If it was your job, would you do it?Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Anyways. that is what I meant about we need reforms on the international scale. For example, for developing countries who need money, and loan from the World Bank, should be able to have a plan that does not leave the country starving to try and pay it back.
Yea, and the other 20% are suffering for what those other @$$ho--- from the 80% group are doing.
"Feed me."
Here's a link for you T-MaN:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/
It's close to 600 pages, but it does break down into various sections which can make navigating it a bit easier.
Take care all.
Thank You Captain, I truly appreciate it.
"Feed me."
If I loaned a man money, and said "here, this is enough, go get some good clothes, a shower, and a job, and I'll be back in a long time to get this back", would it be wrong to expect to be paid back? If I loaned him money, why is he still homeless???
the main aim for iraq and afghanistan was to make the world a safer place from terrorism and this has failed. so i was not wrong and this is the first and last time i will tell you not to take quotes out of context and call them wrong, read the entire thing and reply to the entire thing do not cut out which pieces you think you can deny.
actually my claims regarding the american export of suspects to be tortured abroad was reported by both the bbc and channel 4 in it's torture season. you can happily read it from the bbc's page.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme..._4/4246089.stm
http://www.fairgofordavid.org/htmlfi...s/tortures.htm
http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02.../24_begg3.html
actually no weapons of mass destruction neither were any live programmes were found in iraq, yes the bunkers were there but the turned out not to be missle silos where the next world war would be started but turned out to be things like pastic factories. the american government and un now accept there were no wmd in iraq maybe you should follow suit. the intelligence was flawed, curveball was an alcholic liar for whom the war in iraq was useful, iranian intelligence also is hardly the most unbiased when it comes to wanting iraq stamped on now is it?
also the official word now from your government that the link between iraq and terrorism is very shaky. and what person could ever believe that two men who believed in total opposites and openly stated their hate for each other would be sitting down for a nice cup of tea.
the geneva code does not apply to terrorists (to call a man a terrorist you actually need to prove it in a court of law and so all the tortured men are therefore suspected terrorists) but human rights and and the right to live a life free of torture is defined in all human rights legislation that america has signed do apply to terrorist suspects. if you seek to humiliate a man it is a breach of human rights.
and no it is not right to expect a starving country to pay back loans it cannot afford. giving loans in the first place to such countries is hardly moral then watching the people of the country starve while you demand money has no moral justification other than "it's our money and i haven't been able to afford that new oil well in texas yet"
your father raised you on a rubbish tip? then because the pay was lsighly better you worked in a sweatshop? these jobs are popular because they are bette than life on a rubbish ground searching for recyclables or starving at home, but that doesn't mean it is human now does it? and my out of context quote on slave labour was sarcasm to prove that point.
yes you went to the un but then when it didn't appease your lovely timetable for war as it actually wanted some evidence of wmd (which you said was the aim of such action) you decided to jump right over it's head. now when it comes to sudan you call it genocide have all the evidence you need, it's on a far greater scale than iraq but you sit there with your thumb in your ass now trying to play ball. why now? why sit on your ass now when before you were so happy to stamp on the un and perfom and illegal war? sudan in fact is not illegal as it has been classified as genocide and actually now you are legally obliged to stop it by whatever means necessary.
actually you did destroy vietnams rain forest, or did they just magically disappear when the war started? and that naplam you droppped left the trees unburned? and agent orange isn't a herbicide but a harmless drink for kiddies? and the war did leave thousands if not millions dead if it didn't then it wasn't a very good war. attacks and raping in vietnamese villages is very well documented and also if you want to be picky on such things the american amry shot on refugess during the korean war too and actually condoned this in an official order. if you are ingorant of this then please tell me and i'll be happy to provide the wikipedia link.
and yes i will be happy to see manhattan sink but i never said anything about the people drowing i would far rather that your country's economy crashed and you were left with nothing in a 1929 state.
and for you martyr just to condense thing what is so objectionable about america is greed, africa, human rights, support of dictators and murderers and illegal wars. and america isn't hated for it's hated for it's abuse of power. and if i read correctly are you saying there that starving africans deserve everything they have gotten? and i don't hate you (i find you more than a little objectionable) i just hate the country and society you live in.
I quoted this whole paragraph so you wouldn't think it was "out of context". You were wrong. Again. The world is in fact a safer place from terrorism since the War on Terror started, and it's obvious to anybody who watches the news. When was the last major terrorist attack? Hell, even if you relate it to Isreal and Palestine, when was the last suicide bombing there?
What the hell is "curveball"? By the way, chemical weapons WERE found in Iraq (if you weren't watching Al-Jezeera, you might know that), just not the stockpiles that were expected by multiple intelligence sources. Many bunkers were found that turned out to be, yes, bunkers, places designed and used for the stockpiling of weapons, and/or factories that could be easily converted (back) to produce many different types of illegal weapons for Saddam. As far as I know, the American government has yet to come out and say that there were absolutely no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hell, I personally picked up and carried an artillery round full of nerve agent.actually no weapons of mass destruction neither were any live programmes were found in iraq, yes the bunkers were there but the turned out not to be missle silos where the next world war would be started but turned out to be things like pastic factories. the american government and un now accept there were no wmd in iraq maybe you should follow suit. the intelligence was flawed, curveball was an alcholic liar for whom the war in iraq was useful
It's called a "mutual enemy". As in, America was an enemy of Saddam and an enemy of Al-Queda, making it a "mutual enemy". Even if they don't like each other, they were willing to work together against us. Many other countries do and have done that--hell, America does it all the time. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".also the official word now from your government that the link between iraq and terrorism is very shaky. and what person could ever believe that two men who believed in total opposites and openly stated their hate for each other would be sitting down for a nice cup of tea.
By your logic, torture is a breech of human rights. Humiliation is far from torture.if you seek to humiliate a man it is a breach of human rights.
It's not right to expect a country to pay us back? Oh, how evil we are to not be spreading around our own money! And I won't even comment on the "oil well in Texas" remark, it shows enough idiocy.and no it is not right to expect a starving country to pay back loans it cannot afford. giving loans in the first place to such countries is hardly moral then watching the people of the country starve while you demand money has no moral justification other than "it's our money and i haven't been able to afford that new oil well in texas yet"
So it's wrong to give people jobs that increase the quality of life in that area, because we aren't paying them enough money to make them extremely rich in comparison to the surrounding population? Companies build factories in third-world countries because they can get work done cheaper. People that live in third-world countries work in those factories because they get paid better than they do at most other jobs. Who loses?these jobs are popular because they are bette than life on a rubbish ground searching for recyclables or starving at home, but that doesn't mean it is human now does it? and my out of context quote on slave labour was sarcasm to prove that point.
Actually, when it was shown that the UN was being controlled by two countries (France and Germany) that didn't want war with Iraq because they were up to their necks in illegal dealings with Saddam, that's when we "decided to jump right over its head."yes you went to the un but then when it didn't appease your lovely timetable for war as it actually wanted some evidence of wmd (which you said was the aim of such action) you decided to jump right over it's head.
The U.S. is "legally obliged"? Why isn't the UN obligated to do anything about it? Why don't you go bitch to them? And what makes the war in Iraq illegal, praytell?why sit on your ass now when before you were so happy to stamp on the un and perfom and illegal war? sudan in fact is not illegal as it has been classified as genocide and actually now you are legally obliged to stop it by whatever means necessary.
Please do provide links with credible sources concerning the shooting of unarmed peaceful civilians, or the "attacks and raping in Vietnamese villages". You say it's "very well documented", you should have no problem pulling something out, should you?attacks and raping in vietnamese villages is very well documented and also if you want to be picky on such things the american amry shot on refugess during the korean war too and actually condoned this in an official order. if you are ingorant of this then please tell me and i'll be happy to provide the wikipedia link.
If America's economy crashed, so would that of the rest of the world. Just like in 1929. Your piddly little country might not effect much, but America would, and your country would be trashed just like everybody else.and yes i will be happy to see manhattan sink but i never said anything about the people drowing i would far rather that your country's economy crashed and you were left with nothing in a 1929 state.
okay a list of posts for sasquatch since he yet again asks for them instead of learning something about his country.
my lie in vietnam - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
no gun ri in korea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri
american allowance in korea to shoot upon refugees - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...ncivilians.jpg
sasquatch care to tell us the date between alqaeda's embassy bombing and sept 11? so in fact it is impossible to guess upon the idea that al-qaeda has been destroyed. after sept 11 was madrid, the boming of the Uk bank (was that in turkey i can't remember), baili, planned ricin attack in britain (was not going to work anyway but i'll add it here), iraq, escalating tensions in chechnya resulitng in beslan. yep that's a safer world. my my ain't i glad that osama bin laden inconvienced himself by moving out of tora bora, i can sleep well tonight.
cruveball was the code name for the main intelligence man for america on iraq, he was an iraqi dissident and was rated as an alcholic liar who was very biased and often forgetful and had a tendency to forget, exagerate and make up facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29
okay humiliation = breach of human rights and torture = breach of human rights also humiliation can aslo be classes as torture.
bunkers and weapons that were there was old stuff from the 1990's nothing greatly new had been built. and to say things could be easily changed back is not a great allegation. you can make a nuclear power facility produce uranium as much as you can get a sticker factory to change it's labels. being able to produce something if something is changed is hardly evidence. if i remove the magazine and hammer from my gun and discard them it is now an unattractive paperweight not a lethal weapon.
my oil well in texas remark was purely because i couldn't think of anything else at the time that a billionaire tycoon would invest in.
and lastly i would have no problem having my "piddy little country" economy crash if it was to see an end to the world's last superpower and the destruction of it's power and influence.
Thank you for finally putting at least a reference down.
"my lie in vietnam - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre"
First of all, if you try to bring up My Lai, don't forget Hue. (You don't have to tell me about that, I already know, it's just something you should know too.) In My Lai, soldiers were ensured not only that some of the VC who were involved in the Tet Offensive were taking refuge in that village, but also that civilians wouldn't be there at the time of their invasion. "They were told that they could assume that all who remained behind were either VC or active VC sympathisers." Upon arrival, things may or may not have already gotten started when they came to the realization that they were engaging civilians. Unless you have been in direct combat, you have no idea what they were going through. The reports that came back were those from only a few soldiers, and thus could easily be exaggerated or falsified. Even so, it did happen, and it brought shame to the United States military.
"no gun ri in korea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Gun_Ri"
What's the point of bring up No Gun Ri? Koreans say that Americans fired on a group of unarmed civilians. Americans say that they were taking fire from people in that group of civilians--a common tactic for the North Koreans. Ammunition was found that shows that North Koreans and Americans both fired. This would lean more towards supporting the Americans' version of the story. They most likely didn't open fire on an unarmed group of civilians, because if that was the case, no expended North Korean ammunition would have been found.
"american allowance in korea to shoot upon refugees - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...ncivilians.jpg"
Direct quote: ""It is reported that large groups of civilians, either composed of or controlled by North Korean soldiers, are infiltrating U.S. positions." So they strafed large groups of usually hostile people that were coming towards U.S. positions. Perfectly understandable. It's better than letting them be until they come into the camp and overrun it, wouldn't you say? Nevermind, I won't ask you.
"cruveball was the code name for the main intelligence man for america on iraq, he was an iraqi dissident and was rated as an alcholic liar who was very biased and often forgetful and had a tendency to forget, exagerate and make up facts."
Hey, sounds like somebody else I know. The Germans described the guy as an alcoholic and crazy--and we have since discovered many times over that the Germans were not to be taken at their word concerning anything about Iraq. Otherwise, he was a good source. The U.S. government has since learned of his inaccuracy and questioned the people responsible for not further verifying his information. (By the way, the information we got from him was passed through German intelligence service, which "relayed" it back to the DIA.)
"okay humiliation = breach of human rights and torture = breach of human rights also humiliation can aslo be classes as torture."
Humiliation is a breach of human rights? Since when? You know, I think in fourth or fifth grade, quite a long while ago, this guy spilled his orange soda, and since I was sitting near it and didn't know about it right away, it ran into the back of my pants. So the back of my pants was wet, and I had to walk to my next class like that, then I had to walk around for the rest of the day with a noticible stain on my ass. Man, was I humiliated.
"and to say things could be easily changed back is not a great allegation. you can make a nuclear power facility produce uranium as much as you can get a sticker factory to change it's labels. being able to produce something if something is changed is hardly evidence. if i remove the magazine and hammer from my gun and discard them it is now an unattractive paperweight not a lethal weapon."
A.) I'm not just talking about nuclear weapons, I'm also talking about factories that could be very easily converted (back) to making nerve agents, or labs that could very easily be converted (back) to making biological agents.
B.) Why did Saddam have nuclear power facilities, when there are plenty of other, probably cheaper ways for Iraq to get energy, and it's well known that a nuclear power plant could be slightly converted to enrich uranium and not deplete it? Who would let Saddam, a man known for using cruel tactics and chemical weapons, have the ability to create uranium that could be used in nuclear weapons? Oh, that's right. France.
C.) Your "gun" analogy would be hardly correct. A better one would be a glass. If you put a little water and some flowers in a glass, that doesn't mean you couldn't wash it out and fill it with beer.
"and lastly i would have no problem having my "piddy little country" economy crash if it was to see an end to the world's last superpower and the destruction of it's power and influence."
Right. Because you know that there wouldn't be any more superpowers, and hell, no more wars or poverty or AIDS or anything, if the economy of the entire planet collapsed.
humiliation to a prisoner is a breach of human rights, it is not allowed on criminals, pow's or enemy combatants.
and why shouldn't sadamme have nuclear power facilities? in an other post you defend the right for the US to have such ones and various other polluting plants on the idea that renewables are not good enough. but iraq should be forced to have them?
and i miust say that the us hardly stopped iraq from having nuclear power plants and various weapons anymore than france. you also sat idly by for 10 years and did nothing. so it's not only france that let them have them if you believe france actually did. in fact alot of the parts for sadammes nuclear power plants and weapons that were found from a very larg country very far away which happilly supported him during a war that killed millions and used chemical and biological weapons (also to mention hallabja as well).
being in direct combat does not excuse the massacre of a village. as a military man i would expect you to know the rules of war.
no gun ri follows the same example of which bloody sunday in ireland. even if the us troops were fired on this does not give them the god given right to then kill everyone in sight. this is what the sas died on bloody sunday and what the us did at nu gun ri and my lai. targets should be choosen because they are a threat or possible threat (wih probably reason etc.) not because they are within sight.
can i ask why then if this was german intelligence from curveball did the germans say it was wrong and did not sign up for the war. at one point they must have realised that it was wrong. and if the men who gave you the information realise a mistake has been made why oh why would you continue using it and saying that it is correct enough to kill thousands with and break international law?
Humiliation is far from a breach of human rights. Show me something related to international law which declares humiation as a breach of human rights.
"and why shouldn't sadamme have nuclear power facilities? in an other post you defend the right for the US to have such ones and various other polluting plants on the idea that renewables are not good enough. but iraq should be forced to have them?"
So you're asking why I think the U.S. can have nuclear power plants, but Iraq can't? How about because THE U.S. CAN BE TRUSTED NOT TO USE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Is that good enough? Iraq has quite a bit of this stuff called OIL, if you didn't know, and it wouldn't be much trouble at all for them to get their own power from their own oil.
"so it's not only france that let them have them if you believe france actually did."
France built a nuclear power plant in Iraq. That's not just something I "believe". There are pictures of Jaques Chirac leading Hussein on a tour through this nuclear power plant. Remember that Isreali fighter pilot that was on the Columbia shuttle? Do you know what one of the things that made him a hero in Isreal was? He flew the mission to bomb that nuclear power plant.
"being in direct combat does not excuse the massacre of a village. as a military man i would expect you to know the rules of war."
Having never seen anything close to direct combat and being nothing like a military man, I would expect that you wouldn't be able to understand much of it. I never said anything would excuse it. But you shouldn't mention the "rules of war" in reference to Vietnam, because the VC were nowhere near inside the "rules of war" in much of anything they did. I would venture a guess that you are ignorant of Hue?
"no gun ri follows the same example of which bloody sunday in ireland. even if the us troops were fired on this does not give them the god given right to then kill everyone in sight. this is what the sas died on bloody sunday and what the us did at nu gun ri and my lai. targets should be choosen because they are a threat or possible threat (wih probably reason etc.) not because they are within sight."
They didn't fire upon "everyone in sight". They fired towards the crowd that they were getting shot from. Consider their situation--I'm not asking what you would do, because I already know you value the "rights" of our enemies above American life, but consider this illustration. You and your platoon encounter a large group of people, and start taking fire from it. You have two choices... You could fire into this crowd that is hiding hostile combatants, taking the chance to have to shoot through some of them to neutralize the threat. Or, you could either do absolutely nothing, because you don't have a clear target, and watch as your friends get picked off one by one. If it's my guys, I don't care if the Pope is standing in front of the guy, if I have to shoot him to get to the guy that wants to kill me and my friends, I do it.
"can i ask why then if this was german intelligence from curveball did the germans say it was wrong and did not sign up for the war."
Because Germany was up to its neck in illegal dealings with Saddam, and didn't want him out of power. They were perfectly happy letting more Iraqi civilians die gruesome deaths because they were getting good trade out of it. Who talks about "blood for oil"?
You have yet to say why you think humiliation is a breach of human rights, or how the War on Terror in Iraq is breaking any international law.
[q=Sasquatch]
Humiliation is a breach of human rights? Since when? You know, I think in fourth or fifth grade, quite a long while ago, this guy spilled his orange soda, and since I was sitting near it and didn't know about it right away, it ran into the back of my pants. So the back of my pants was wet, and I had to walk to my next class like that, then I had to walk around for the rest of the day with a noticible stain on my ass. Man, was I humiliated.[/q]
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0...256FA90050419C
hows this for you.
[q]The various terms used to refer to different forms of ill treatment or infliction of pain can be explained as follows:
* Torture: existence of a specific purpose plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;
* Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;
* Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation. [/q]
now, the accual Article/Law against it:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1
[q]Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application. [/q]
So personal Humiliation to obtain information, which our army has been doing, counts as a breech of human rights under internation law. You should stop telling people they are wrong and accually verify your own answers.
Last edited by AkiraMakie; 04-21-2005 at 04:55 PM.
the legalits of iraq.... two things let you go to the war in this world without it being classed as illegal. but before we go over that quick hisotry lesson.
the league of nations failed in the 1930's as appeasement an unilateral action by britain set in. after the war it was agreed that the reason the league of nations failed was that it made all acts of war illegal. this led to problems when countries like italy went and invaded ethiopia (it had a different name then) and the only thing the league of nations could do was sit back, give a few warnings and a few trade embargoes and watch as people were slaughtered. so it was decided to replace the system with the un. a body which gave the right to go to war when necessary. it was deemed necessary on 3 major accounts. when the UN security council agreed upon it, in the event of a condition that can be classed and agreed as genocide (action here is not optionable), and in the event of hostile action. none of those 3 conditions were met. as such the law was illegal under international law.
and france provided iraq with a nuclear power station.... this occured about the same time america was sponsoring the war with iran, happily supplied sadamme with planes, tanks, missles, guns, oh and oh yeah.. chemical components. believe it or not the exact same kind of chemicals needed to perform attacks like halabja and on the iranian army. provided the planes to drop that stuff as well, and the shells, bombs and missles. so france provided a nuclear power station proving millions with electricity, america funded a dictator using chemical weapons in a war and on his own people. nuclear power station - can be good. chemical weapons - always bad.
if america can be trusted not to use it's nuclear weapons, why have them? a very big waste of money and space if you're trusted that you won't use them. america also has a vast amount of oil, alot more now it is in control of iraq's.
to claim that "they weren't obeying the rules so we won't" is a very dissappointing argument really isn't it. al-qaeda killed the civillian population of america, would you then go out and purposely kill afghans because "they did it too"?
the rules of war always need to be obeyed. the only person who you can ensure obeys by them is yourself. you can't control your enemy, but you must never fall into the same trap that he does.
and thank you akira makie for saving me the time trying to find that kinda stuff. (i should really stick to one thread at a time).
Eh, where did you get the idea that Christianity promotes peace and tolerance? That's all this new-age bullcrap. Jesus said and I quote
"I come you not to bring you salvation, but a sword".
And don't get me started on Muslims and Shiates and all those other cooky Middle-Eastern philosophies. I seriously doubt their countries would be as dangerous as they are if thier religouns which they're so obsessed with had anything to do with peace, and love, and thpppt!
That's why I like'em so much. Bring on the hurt Allah, bring on the hurt.
shiates actually are muslims........
and you've obviously never read the koran as it delves very deeply into peace, love, respect for enemies etc.
Posting Permissions
