Alliance, during a battle with the Taliban. He was subsequently handed over to the US.

The other Australian, Mamdouh Habib, was siezed and arrested in Pakistan by the Pakistani law enforcement agencies. He was then handed to Egypt which gave him to the US. Mr. Habib. It should be noted that Mr. Habib would not be in US custody if he had not broken Egyptian or Pakistani laws, and hence avoided their ire.


http://www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s69NewsDocumentOrder/FileUpload500/381/03-334_decision_rasul.pdf

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420771) is ridiculous.
And so are most of the Bush-bashing comments.
Ok a little bit of fun is alright, but in a serious poll... grow up.
I agree. Those who chose the USA as the biggest nuclear threat are either paranoid beyond redemption or need to finish high school before posting in the Forum. :rolleyes:

I was talking about the German people in general, they still have the same sense of apathy as they did when that Austrian blindly led you to total destruction. You people are the same types that butchered millions. I still have no respect for them. I'm glad my father completed all of his bombing missions in WWII, the death he rained down upon them was much deserved. :)

Including the women and children he most probably killed? The widows and orphans he left behind? Did they all deserve that fate? I believe that although the bombing was most certainly necessary we shouldnt be proud of it. No-one should ever be proud of killing.

A liberal explained this to me once, it's simple.

Stalin started no explicit war.
Hitler started one war.
Bush started two.

Therefore: Bush > Hitler > Stalin, when it comes to Evil.

Simple, right?
Yup! "Simple" is the word I would use to describe that.

[ sim-ple: Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence. Uneducated; ignorant. Unworldly or unsophisticated. See Synonyms at naive. ]

I agree. Those who chose the USA as the biggest nuclear threat are either paranoid beyond redemption or need to finish high school before posting in the Forum. :rolleyes:

Or simply realise the US is not the good guy it so dearly wants to tell itself it is.

innocent until proven guilty only applies to citizens of the United States.

Wow... so the moment I set foot on American ground, I'm guilty???

And unless my counrty declares war on the US and claims me, I won't have POW status and can be tortured at will?

Legislation like that won't improve tourism...

Wow... so the moment I set foot on American ground, I'm guilty???
You? Absotively posilutely! Hell, I'll arrest yer sorry azz myself! :D

Or simply realise the US is not the good guy it so dearly wants to tell itself it is.
Ah! Hello, Fass, you abomination! :D

Ah! Hello, Fass, you abomination! :D

Sticks and stones. You should know all about broken bones, shouldn't you?

Sticks and stones. You should know all about broken bones, shouldn't you?
Hell yeah! :D

I agree. Those who chose the USA as the biggest nuclear threat are either paranoid beyond redemption or need to finish high school before posting in the Forum. :rolleyes:

Well, look at it from our side of the Atlantic:

If any rogue nation ever decided to use nuclear weapons, the US would be up in arms right at their doorstep. They would most likely muster up international support and would get troups from many other countries for that mission as well. Whatever nation was stupid enough to use nuclear weapons would be overrun and under US control in no time.

On the other hand, if the US ever decided to use its massive and advanced nuclear weapons on anybody, any perceived threat like... let's see, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, just pick one, who would there be to stop them? The UNO has showed itself to be completely powerless when it comes to preventing the US from starting any wars it wants to start, and there is no other power on this planet who could put up anything angainst the US...

To me, the second scenario definitely is the scarier one...

You? Absotively posilutely! Hell, I'll arrest yer sorry azz myself! :D

Another reason to stay clear of the United States until it becomes part of the free world again :D

The US is too large and powerful to be an international pariah. That's why it is the biggest threat, and also why it continues to get away with such acts as invading countries on the basis of lies. They believe they can get away with things, as they do get away with things. That's what makes them dangerous.

So we are the big threat, huh? If I were president, I would pull our troops out of every single country, then I would tell every country that owed us a thin dime to pay up. Everybody can fight their own wars from now on and never ask us for a hand ever again. It would be nice to watch China swallow the whole world....hehehehehehehehehe :sniper:

Another reason to stay clear of the United States until it becomes part of the free world again :D
Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... gnaw on my shorts! :D

So we are the big threat, huh? If I were president, I would pull our troops out of every single country, then I would tell every country that owed us a thin dime to pay up. Everybody can fight their own wars from now on and never ask us for a hand ever again. It would be nice to watch China swallow the whole world....hehehehehehehehehe :sniper:

I seem to remember you guys asking everyone else for help in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the other way round

So we are the big threat, huh? If I were president, I would pull our troops out of every single country, then I would tell every country that owed us a thin dime to pay up. Everybody can fight their own wars from now on and never ask us for a hand ever again. It would be nice to watch China swallow the whole world....hehehehehehehehehe :sniper:

You seem to forget that the US owes money to other countries as well. Those deficits of yours are covered from somewhere, you know... Oh, and pulling US troops? Good riddence.

Well, look at it from our side of the Atlantic:

If any rogue nation ever decided to use nuclear weapons, the US would be up in arms right at their doorstep. They would most likely muster up international support and would get troups from many other countries for that mission as well. Whatever nation was stupid enough to use nuclear weapons would be overrun and under US control in no time.

On the other hand, if the US ever decided to use its massive and advanced nuclear weapons on anybody, any perceived threat like... let's see, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, just pick one, who would there be to stop them? The UNO has showed itself to be completely powerless when it comes to preventing the US from starting any wars it wants to start, and there is no other power on this planet who could put up anything angainst the US...

To me, the second scenario definitely is the scarier one...
Scary, perhaps, but likely? Not at all.

So we are the big threat, huh? If I were president, I would pull our troops out of every single country, then I would tell every country that owed us a thin dime to pay up. Everybody can fight their own wars from now on and never ask us for a hand ever again. It would be nice to watch China swallow the whole world....hehehehehehehehehe :sniper:

And the difference to the present situation would be a new international language, take-aways instead of McDonalds, compulsory calligraphy for everybody and tea would become cheaper. Sounds ok to me.

Don't try to fool us here, you are not fighting international wars on behalf of other countries. The US is going to war only to protect it's own interests, that's all.
If people ask you to clean up the mess you made in the process, I think it's only fair.

Scary, perhaps, but likely? Not at all.

Very hard to say how likely something is until it really happens.
How likely would you have though 9/11 in August 2001?
From what I see, the war on Iraq was started under false pretenses, without UN consent, without even the consent of most of US allies and against massive proteste around the globe. Bush wasn't popular before, but now he is seen as a real threat to any country that is doing anything without asking US consent first.
Yep, we ARE getting paranoid, but what do you expect when your big brother starts bullying other kids for no aparent reason?

Wow... so the moment I set foot on American ground, I'm guilty???

And unless my counrty declares war on the US and claims me, I won't have POW status and can be tortured at will?

Legislation like that won't improve tourism...

it's a little more complicated than that, but going into and out of the fine points would probably ruin your day, and whatever point you thought you were making.

"Torture" is a fairly inefficient method of information gathering. I used to have FM's and TM's detailing U.S. Army doctrines, but... Anyway, the thing is, what's being called "Torture" in the media is less than those 'gentlemen' would recieve in a typical Turkish jail.
You have to remember the practical points here-the internees at GitMo are being held as part of an information gathering mission, that means that the primary mission is twofold:

1. Keep them from rejoining their organizations and returning to fight. Typical POW stuff-basically if they're under control, they aren't planting roadside bombs or shooting people.

2. Gather Intelligence. Torture is ridiculously inefficient for this-most torture yeilds little-to-no useful information, since the subject will say virtually anything to make it stop.
The military doesn't waste time on things that it knows don't work. On the other hand, basic brainwashing techniques are commonly employed by law-enforcement worldwide, including Britain, and most notably France, whose Antiterrorist and Domestic Intelligence outfits operate under much, much, looser restrictions than their American civilian or military counterparts do.
(Should I mention Scotland Yard's 'special branch', which is quite infamous?)

Knowing that the mission is one of practicality (Gathering Intelligence on M.E. Terrorist groups), I find the allegations somewhat laughable. Neither Military regulations, nor Military procedures, are so poorly run. (in fact, it would require the unit holding them to be ordered to ignore sixty plus years of experience, training, and doctrine to pursue a less-effective method known to provide shoddy results within the military.)

The soldiers running GitMo aren't sixty-day reservists working in obscurity and ignored by their own chain of command, led by incompetents (as happened at Abu Ghraib), these are trained professionals.

So, to sum it up, you're saying they are not tortured at all, because whatever it is that's being done to those people is still better than what would be done to them in Turkey?

Including the women and children he most probably killed? The widows and orphans he left behind? Did they all deserve that fate? I believe that although the bombing was most certainly necessary we shouldnt be proud of it. No-one should ever be proud of killing.
Al Qaida also said the destruction of the WTC was necessary. In fact, if you think the German civilians deserved what happened to them during WW2, I think the US deserves exactly the same today.

<<no one in guantanamo is innocent.>>

Apart from the ones released without trial of course...

Of course since it's Whittier saying that, a few pounds of salt is always in order.

<<So, to sum it up, you're saying they are not tortured at all, because whatever it is that's being done to those people is still better than what would be done to them in Turkey?>>

Sounds like. Some justification eh?

Ad if these drugs are so effective then what is the need to hold prisoners so damn long before release without charge (of which there have been about 200 so far).

this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420771) is ridiculous.
And so are most of the Bush-bashing comments.
Ok a little bit of fun is alright, but in a serious poll... grow up.


Ah get over yourself. Its all only in the name of fun. Stop spoiling it for others. And it was a serious question. :p

Ein Deutscher']Al Qaida also said the destruction of the WTC was necessary. In fact, if you think the German civilians deserved what happened to them during WW2, I think the US deserves exactly the same today.

I apologise I worded my post badly. I dont believe the killing of women and children can ever be condoned and i retract the second half of my statement

p.s. i'd like to point out that I am not an american. please dont make assumptions about me based on my posts