Iraq - Torture

[full nelson]

President Bush was just in my city this afternoon giving a speech at a local highschool. He mainly talked about his "No Child Left Behind" Act, but he briefly mentioned the Iraq prison torture. His position was that the actions of the few don't represent the whole 200,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and that he's disgraced by what occured.

[Splint]

Wow, glad I admitted to not knowing much about Australia. Even with all the info you gave Jeremy, it still says to me that you as an Australian aren't really aware of what's going on from the US standpoint. I know that Australia has troops invested, but it's only because they depend on the US and Great Britain for support in other things. I'm not doubting that Australia has done important things in the international community, but you are still not on a global hitlist for all the havenots (I'm talking physical and verbal attacks). I don't believe the world is watching every move that Austalia is making.

You also have yet to experience the emotional impact terrorist attacks will have on you or your family and friends. While there were over 2,000 people who died in the World Trade Center attack, there were 10's of 1000's of people directly affected by the loss of a friend or loved one, there were 11 million people living in New York City who were too scared to stay in their own homes and there were 250,000,000 Americans who couldn't help but think they might be next. We have spent the last few years trying to get along and always wondering somewhere in the backs of our heads..."when will the next time be". We are bombarded almost daily with color alerts for terrorist threat warnings..."will it be chemical attacks, will my bus blow up, where are my wife and child right now".
I don't know, maybe you have been experiencing the same thing, but I don't get that impression.

David's lawyer respond "He hasn't been tortured in the particular manner as far as I am aware." I don't think it's hard to read between the lines.

Yeah, it sounds to me like David's lawyer finally found an area to exploit. Even though his client hasn't been tortured it helps to garner sympathy for him by alluding to the fact that while he wasn't tortured the way the other prisoners were, he may have been forced to miss a meal.

So Australia is heavily involved in this matter - it's just that we are a small country of only 20 million - so don't have much international weight - hence terrorist groups tend not focus on us

Exactly.

Australia has been doing it's own little bit of imperalism throughout the Pacific. We lead a UN peace keeping force into East Timor - "Liberated" them and have now stolen 80% of their oil - which not only has no reason why it should belong to us - they are taking us to court over it.

At least they aren't blowing up your mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews.
Believe me I'd be plenty happy to have the US brought to court and have all the thousands of people back who have died as a result of the last several years.

In regards to September 11. Al Queda had three demands after the attacks.
1. US remove all soldiers from Mecca.
2. US Stop supporting Israel
3. US stop supporting dictators in the Middle East.
While I am completely against much of what Al Queda does and supports - I am completely in favour of those demands.

Well I was talking about making demands before blowing people up, but the real point is that there weren't talks or negotiations. Al Queda is an irrational militant group whose only desire is to see the US destroyed. They wouldn't stop even if we met those demands. They would have demanded more and more anytime the US did something they didn't like. Most importantly Jeremy they are not right in making those demands and while you may agree that those things need to be done, the mere fact that they are "demands" means that there is a threat attached if those demands are not met.
1) I agree that US troops should be removed from Mecca.
The rest are bullshit.
2) As soon as the US stops supporting Israel you will have another mass genocide on your hands. Ariel Sharon should be removed and so should his cabinet, but they will not be if the US drops their support. He will be the one people trust to help fight a war against 5 or more Arab countries that won't hesitate rally in an attempt to destroy Israel
3) Sadam Hussein was a Middle East Dictator. No support there.

[FlexThis]

Off Topic:

Glad to see you post Jeremy. I was worried you'd went into hiding.

On topic:

There seems to be a lot of governemnt coruption, cover-ups, and scandals from all involved. It would not bother me to see the US take the fall for a majority of BAD DECISIONS. Just as long as no more innocents people have to die.

Heres to hoping!

[HighDemonslayer]

Why, Al Qaeda's demands seem so reasonable.

----------------------------------------------
1. US remove all soldiers from Mecca.
----------------------------------------------

This would be wise.....because somebody will nuke that city , as a gesture to the "religion of peace".


---------------------------------
2. US Stop supporting Israel
---------------------------------

Oh, there will be a holocaust, but it wont be Israel's alone. With it's back to the wall, does anyone doubt that Israel will not exercise the nuclear option?
Even if Israel itself was knocked out by a nuclear device, it's nuclear submarine(s) could and would rain missles down on Damascus, Cairo, Tehran, Anwar Dam, etc. etc.



(I think I'll run a poll related to this topic)


-----------------------------------------------------------
3. US stop supporting dictators in the Middle East.
-----------------------------------------------------------

To satisfy this demand, we would have to cut all funding and support to the U.N.




Oh yeah, our resident Al Qaeda spokesman forgot #4 and #5.


----------------------------------------------------------------
4. Kill all the Jew pigs, and enslave their women.
----------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Kill all the Christian infidels, and enslave their women.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[mattkain]

Oh yeah, our resident Al Qaeda spokesman forgot #4 and #5.

+10 humor.

I'm going to be laughing about that one for a long, long time.

MattKain

[Jeremy]

Glad to see you post Jeremy. I was worried you'd went into hiding.

Yeah, I'm probably not going to post very much these days - none of my issues re - the forum going down got addressed and nobody seems to care. Well I say nobody - I know at least one other person has stopped posting. Anyway it's destroyed my desire to check this forum every 5 minutes - I still post, just not very often.

I know that Australia has troops invested, but it's only because they depend on the US and Great Britain for support in other things. I'm not doubting that Australia has done important things in the international community, but you are still not on a global hitlist for all the havenots (I'm talking physical and verbal attacks). I don't believe the world is watching every move that Austalia is making.

Sorry, but I think this is rather ignorant and arrogant. Australia is supporting the US because we want to be able to sell our products there without huge tarrifs - that is to say - we want a free trade agreement with the US.

Australia certainly is on the hitlist in our region - however I fail to see how being more hated makes my opinions more or less valid.

The world is watching every move every country makes. I have been led to believe that the citizens of the US are generally very ignorant of interational affairs, but take it from me - the rest of world pays close attention.

You also have yet to experience the emotional impact terrorist attacks will have on you or your family and friends. While there were over 2,000 people who died in the World Trade Center attack, there were 10's of 1000's of people directly affected by the loss of a friend or loved one, there were 11 million people living in New York City who were too scared to stay in their own homes and there were 250,000,000 Americans who couldn't help but think they might be next. We have spent the last few years trying to get along and always wondering somewhere in the backs of our heads..."when will the next time be". We are bombarded almost daily with color alerts for terrorist threat warnings..."will it be chemical attacks, will my bus blow up, where are my wife and child right now".

Umm yeah - so what you're saying is that because you are afraid - fear being something that effects your judgement - your opinions are more valid than mine? And maybe you are even saying that the decisions made by your government - taht have currently killed over 10,000 non american civillians were made out of fear? I think the fact that I have not experienced an attack to the scale of the trade centre attacks means that my opinions are less biased at least compared with yours.

Yeah, it sounds to me like David's lawyer finally found an area to exploit. Even though his client hasn't been tortured it helps to garner sympathy for him by alluding to the fact that while he wasn't tortured the way the other prisoners were, he may have been forced to miss a meal.

There is a great deal of evidence regarding the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay - I'm not sure of the full details but I'm sure you can do a search and find some more info. These include refusal to allow red cross and amnesty workers to inspect conditions, the statements of released british prisoners and other statements by people involved at Guantanamo.

Well I was talking about making demands before blowing people up, but the real point is that there weren't talks or negotiations. Al Queda is an irrational militant group whose only desire is to see the US destroyed. They wouldn't stop even if we met those demands. They would have demanded more and more anytime the US did something they didn't like. Most importantly Jeremy they are not right in making those demands and while you may agree that those things need to be done, the mere fact that they are "demands" means that there is a threat attached if those demands are not met.

considering neither side has ever made an effort to negotiate with the other, only Al Queda has issued demands and the US has never considered any of those demands - you are only speculating on how they would behave.

In regards to demand 3 - The US is still supporting Suadi Arabia - Suadi Arabia has one of the worlds worst human rights records. In the past the US has supported many dictators - including Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Chun Doo Hwan and many others.

I will continue this when I have more time!

[Splint]

I know that Australia has troops invested, but it's only because they depend on the US and Great Britain for support in other things....

Sorry, but I think this is rather ignorant and arrogant. Australia is supporting the US because we want to be able to sell our products there without huge tarrifs - that is to say - we want a free trade agreement with the US.

Isn't that what I said??? Re-read that part where I say "...but it's only because they depend on the US and Great Britain for support in other things..."

The world is watching every move every country makes. I have been led to believe that the citizens of the US are generally very ignorant of interational affairs, but take it from me - the rest of world pays close attention.

Well that's one I can't argue with. In the US there is an extreme lack of unbiased international media provided for us. Real international news needs to be actively sought out in order to get it at all. CNN seems to just spit out snipits here and there of whatever the administration allows them to.

Umm yeah - so what you're saying is that because you are afraid - fear being something that effects your judgement - your opinions are more valid than mine? And maybe you are even saying that the decisions made by your government - taht have currently killed over 10,000 non american civillians were made out of fear? I think the fact that I have not experienced an attack to the scale of the trade centre attacks means that my opinions are less biased at least compared with yours.

No! I'm saying that you have got an extreme anti-american sentiment straight from your original post...allow me to quote........

Does seeing this make you at all question your belief that your nation has the right to control the world as it sees fit? Does it make you think that this isn't a battle of "Good and Evil" as only Americans would call a conflict in reality - and that war really does bring at the worst in people and should not be a resort at all - not even a last resort?

I think you need to check out what's happening in the really real world. Believe me we know there is a fucking War going on! Yes we know that thousands of people have died on both sides. Right now the people of this country don't even know what to do about it. The plans toward war happened in anger and haste by an administration that was low in the polls and desperately in need of a boost. We like most any other large group of people were manipulated on our fear and anger and desire for revenge.
It's true that many think it's just a matter of being hit in the Wallet, but for so many more of us we have friends and relatives who are fighting in a war that we don't even support. They are being killed or killing others and all we can do is pray they come home safely and that this war ends before the whole world goes to hell.
You are taking this "Good and Evil" bit, no doubt, straight from our presidents mouth. Well as far as I and most people who see through the words of their leaders are concerned, the president speaks straight out of his ass, and if the people around the world think we as Americans see this war as some divine battle between the forces of "Good and Evil" then you are the ones swallowing his spoon fed line of shit.
We've got an incumbent President who I'm convinced has perjured himself on enough occasions to impeach his ass straight out of the white house. However, in mid-war there is never such an action taken. So you tell me; what can we do? We protest, we write letters and e-mails to our congressmen and our senators. For right now that's all we've got. With any luck we'll get to vote Bush out of office and John Kerry won't be a republican in disguise.

There is a great deal of evidence regarding the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay.... These include refusal to allow red cross and amnesty workers to inspect conditions, the statements of released british prisoners and other statements by people involved at Guantanamo.

Prison is supposed to suck... being a prisoner is supposed to suck. How many Prisons do you know of where everyone is thrilled to be there, thinks life is grand, and has no complaints... ZERO. Anyone going to prison should expect they will get their ass beaten every day and if they don't...its a good day. There is a very small percentage of people who are in Prison and don't belong there. Guantanamo Bay may have a larger percentage due to the events of the past 3.5 years, but that's why their lawyers are fighting to get them out.

considering neither side has ever made an effort to negotiate with the other, only Al Queda has issued demands and the US has never considered any of those demands - you are only speculating on how they would behave.

WRONG. The US demanded that Osama Bin Ladin be turned over immediately and got a luke warm response at best. Now if you want to talk speculation we can talk about what if Osama (responsible for over 2,000 deaths in the World Trade Center alone), had been captured and turned in by his own people and the countries hiding him. Bush would have had absolutely no amunition with which to approach Congress about going into Afghanistan much less Iraq.

In regards to demand 3 - The US is still supporting Suadi Arabia - Suadi Arabia has one of the worlds worst human rights records. In the past the US has supported many dictators - including Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, Chun Doo Hwan and many others.

We have also opposed and or deposed many of dictators. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and Ayatollah Khamenei.
As for Saudi Arabia, guess what, everyone kisses their ass. They sit on huge deposits of oil, which is severely relied upon. Please try not to come back at me with some idealist dogma about needing to revolutionize the world with renewable resouces. I know that...everbody knows it, but as consumers we don't make things...we consume things and right now the makers aren't making what the world needs.

NOTE: Jeremy, I still like you. I like a lot of your idealism even though it's a bit too idealistic. I'm just having heated political debate and hope you recognize that I'm arguing your politics and not your personality. Cheers!

[Jeremy]

Isn't that what I said??? Re-read that part where I say "...but it's only because they depend on the US and Great Britain for support in other things..."

The point is that we don't depend on the US or Great Britain - it's just that we want to get something from the US - we have managed up till now without a free trade agreement.

You are taking this "Good and Evil" bit, no doubt, straight from our presidents mouth. Well as far as I and most people who see through the words of their leaders are concerned, the president speaks straight out of his ass, and if the people around the world think we as Americans see this war as some divine battle between the forces of "Good and Evil" then you are the ones swallowing his spoon fed line of shit.

I'm sure you're aware that I aimed those comments at as I called them "the hardcore nationalists" - that is - those that do believe that the war in Iraq is one of good versus bad. Perhaps the media in Australia is creating this anti american sentiment. I saw some interviews with random people on the street just after the torture scandal broke and 2 out of the 3 people interviewed said they still thought that the US was doing a good thing and that they needed to rid the world of the "evil" in Iraq.

Prison is supposed to suck... being a prisoner is supposed to suck. How many Prisons do you know of where everyone is thrilled to be there, thinks life is grand, and has no complaints... ZERO. Anyone going to prison should expect they will get their ass beaten every day and if they don't...its a good day. There is a very small percentage of people who are in Prison and don't belong there. Guantanamo Bay may have a larger percentage due to the events of the past 3.5 years, but that's why their lawyers are fighting to get them out.

I think the point is that none of the people have faced any kind of court of law - they are being held indefinitly with no rights at all. This is both in contrevention of the US constitution, the Geneva Convention and the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. So far the government of the US has used loop holes in international law so as not to abide by these laws. In my opinion, it is wrong to lock somebody up because of the country they were in - and if you do it in a time of war - you should at least abide by the rules regarding prisoners of war. The attitude shown by the current administration is one of - the rules that the rest of the world must follow don't apply here - we are above the law. Not only is it irresponsible and setting a very bad precedent - it undermines any attempt the US makes to criticise other countries with bad human rights records that are ignoring international law.

WRONG. The US demanded that Osama Bin Ladin be turned over immediately and got a luke warm response at best. Now if you want to talk speculation we can talk about what if Osama (responsible for over 2,000 deaths in the World Trade Center alone), had been captured and turned in by his own people and the countries hiding him. Bush would have had absolutely no amunition with which to approach Congress about going into Afghanistan much less Iraq.

My understanding is that they directed this demand to the Taliban in Afghanistan - not Al Queda. I find it interesting that you call that demand "negotiation" - since it sounds much more like an ultimatum that has no chance of being accepted - just like if Al Queda demanded that the US hand over George Bush so they could behead him. It's also interesting that you claim Bin Ladin is responsible for s11. While there is certainly some link - since he is the leader of Al Queda - the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he had anything to do with the planning or the execution of the attacks says something about US attitudes towards international justice. One could equally say that every tax paying American is responsible for the torture at Abu Ghraib - because they are all paying for those events to occur. edit: although perhaps saying that Bush is responible is a much better allegory.

We have also opposed and or deposed many of dictators. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, and Ayatollah Khamenei.
As for Saudi Arabia, guess what, everyone kisses their ass. They sit on huge deposits of oil, which is severely relied upon.

The US also supported Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and opposed Fidel Castro because he opposed Fulgencio Batista - dictator and ally of the US. - I could continue to name many more - and I'm sure you could name dictators that the US has opposed - I could also name dictators that the US doesn't seem to care about - because the truth of the matter appears to be that the US will only oppose a dictator if they have something to gain from it. Saudi Arabia is a good example - where you've made it clear that cheaper petrol prices are more important than the lives of the people of Saudi Arabia. I would rather walk than know that in buying petrol I am supporting the torture and death of innocent people (I'm talking about Saudi Arabia here - not the US)

NOTE: Jeremy, I still like you. I like a lot of your idealism even though it's a bit too idealistic. I'm just having heated political debate and hope you recognize that I'm arguing your politics and not your personality. Cheers!

Lol - good. An arguement is much more fun than an agreement - and this topic is great (if a little off topic at the moment).

[Splint]

The point is that we don't depend on the US or Great Britain - it's just that we want to get something from the US - we have managed up till now without a free trade agreement.

My bad, I didn't realize the Australian agenda for following the US into war was SO noble.

Perhaps the media in Australia is creating this anti american sentiment. I saw some interviews with random people on the street just after the torture scandal broke and 2 out of the 3 people interviewed said they still thought that the US was doing a good thing and that they needed to rid the world of the "evil" in Iraq.

Sounds like your media is a little like our media. They showed you 3 interviews out of the 100 or so they probably did that day and 2 of them mentioned the word "evil". I'd say it's tough to trust the media of a country who is currently involved in the same war on the same side.

I think the point is that none of the people have faced any kind of court of law - they are being held indefinitly with no rights at all. This is both in contrevention of the US constitution, the Geneva Convention and the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. So far the government of the US has used loop holes in international law so as not to abide by these laws.

Well the Iraqi prisoner abuse is something I don't plan to argue with you about. They are POW's and should be held under the rules agreed on in the Geneva Convention. I don't think I've taken the side of the abusers here at any point and if it seemed that way then that's not what I intended.
However (there's always a however), many of the other prisoners are not being held as POW's and are not then afforded the same rights under the Geneva Convention.
As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... what a crock. I doubt there is a single government (certainly not a Middle Eastern governement) who abides by it. It was a dream to think that the state of the World was such that the UDHR was something that could be adhered to. It's a good idea, but not very practical.

My understanding is that they directed this demand to the Taliban in Afghanistan - not Al Queda.

That demand was made of anyone anywhere who had any ties whatsoever with Osama Bin Laden. It was even offered as a reward and less of a demand (though not to the Taliban or Al Quaida).

I find it interesting that you call that demand "negotiation" - since it sounds much more like an ultimatum that has no chance of being accepted - just like if Al Queda demanded that the US hand over George Bush so they could behead him.

Hmmm you mean like...

In regards to September 11. Al Queda had three demands after the attacks.
1. US remove all soldiers from Mecca.
2. US Stop supporting Israel
3. US stop supporting dictators in the Middle East.
While I am completely against much of what Al Queda does and supports - I am completely in favour of those demands.

So why support those "post attack" demands and not the US's?

It's also interesting that you claim Bin Ladin is responsible for s11. While there is certainly some link - since he is the leader of Al Queda - the fact that there is no evidence to suggest he had anything to do with the planning or the execution of the attacks says something about US attitudes towards international justice.

I assume you mean 911? Well, granted I don't speak any of the Arabic Dialects, but there were several tapes realeased of Osama Bin Ladin admitting to ordering the attacks and very specifically detailing how he was sure that if the planes hit the way they did, the World Trade Center buildings would collapse.

...and I'm sure you could name dictators that the US has opposed - I could also name dictators that the US doesn't seem to care about - because the truth of the matter appears to be that the US will only oppose a dictator if they have something to gain from it.

Duuuhhh!!! That's the way the whole world works. Is it right, no, but not much ever is. It's all a matter of convenience. In Venezula we recently supported a coupe of a leader we helped put in place and the same thing happened in Haiti. In each case we sided with the people of the country (which is a good thing) in order to fulfill our own self-serving interests because we get a large portion of oil from Venezuala as well . (Speaking of self-serving Jeremy...need I quote you from another thread?...I think not )

Saudi Arabia is a good example - where you've made it clear that cheaper petrol prices are more important than the lives of the people of Saudi Arabia. I would rather walk than know that in buying petrol I am supporting the torture and death of innocent people (I'm talking about Saudi Arabia here - not the US)

Are you walking now? If not then you had better start. How about swimming to Worlds this summer? Australia gets a significant amount of it's petrol from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also donates hundreds of millions of dollars to the spread of Islam in Australia. This no doubt leads to an even closer relationship with Saudi Arabia and it's petrol.

Lol - good. An arguement is much more fun than an agreement - and this topic is great (if a little off topic at the moment).

No doubt

[HighDemonslayer]

Well it looks like our prison guard soldiers will be going on trial soon for their "abuses".

Some prisoners' families think the penalty should be DEATH.

So how come Saddam is not on trial yet? Insanity.

As ridiculous as my suggestion was a few months ago, I am inclined to say again:

"Saddam will be acquitted of all charges, then nominated and awarded a Nobel Peace prize."



I heard that American media will not be allowed to record the proceedings, but that Arab media WILL be allowed to film.

If this is true, it is insane. Do I have to watch the Al Jerko propaganda to see what happens? This is a lose-lose situation and is a major blunder.


OR
We could borrow a page from Saddam....

The "abused" prisoners(and anyone else who could sue on their behalf) should be dressed up in "Superman" costumes and thrown off a 4-story building. Problem solved.


-n

[Jeremy]

My bad, I didn't realize the Australian agenda for following the US into war was SO noble.

It's not noble. I'm completely against the war and I think our government is fucked in the head (on that and other issues). But it's a lot different to relying on the US or the UK.

Sounds like your media is a little like our media. They showed you 3 interviews out of the 100 or so they probably did that day and 2 of them mentioned the word "evil". I'd say it's tough to trust the media of a country who is currently involved in the same war on the same side.

I agree - except to say that the report was about how the Americans in general weren't changing their minds about the war based on the recent torture issues - and much of the report was actually on the reporting of the war in america - which included the interviews.

I think the point is that none of the people have faced any kind of court of law - they are being held indefinitly with no rights at all. This is both in contrevention of the US constitution, the Geneva Convention and the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. So far the government of the US has used loop holes in international law so as not to abide by these laws.

As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... what a crock. I doubt there is a single government (certainly not a Middle Eastern governement) who abides by it. It was a dream to think that the state of the World was such that the UDHR was something that could be adhered to. It's a good idea, but not very practical.

There are plenty of governments that abide by the decleration. Infact almost all developed nations and a number of developing nations attempt to abide by it. Of course there are human rights abuses in most countries - but government orchestrated human rights abuses are fairly rare - and almost all developed nations attempt to claim that they are still abiding by it when it is claimed that they are not - for example the Australia Government continues to claim it's treatment of asylum seekers is both humane and legal - despite wide spread opposition from all human rights groups.

That demand was made of anyone anywhere who had any ties whatsoever with Osama Bin Laden. It was even offered as a reward and less of a demand (though not to the Taliban or Al Quaida)....


So why support those "post attack" demands and not the US's?

Ok - I'll concede that both sides have made demands - but as I said before - neither side has attempted to negotiate. I support the Al Queda demnds for a number of reasons - I think I commented on those earlier - I supported those demands before either the S 11 attacks occured or the demands had actually been made. To be honest - I don't care what happens to Osama Bin Ladin - although I would much prefer him to be tried at an international court than be handed over to the US. I also believe he should be given the same legal rights as everybody else - however I doubt he will be captured alive. I think the problem of terrorism and Al Queda needs to be addressed at it's routes and that it is a much bigger problem than any one man (or woman). I am very sceptical that going to war and alienating more people who probably already dislike the US will not reduce terrorism. While it may be some time before another terrorist attack occurs on American soil - I am sure that their current policies are creating more people who will want to attack the US - and not reducing the number of people who hate the US at all. I doubt that the US is winning any allies - but is probably losing those that had mild support.

I assume you mean 911? Well, granted I don't speak any of the Arabic Dialects, but there were several tapes realeased of Osama Bin Ladin admitting to ordering the attacks and very specifically detailing how he was sure that if the planes hit the way they did, the World Trade Center buildings would collapse.

I have not seen these tapes - I have seen him claiming that Al Queda was responsible - but that's as much evidence of his involvement as I've seen - perhaps you can find a link to this story. I also see no real difference between saying s11 and 911 and am curious about what you are talking about.

Duuuhhh!!! That's the way the whole world works. Is it right, no, but not much ever is. It's all a matter of convenience. In Venezula we recently supported a coupe of a leader we helped put in place and the same thing happened in Haiti. In each case we sided with the people of the country (which is a good thing) in order to fulfill our own self-serving interests because we get a large portion of oil from Venezuala as well.

Many countries do not support dictators. It's not the way the world works at all - it's the way the US works.

You have an interesting view of what's going on in Venezula - from what I've read about it - the current leader - Hugo Chávez - was democratically elected and has brought about much social change - social change that is opposed by the churchs, military and big business - hence the US support a coup to oust the leader - however this caused mass demonstrations and the new and unelected leaders were forced to return power to Chávez. While Chávez is far from perfect - he does represent the people and is supported by the people - it therefor does not look like the US was siding with the people or democracy. I am a little unsure of the circumstances in Haiti - but do know that the country has a number of very serious political problems and is in big trouble.

Are you walking now? If not then you had better start. How about swimming to Worlds this summer? Australia gets a significant amount of it's petrol from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia also donates hundreds of millions of dollars to the spread of Islam in Australia. This no doubt leads to an even closer relationship with Saudi Arabia and it's petrol.

I do not own a car and mainly catch public transport (or walk). I rather suspect that the exact same amount of oil will be burned regardless of if I travel to worlds or not - but I my anti oil stance only applies to its regular use - I have no problem getting in a car or bus - just in owning one (although actually owning a bus would be cool). But my point was that you are willing to support the torture and murder that occures in Saudi Arabia so that you save money at the petrol station. You might be saving a lot of money - maybe $1000 a year, maybe even more. But read this article and tell you me you think it is a worthy saving... http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde230042002

[Splint]

Here is a quick link for you Jeremy... It's satyrical so don't flip out. http://theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4019

There are plenty of governments that abide by the decleration. Infact almost all developed nations and a number of developing nations attempt to abide by it.

Really... hmmm I didn't realize that. So when the Chinese government rode tanks through Tiananmen Square and killed hundreds and injured thousands of demonstrators they were upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/chi ... _years.htm
(the article is a few years old, but certainly not as old as the UDHR)

I'm sure we could also go into the last 50 years in Yugoslavia, Russia, Thailand, any number of middle eastern countries including Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then there's South Africa, Rwanda, Pakistan, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Romania, and let's not forget those Icelandians (okay that one's a joke). Still, I think you'll agree that all of those countries (and they don't even represent the South American Countries some of which are absolutely horrible) are "developed" and within the last 10-20 years have done seriously stupid shit to their own people and other peoples that goes well beyond the boundaries of the UDHR. Most of it goes overlooked or under prosecuted because, as I said, the UDHR is an idealistic joke.

I think the problem of terrorism and Al Queda needs to be addressed at it's routes and that it is a much bigger problem than any one man (or woman). I am very sceptical that going to war and alienating more people who probably already dislike the US will not reduce terrorism.

I agree with you 99% because I would say the problem needs to be addresssed at it's "roots" instead of it's "routes" .

While it may be some time before another terrorist attack occurs on American soil - I am sure that their current policies are creating more people who will want to attack the US - and not reducing the number of people who hate the US at all. I doubt that the US is winning any allies - but is probably losing those that had mild support.

Wow the longer we argue the more we seem to be agreeing on things...

I have not seen these tapes - I have seen him claiming that Al Queda was responsible - but that's as much evidence of his involvement as I've seen - perhaps you can find a link to this story.

I also see no real difference between saying s11 and 911 and am curious about what you are talking about.

The difference is that I didn't realize until just now that the "s" stood for September. haha silly me

Many countries do not support dictators. It's not the way the world works at all - it's the way the US works.

Horseshit! I'll guarantee you can purchase Cuban Cigars and if you can't then I'll still bet that dozens and dozens of other countries can. Guess what... that money goes straight to Fidel Castro's pockets. Don't forget that you and damn near every other country in the world gets some amount of petrol from Saudi Arabia and/or Iraq.

You have an interesting view of what's going on in Venezula

No I don't... I have a half-assed American Media view of what's going on in Venezuala .

I do not own a car and mainly catch public transport (or walk). I rather suspect that the exact same amount of oil will be burned regardless of if I travel to worlds or not - but I my anti oil stance only applies to its regular use - I have no problem getting in a car or bus - just in owning one (although actually owning a bus would be cool). But my point was that you are willing to support the torture and murder that occures in Saudi Arabia so that you save money at the petrol station. You might be saving a lot of money - maybe $1000 a year, maybe even more. But read this article and tell you me you think it is a worthy saving... http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engmde230042002

But, do you not own a car because you don't want to or because you can't afford one right now.
As for supporting Torture and Murder in Saudi Arabia... SO ARE YOU!!! I don't know what you mean by your oild stance applying to regular uses. Whether you drive a car, or take a bus or plane you are still supporting the use of oil to drive those vehicles... Let's not forget how you heat your house or apartment... that's one of the biggest uses of oil next to automobiles. How about cutting grass with a lawn mower or better yet all the money you pay in taxes that goes to the Australian infrastructure which pays for public transportation, "public works" vehicles, government cars and the fuel for them. Those are all "regular uses" of oil.
Do you really have the power of your convictions so that you are willing to go and live on a private island off the grid in a solar and wind powered house and ride a bike everywhere and only sail across the seas when you want to travel abroad and visit people? Or are you just the kind of person to tailor your remarks so that I/we can all feel bad because we drive to work while you take public transportation?
That's why I stand for nothing and make fun of everything...not really!

[FlexThis]

Jeremy & Brad,

Did you guys take Poli Sci 101 or something? You guys go so far over my head I need stilts and a ladder just to catch pieces flying by.

please continue...

[Jeremy]

Here is a quick link for you Jeremy... It's satyrical so don't flip out. http://theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4019

Thanks for the link - it was good!

Really... hmmm I didn't realize that. So when the Chinese government rode tanks through Tiananmen Square and killed hundreds and injured thousands of demonstrators they were upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/chi ... _years.htm
(the article is a few years old, but certainly not as old as the UDHR)

I think if you re read what I wrote - you'll see the word "plenty" -

There are plenty of governments that abide by the decleration.

- In Australia we use the word "plenty" to mean "lots of" - but it isn't usually used to mean "all" - of course there are plenty of countries that do not abide by the decleration. But even China attempts to defend its actions and claims that they are not human rights abuses.

I'm sure we could also go into the last 50 years in Yugoslavia, Russia, Thailand, any number of middle eastern countries including Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then there's South Africa, Rwanda, Pakistan, Afghanistan, N. Korea, Romania, and let's not forget those Icelandians (okay that one's a joke). Still, I think you'll agree that all of those countries (and they don't even represent the South American Countries some of which are absolutely horrible) are "developed" and within the last 10-20 years have done seriously stupid shit to their own people and other peoples that goes well beyond the boundaries of the UDHR. Most of it goes overlooked or under prosecuted because, as I said, the UDHR is an idealistic joke.

With the exception of Iceland - I don't think any of those countries are "developed" - developed is an economic term - developed countries are countries like Australia, The US, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France, Czech Repulic, Finland, Canada, Ireland etc.
One of the serious problems with prosecuting people for crimes against humanity is that the UN as very little power and the UN Security Council is held back by one country which has vetoed 10 times since 1990 - compared with the next highest of 2... gee which country is that? - There is also the issue of the International Criminal Court - that has failed to get the support of one particular country - apparantly due to fears that one country would be forced to abide by the Rights of Children decleration - which is a document aimed at preventing abuse, oppression and exploitation of children.

Horseshit! I'll guarantee you can purchase Cuban Cigars and if you can't then I'll still bet that dozens and dozens of other countries can. Guess what... that money goes straight to Fidel Castro's pockets. Don't forget that you and damn near every other country in the world gets some amount of petrol from Saudi Arabia and/or Iraq.

...

But, do you not own a car because you don't want to or because you can't afford one right now.
As for supporting Torture and Murder in Saudi Arabia... SO ARE YOU!!! I don't know what you mean by your oild stance applying to regular uses. Whether you drive a car, or take a bus or plane you are still supporting the use of oil to drive those vehicles... Let's not forget how you heat your house or apartment... that's one of the biggest uses of oil next to automobiles. How about cutting grass with a lawn mower or better yet all the money you pay in taxes that goes to the Australian infrastructure which pays for public transportation, "public works" vehicles, government cars and the fuel for them. Those are all "regular uses" of oil.
Do you really have the power of your convictions so that you are willing to go and live on a private island off the grid in a solar and wind powered house and ride a bike everywhere and only sail across the seas when you want to travel abroad and visit people? Or are you just the kind of person to tailor your remarks so that I/we can all feel bad because we drive to work while you take public transportation?
That's why I stand for nothing and make fun of everything...not really!

You're right - most countries to have trade agreements and relations with countries that have dictators. The majority of countries in the world would like to see a lifting of sanctions against Cuba, allowing for even more Cuban cigars. However I see an enormous difference between having a trade deal and and being an actuall ally - Australia may trade with Saudi Arabia - but we do not send over troops to help protect the corrupt royal family "government"

In regards to using oil - I was a little over the top and I'm sorry - although I don't own a car because I don't want one - I guess money might be an issue should I change my mind but I've had opportunities in the past (including my parents offering to give me their old car) - but I'm more than happy not to drive. While I may be supporting the Suadi Government in small ways - I'm also supporting a number of organisations that work to end human rights abuses and my companies in my country don't sell cattle prods to the Saudi Government...

[sPinko-Mania]

In regards to using oil - I was a little over the top and I'm sorry - although I don't own a car because I don't want one - I guess money might be an issue should I change my mind but I've had opportunities in the past (including my parents offering to give me their old car) - but I'm more than happy not to drive. While I may be supporting the Suadi Government in small ways - I'm also supporting a number of organisations that work to end human rights abuses and my companies in my country don't sell cattle prods to the Saudi Government...

There's a big difference between using a car everyday to get to work and relying on public transport or occasionally flying on a plane. It's a huge issue of scale, for instance I also think giving to charity is a good idea, but it doesn't mean I'm going be donating all of my money away.

International agreements like the Human Declaration of Rights are sometimes a bit of a farce I would agree, they're a good idea though, but for instance the UN Human Rights commission chose Libya as Chairman a while back which I always remember. But generally if larger nations such as the US really tried to properly encourage them they would do alright, like the Geneva Convention. At the moment it's an ass because of American activities - sanctions against Iraqi civies over the last decade, depleted uranium rounds used in the first Gulf war (and maybe now, I'm not sure), and actions of American soldiers in certain prisons.

[kaos]

Then there's South Africa ...

During the apartheid regime our country certainly didn't abide by the UDHR, SA were probably one of its worst offenders. But since then we had 10 years of democracy, and I am certain that our human rights record are getting right up there with the more developed nations. (And yeah, we are still a developing nation)

[Splint]

During the apartheid regime our country certainly didn't abide by the UDHR, SA were probably one of its worst offenders. But since then we had 10 years of democracy, and I am certain that our human rights record are getting right up there with the more developed nations. (And yeah, we are still a developing nation)

Hey there's Kaos...I had a feeling you'd become part of this conversation when I mentioned South Africa. I know that all the South African apartheid horror is over, I was just using it as an example in my list of countries that have done horrible things to their people in the past.

With the exception of Iceland - I don't think any of those countries are "developed" - developed is an economic term - developed countries are countries like Australia, The US, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, France, Czech Repulic, Finland, Canada, Ireland etc.

I think the UDHR is still only a dream because you can pull a list of 20 or so of the economically developed countries and it's still barely a tenth of the countries that belong to the UN and only "attempt to abide by it". If I were a betting man...and I am... I'd wager that the only reason you are seeing as much of the abuse that's happening right now and not as much as what's happening in other parts of the world... like Ireland... is because of a mixture of the US making the mistake of allowing too much media involvement and too little oversight by it's commanding officers. I'm sure that there isn't anything going on now that hasn't gone on in most other war or warlike times in any country...developed or not. While it's disgusting and wrong, it's also unfair to attack the US as though it's the leader in prisoner abuse.

There is also the issue of the International Criminal Court - that has failed to get the support of one particular country - apparantly due to fears that one country would be forced to abide by the Rights of Children decleration - which is a document aimed at preventing abuse, oppression and exploitation of children.

gee which country is that?

You're right - most countries to have trade agreements and relations with countries that have dictators. The majority of countries in the world would like to see a lifting of sanctions against Cuba, allowing for even more Cuban cigars. However I see an enormous difference between having a trade deal and and being an actuall ally - Australia may trade with Saudi Arabia - but we do not send over troops to help protect the corrupt royal family "government"

There is a difference between having trade agreements and being allies. One, you contribute to that dictators ability to pay his own troops and the other you just send troops over there to do the job.
Having troops over in Saudi Arabia is a very tenuous situation. People here are not very comfortable with it and we are all very unclear about the Saudis attitudes toward the US. Post 911 Republican commercials attempted to sway public support for Saudi Arabia and embarassed the hell out of american intelligence with our susceptibility to swallowing whole whatever is on the television screen. We've had troops there for a long time because we need to maintain some sort of friendship with someone over there other than Israel so that we can establish some sort of military presence in the Middle East. How else are we supposed to take over the world?
As disgusting as it sounds we have Trillions of dollars wrapped up in the Oil Industry and we must have a way to protect our investments. That requires military involvement and Saudi Arabia is now one of our main sources of oil. I don't agree with the motives or with most anything Saudi Arabia does on a cultural level, but I'm also not running this country and as long as the US and the rest of the world depend on Oil and have so much money invested in it there isn're really a damn thing we can do about it.

While I may be supporting the Suadi Government in small ways - I'm also supporting a number of organisations that work to end human rights abuses and my companies in my country don't sell cattle prods to the Saudi Government...

Great.

Ah Fuck Jeremy I give up on this shit.... We're sitting here arguing over what constitutes a developed country and blah blah blah and the reality is that we actually agree with eachother that the US fucked up with it's negligence and abuse of the Iraqi prisoners. We also agree that the US shouldn't try to own the world. My original problem was with your seemingly hateful attitude toward the US, and I still don't like your attitude, but it's not likely to change and that's fine because I hate the current leadership in this country too much to want to defend them.
That's my wrap up and I'm calling it quits...I'll argue with you in some other thread .

[Bijan]

I think it's important to remember that Al quaeda is built around it's ideology. Which is that America is a"great Satan" and all that.

That being said they are not really weakened by military force. Since when you bomb a town you may kill 5 cell leaders, but you'll probably kill at least 10 civilians.

You are more likely to be receptive to Anti US retoric when US bombs or soldiers killed your mother, father, son , or daughter, and destroyed your home. Essentially destroying your very simple life, and leaving you without hope. Mentally vulnerable, looking for answers.

And who comes in to answer your questions?


Your friendly neghborhood Al Quaeda representative.

So basically what I am saying is that right now militants in the Middle East are vastly the minority. However, that could slowly change if the US doesn't stop proving them right.

"Make enemies everywhere you go, and guess what, you'll have a whole lot of enemies." -Any body with half an ounce of common sense

[Splint]

I think it's important to remember that Al quaeda is built around it's ideology. Which is that America is a"great Satan" and all that.
That being said they are not really weakened by military force. Since when you bomb a town you may kill 5 cell leaders, but you'll probably kill at least 10 civilians.
You are more likely to be receptive to Anti US retoric when US bombs or soldiers killed your mother, father, son , or daughter, and destroyed your home. Essentially destroying your very simple life, and leaving you without hope. Mentally vulnerable, looking for answers.
And who comes in to answer your questions?
Your friendly neghborhood Al Quaeda representative.
So basically what I am saying is that right now militants in the Middle East are vastly the minority. However, that could slowly change if the US doesn't stop proving them right.
"Make enemies everywhere you go, and guess what, you'll have a whole lot of enemies." -Any body with half an ounce of common sense

No arguments there, or here, or wherever!

[Jeremy]

"Make enemies everywhere you go, and guess what, you'll have a whole lot of enemies." -Any body with half an ounce of common sense

lol -awesome quote!

Splint - I agree with your final sentiments - we'll call this a brief truce until the next battle