|
Post by What Hat on Feb 11, 2015 23:09:44 GMT -5
The question is what we do with that information and how we process it. If you see a "lone mujahideen" in your city or mine, do you think 'suicide bomber'. I don't because we've had Muslims in our community for a long time. I don't interact with many of them, except on occasion, because they mostly live in Toronto, and form about 3% of the population. But the ones I've met are fairly modern, business oriented and upwardly mobile. However, some young Muslim men have been radicalized, most notably the 'Toronto 16' who were caught building fertilizer bombs. What would your advice be given that information. Deport all Muslims? That is just a rhetorical question, but here is a serious one. A number (between 5 and 10) were sent to Guantanamo and held without due process against Canadian principles of law. Was that just, in your opinion? Those Muslims who want Sharia law in Western countries should be told very firmly that it's not going to happen. They will abide by the laws of the country they live in, or they are welcome to go live in one of the hell-holes that already have Sharia law. I have no problem with those Muslims who are willing to integrate. I believe those who are charged with keeping us safe will have good reason to send individuals to Guantanamo. Each prisoner costs taxpayers $US2.8 million per year to keep there and there's a lot of pressure to close the place down. No that is the entire problem. They don't have good reason. We have stooped to the level of "our enemies", actually, lower than their level. Grabbed innocent people out of their homes, sent them to Guantanamo, and held them with NO evidence. The reason our normal court system works is because we have checks and balances. The police don't decide you've committed a crime and then punish you as they see fit. They leave it to the courts to decide your guilt, and there are processes to ensure that the truth of the matter is determined. But none of that happened in Guantanamo. The CIA is police, judge and jury, and you don't get a defence attorney. That's the point of the 'Guantanamo Diary'; it demonstrates that we just gave up on our Western ideals because a) we're afraid, and b) too many people just assume that "those keeping us safe have good reason". They don't. They're on a power trip; and it's actually no wonder now that so many in the rest of the world hate the West. We have shown ourselves to be cruel, unjust tyrants. To a Muslim in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia it doesn't matter that we are upset and afraid of beheading maniacs in the Levant. What they see is how people of their race were tortured and treated in Guantanamo. Of course, many of them would like to drop a bomb on the USA. They're vengeful just like most of us are. That is how conflicts escalate into full blown war. I don't know but I don't like the idea of having to be patriotic and loyal to a country that has shed its ideals. At least I live in Canada and not the USA, but things are getting worse here too. Fear and intolerance are making a big comeback in our immigration policies and our judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 11, 2015 23:14:43 GMT -5
You don't have to go back hundreds of years to find Christian atrocities. You live down under; have you seen the movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" regarding the treatment of aboriginal children? I don't think I have. Did they burn them alive or behead them? They didn't so I guess what they did is perfectly okay. Sorry I mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 11, 2015 23:28:27 GMT -5
And spinning that's not working. At least I tried! Really? In the post I was responding to you said: I have nothing against Arabs or Muslims, as long as they behave like decent human beings.Looks like groups to me, limited though they may be. If you bothered to read the post properly, you'd see that I was responding to What Hat... What about other Arabs or other Muslims who have nothing to do with these horrible events? Does your compassion extend to them, or is it just fine if we lock them up and throw away the key. Is the only good Arab a dead one, in your opinion? Should we sympathise if they suffer wrong or injury, or is that "sympathising with the enemy", in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 11, 2015 23:54:09 GMT -5
At least I tried! Really? In the post I was responding to you said: I have nothing against Arabs or Muslims, as long as they behave like decent human beings.Looks like groups to me, limited though they may be. If you bothered to read the post properly, you'd see that I was responding to What Hat... What about other Arabs or other Muslims who have nothing to do with these horrible events? Does your compassion extend to them, or is it just fine if we lock them up and throw away the key. Is the only good Arab a dead one, in your opinion? Should we sympathise if they suffer wrong or injury, or is that "sympathising with the enemy", in your opinion? Are you saying that just because you were responding to What Hat the the rest of us shouldn't respond to your post?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 0:16:44 GMT -5
If you bothered to read the post properly, you'd see that I was responding to What Hat... Are you saying that just because you were responding to What Hat the the rest of us shouldn't respond to your post?
No. I'm saying don't say that I started referring to Arabs and Muslims when I was responding to WH's reference to Arabs and Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 12, 2015 0:37:34 GMT -5
The American taxpayer spends $US2.8 million per year to keep enemy prisoners housed, while the enemy burns it's prisoner alive and beheads aid workers and journalists. That probably does make me impatient towards those who sympathise with the enemy and blame our civilisation for the problem. Let's talk a bit about why W. Bush made Guantanamo Bay, an area out side of the US, as the detention camp. "Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said the prison camp was established to detain extraordinarily dangerous persons, to interrogate detainees in an optimal setting, and to prosecute detainees for war crimes.
" Bush political appointees at the U.S. Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice advised the Bush administration that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal black jurisdiction.
"The Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
"Ensuing U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 2004 have determined otherwise and that the courts have jurisdiction: it ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006, that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[5]
"In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience.[46][47]
exerts from wiki
In other words, in a nutshell, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, set up Guantanamo Bay as detention camp because it would be outside U.S. jurisdiction .
They lied to us to start the war, & they worked so the prisoners would not have Geneva prisoner rights nor be able to be able to be given a trial in the US.
IMO, those three ex- President George W. Bush, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, and ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should be tried for war crimes by The International Court of Justice.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 4:28:49 GMT -5
Those Muslims who want Sharia law in Western countries should be told very firmly that it's not going to happen. They will abide by the laws of the country they live in, or they are welcome to go live in one of the hell-holes that already have Sharia law. I have no problem with those Muslims who are willing to integrate. I believe those who are charged with keeping us safe will have good reason to send individuals to Guantanamo. Each prisoner costs taxpayers $US2.8 million per year to keep there and there's a lot of pressure to close the place down. No that is the entire problem. They don't have good reason. We have stooped to the level of "our enemies", actually, lower than their level. Grabbed innocent people out of their homes, sent them to Guantanamo, and held them with NO evidence. The reason our normal court system works is because we have checks and balances. The police don't decide you've committed a crime and then punish you as they see fit. They leave it to the courts to decide your guilt, and there are processes to ensure that the truth of the matter is determined. But none of that happened in Guantanamo. The CIA is police, judge and jury, and you don't get a defence attorney. That's the point of the 'Guantanamo Diary'; it demonstrates that we just gave up on our Western ideals because a) we're afraid, and b) too many people just assume that "those keeping us safe have good reason". They don't. They're on a power trip; and it's actually no wonder now that so many in the rest of the world hate the West. We have shown ourselves to be cruel, unjust tyrants. To a Muslim in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia it doesn't matter that we are upset and afraid of beheading maniacs in the Levant. What they see is how people of their race were tortured and treated in Guantanamo. Of course, many of them would like to drop a bomb on the USA. They're vengeful just like most of us are. That is how conflicts escalate into full blown war. I don't know but I don't like the idea of having to be patriotic and loyal to a country that has shed its ideals. At least I live in Canada and not the USA, but things are getting worse here too. Fear and intolerance are making a big comeback in our immigration policies and our judiciary. Lets see if I have this right: 1. Security professionals on a power trip take innocent people from their homes and spend $US2.8 million per person per year of taxpayers money to house them for no good reason. 2. Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia don't care much that innocent aid workers and journalists are murdered in cold blood. 3. Many Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia would like to drop a bomb on the USA. Actually, one of the biggest impediments to the release of Gitmo prisoners is the requirement for assurance of humane treatment in the countries they are repatriated to. Here's the score from Wiki: Shown here are 15 of the 23 detainees transferred in 2014 from Guantanamo Bay. It could be argued that it's irresponsible to release enemy prisoners for no good reason only to rejoin the war. If you contribute to public pressure that results in 31 people killed in a suicide attack, how would you feel about that? This guy was released from US custody to form ISIS and create untold suffering of innocent people (mostly Muslims):
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 12, 2015 4:52:00 GMT -5
Many if not most would like to get to the USA or any western country for a better life than they get in their own country.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2015 7:43:46 GMT -5
No that is the entire problem. They don't have good reason. We have stooped to the level of "our enemies", actually, lower than their level. Grabbed innocent people out of their homes, sent them to Guantanamo, and held them with NO evidence. The reason our normal court system works is because we have checks and balances. The police don't decide you've committed a crime and then punish you as they see fit. They leave it to the courts to decide your guilt, and there are processes to ensure that the truth of the matter is determined. But none of that happened in Guantanamo. The CIA is police, judge and jury, and you don't get a defence attorney. That's the point of the 'Guantanamo Diary'; it demonstrates that we just gave up on our Western ideals because a) we're afraid, and b) too many people just assume that "those keeping us safe have good reason". They don't. They're on a power trip; and it's actually no wonder now that so many in the rest of the world hate the West. We have shown ourselves to be cruel, unjust tyrants. To a Muslim in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia it doesn't matter that we are upset and afraid of beheading maniacs in the Levant. What they see is how people of their race were tortured and treated in Guantanamo. Of course, many of them would like to drop a bomb on the USA. They're vengeful just like most of us are. That is how conflicts escalate into full blown war. I don't know but I don't like the idea of having to be patriotic and loyal to a country that has shed its ideals. At least I live in Canada and not the USA, but things are getting worse here too. Fear and intolerance are making a big comeback in our immigration policies and our judiciary. Lets see if I have this right: 1. Security professionals on a power trip take innocent people from their homes and spend $US2.8 million per person per year of taxpayers money to house them for no good reason. 2. Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia don't care much that innocent aid workers and journalists are murdered in cold blood. 3. Many Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia would like to drop a bomb on the USA. Actually, one of the biggest impediments to the release of Gitmo prisoners is the requirement for assurance of humane treatment in the countries they are repatriated to. Here's the score from Wiki: Shown here are 15 of the 23 detainees transferred in 2014 from Guantanamo Bay. It could be argued that it's irresponsible to release enemy prisoners for no good reason only to rejoin the war. If you contribute to public pressure that results in 31 people killed in a suicide attack, how would you feel about that? This guy was released from US custody to form ISIS and create untold suffering of innocent people (mostly Muslims): I'll have to go through this later, but already point 1 is nothing that I said, so this should be an interesting mish-mash. Still wondering how we reconcile "no sympathy for the enemy" with Jesus' teaching. It has something to do with "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, but perhaps you could explain that a bit further." Now that I've read your post I'm not sure what your point is. Some Guantanamo prisoners will return to ISIS. And some have no place to which they can return. So, that means.... sorry if I'm being thick but I have no idea what it means. You also keep mentioning the cost of housing prisoners. Again, how is that relevant to anything? How much of that cost is transportation incidentally? It's not cheap to fly a single prisoner on a transport, torture him in 3 countries and then bring him to Guantanamo. It's interesting that the expense concerns people but not the torture.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2015 8:38:57 GMT -5
The American taxpayer spends $US2.8 million per year to keep enemy prisoners housed, while the enemy burns it's prisoner alive and beheads aid workers and journalists. That probably does make me impatient towards those who sympathise with the enemy and blame our civilisation for the problem. Let's talk a bit about why W. Bush made Guantanamo Bay, an area out side of the US, as the detention camp. "Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said the prison camp was established to detain extraordinarily dangerous persons, to interrogate detainees in an optimal setting, and to prosecute detainees for war crimes.
" Bush political appointees at the U.S. Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice advised the Bush administration that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal black jurisdiction.
"The Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
"Ensuing U.S. Supreme Court decisions since 2004 have determined otherwise and that the courts have jurisdiction: it ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on 29 June 2006, that detainees were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[5]
"In 2010, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell, stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent, but that the detainees had been kept there for reasons of political expedience.[46][47]
exerts from wiki
In other words, in a nutshell, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, set up Guantanamo Bay as detention camp because it would be outside U.S. jurisdiction .
They lied to us to start the war, & they worked so the prisoners would not have Geneva prisoner rights nor be able to be able to be given a trial in the US.
IMO, those three ex- President George W. Bush, ex-Vice President Dick Cheney, and ex-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, should be tried for war crimes by The International Court of Justice.
Good information. I find it encouraging that many Americans are very concerned about Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court rulings help also. I'd like to think we (the West) still take the high road, and hopefully the Bush era was a lapse and not portentous of worse to come.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 12, 2015 12:31:41 GMT -5
Are you saying that just because you were responding to What Hat the the rest of us shouldn't respond to your post?
No. I'm saying don't say that I started referring to Arabs and Muslims when I was responding to WH's reference to Arabs and Muslims. And, in your post, you referred to two groups. I quoted your post and responded. Perhaps you should accuse me of taking what you posted out of context.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 14:51:57 GMT -5
Still wondering how we reconcile "no sympathy for the enemy" with Jesus' teaching. It has something to do with "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, but perhaps you could explain that a bit further." Now that I've read your post I'm not sure what your point is. Some Guantanamo prisoners will return to ISIS. And some have no place to which they can return. So, that means.... sorry if I'm being thick but I have no idea what it means. You also keep mentioning the cost of housing prisoners. Again, how is that relevant to anything? How much of that cost is transportation incidentally? It's not cheap to fly a single prisoner on a transport, torture him in 3 countries and then bring him to Guantanamo. It's interesting that the expense concerns people but not the torture. You seem to want Guantanomo closed down. Obama does too. He campaigned on it and has very strong feelings about it, but it's not as easy as amateur observers think. One reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys being mistreated in their home country. Another reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys causing trouble when they are released. A lot of lives have been lost due to Islamists who have been released from US custody. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a case in point. Incidentally Bush released more from Guantanamo than Obama has so far. The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 12, 2015 15:52:19 GMT -5
The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money. You can lower the cost per person per year simply by putting more people into the facility. I have a feeling that the $2.8 million is a fully loaded cost.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 19:31:05 GMT -5
The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money. You can lower the cost per person per year simply by putting more people into the facility. I have a feeling that the $2.8 million is a fully loaded cost. Yes, I suppose the cost will rise as the numbers drop. I'm asking the question: why would anyone spend $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people? Obama has said all along that he wants to close the place down, largely because of the PR damage, so anyone who thinks innocent prisoners are there should have a chat with Barack Hussein. He'll be only too pleased to have them released.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 12, 2015 20:10:26 GMT -5
Still wondering how we reconcile "no sympathy for the enemy" with Jesus' teaching. It has something to do with "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, but perhaps you could explain that a bit further." Now that I've read your post I'm not sure what your point is. Some Guantanamo prisoners will return to ISIS. And some have no place to which they can return. So, that means.... sorry if I'm being thick but I have no idea what it means. You also keep mentioning the cost of housing prisoners. Again, how is that relevant to anything? How much of that cost is transportation incidentally? It's not cheap to fly a single prisoner on a transport, torture him in 3 countries and then bring him to Guantanamo. It's interesting that the expense concerns people but not the torture. You seem to want Guantanomo closed down. Obama does too. He campaigned on it and has very strong feelings about it, but it's not as easy as amateur observers think. One reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys being mistreated in their home country. Another reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys causing trouble when they are released. A lot of lives have been lost due to Islamists who have been released from US custody. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a case in point. Incidentally Bush released more from Guantanamo than Obama has so far. The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money. No I think you're missing the point. The point is that there are basic notions of fairness in how to treat prisoners or criminals, all of which were set aside when Guantanamo was created. That doesn't mean I think the guilty should not be punished. But let's treat the accused as we've learned to treat the accused over 10 centuries of judicial development. I don't know the exact answer for an alternative to Guantanamo, and no one is going to ask me for one in any case, so I haven't thought deeply about what a reasonable alternative would have been. Perhaps, something along the lines of a war crimes trial, as are held in the Hague, would have been appropriate. I also favour multi-lateral action through NATO or the UN, on this, and other military efforts. As far as the prisoners that are there, well, everyone knows that prison just hardens criminals. even moreso if mistreated. So in a way they've turned bad guys into monsters. Violence begetting violence is the legacy of the Iraqi Invasion adventure. Rumsfeld and GWB's campaign was retributive and badly managed, and I think has caused the USA and the West to loser stature around the world.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 12, 2015 21:55:28 GMT -5
fixit said: Lets see if I have this right: 1. Security professionals on a power trip take innocent people from their homes and spend $US2.8 million per person per year of taxpayers money to house them for no good reason. 2. Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia don't care much that innocent aid workers and journalists are murdered in cold blood. 3. Many Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia would like to drop a bomb on the USA. 775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Although most of these have been released without chargeOf the 620 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay, 180 have returned or are suspected to have returned to the battlefield. Yes, you do have this right:
1. Yes, Bush & company(NOT Security professionals) on a power trip DID take innocent people from their homes and spend $US2.8 million per person per year of taxpayers money to house them for no good reason. So, Why did we have those 775 detainees if we would finally release without charge?
2. "So Isis Muslims in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia don't care much that innocent aid workers and journalists are murdered in cold blood"? So we are to give tit for tat & lower our own set of ethics to their level?
3. Many Muslims "in Egypt, Turkey or Indonesia would like to drop a bomb on the USA."? No doubt true, We aren't dropping bombs on anyone?
Why wouldn't detainees who were tortured in Guantanamo want to go to fight against us, even if they hadn't even done so before?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 21:58:33 GMT -5
You seem to want Guantanomo closed down. Obama does too. He campaigned on it and has very strong feelings about it, but it's not as easy as amateur observers think. One reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys being mistreated in their home country. Another reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys causing trouble when they are released. A lot of lives have been lost due to Islamists who have been released from US custody. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a case in point. Incidentally Bush released more from Guantanamo than Obama has so far. The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money. No I think you're missing the point. The point is that there are basic notions of fairness in how to treat prisoners or criminals, all of which were set aside when Guantanamo was created. That doesn't mean I think the guilty should not be punished. But let's treat the accused as we've learned to treat the accused over 10 centuries of judicial development. I don't know the exact answer for an alternative to Guantanamo, and no one is going to ask me for one in any case, so I haven't thought deeply about what a reasonable alternative would have been. Perhaps, something along the lines of a war crimes trial, as are held in the Hague, would have been appropriate. I also favour multi-lateral action through NATO or the UN, on this, and other military efforts. As far as the prisoners that are there, well, everyone knows that prison just hardens criminals. even moreso if mistreated. So in a way they've turned bad guys into monsters. Violence begetting violence is the legacy of the Iraqi Invasion adventure. Rumsfeld and GWB's campaign was retributive and badly managed, and I think has caused the USA and the West to loser stature around the world. I'm not sure that there would be a legal framework for war crimes trials. Who declared war on who, and when? Most are not US citizens. Interesting that you mentioned the Hague - here's what is happening there...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2015 22:09:29 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 12, 2015 22:14:43 GMT -5
You seem to want Guantanomo closed down. Obama does too. He campaigned on it and has very strong feelings about it, but it's not as easy as amateur observers think. One reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys being mistreated in their home country. Another reason is that America doesn't want to be responsible for these guys causing trouble when they are released. A lot of lives have been lost due to Islamists who have been released from US custody. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a case in point. Incidentally Bush released more from Guantanamo than Obama has so far. The reason I mention the cost is because I can't believe authorities would spent $US2.8 million per person per year to incarcerate innocent people. I'm sure Obama could find a better use for taxpayers money. No I think you're missing the point. The point is that there are basic notions of fairness in how to treat prisoners or criminals, all of which were set aside when Guantanamo was created. That doesn't mean I think the guilty should not be punished. But let's treat the accused as we've learned to treat the accused over 10 centuries of judicial development. I don't know the exact answer for an alternative to Guantanamo, and no one is going to ask me for one in any case, so I haven't thought deeply about what a reasonable alternative would have been. Perhaps, something along the lines of a war crimes trial, as are held in the Hague, would have been appropriate. I also favour multi-lateral action through NATO or the UN, on this, and other military efforts. As far as the prisoners that are there, well, everyone knows that prison just hardens criminals. even moreso if mistreated. So in a way they've turned bad guys into monsters. Violence begetting violence is the legacy of the Iraqi Invasion adventure. Rumsfeld and GWB's campaign was retributive and badly managed, and I think has caused the USA and the West to loser stature around the world. Not only caused us to lose stature, but without a doubt helped to cause the rise of Isis that now plagues the whole world.
So, Bush released more from Guantanamo than Obama has ?. Could that incidentally be because Bush detained them in the first place?
Also Obama is the one who doesn't want to be responsible for these guys being mistreated in their home country.
Bush never worried about how they would be treated when he release them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 12, 2015 22:22:39 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes. Do the Germans and Japanese hate us? Not that I've noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 12, 2015 22:32:22 GMT -5
The choice before human beings, is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the Nazis rule the world: that is evil; or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands.
George Orwell
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 12, 2015 22:37:03 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes. Do the Germans and Japanese hate us? Not that I've noticed. I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone was involved in WWII so the Germans would have a lot of countries to hate if that's what they wanted to do. Are you saying that countries that the west have been at war with shouldn't hate us? We didn't just damage their infrastructure we poisoned their land for generations to come by using weapons that should not have been used. The people of Iraq were already under a madman, they didn't deserve to be bombed with depleted uranium. www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 12, 2015 22:41:56 GMT -5
....if someone drops a bomb on your mother, go and drop two bombs on his mother. The only apparent alternatives are to smash dwelling houses to powder, blow out human entrails and burn holes in children with lumps of thermite, or to be enslaved by people who are more ready to do these things than you are yourself; as yet no-one has suggested a practicable way out.”
George Orwell
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 12, 2015 23:13:18 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. As long as people think war solves something we will have wars. And, we will have revenge wars. It only stops people for a short while. As we can see in the Middle East, they have long memories and each generation is taught to hate from the older generation. And on it goes. Do the Germans and Japanese hate us?Not that I've noticed. No.
Could that perhaps be because we did not meddle in their affairs prior to WWII as we have done with nearly all of the Middle East?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 13, 2015 0:08:56 GMT -5
No I think you're missing the point. The point is that there are basic notions of fairness in how to treat prisoners or criminals, all of which were set aside when Guantanamo was created. That doesn't mean I think the guilty should not be punished. But let's treat the accused as we've learned to treat the accused over 10 centuries of judicial development. I don't know the exact answer for an alternative to Guantanamo, and no one is going to ask me for one in any case, so I haven't thought deeply about what a reasonable alternative would have been. Perhaps, something along the lines of a war crimes trial, as are held in the Hague, would have been appropriate. I also favour multi-lateral action through NATO or the UN, on this, and other military efforts. As far as the prisoners that are there, well, everyone knows that prison just hardens criminals. even moreso if mistreated. So in a way they've turned bad guys into monsters. Violence begetting violence is the legacy of the Iraqi Invasion adventure. Rumsfeld and GWB's campaign was retributive and badly managed, and I think has caused the USA and the West to loser stature around the world. I'm not sure that there would be a legal framework for war crimes trials. Who declared war on who, and when? Most are not US citizens. Interesting that you mentioned the Hague - here's what is happening there... Don't worry, it was just a honey pot. english.cntv.cn/2014/08/29/ARTI1409273487428701.ml
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 13, 2015 5:03:46 GMT -5
Do the Germans and Japanese hate us? Not that I've noticed. I'm not sure what your point is. Everyone was involved in WWII so the Germans would have a lot of countries to hate if that's what they wanted to do. Are you saying that countries that the west have been at war with shouldn't hate us? We didn't just damage their infrastructure we poisoned their land for generations to come by using weapons that should not have been used. The people of Iraq were already under a madman, they didn't deserve to be bombed with depleted uranium. www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.htmlThe American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2015 8:14:54 GMT -5
The second world war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That didn't happen. Actually, The War to End All Wars was WW I. It just didn't work out.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 13, 2015 8:42:21 GMT -5
The American-led anti-ISIL coalition has more than 60 members. Have you noticed that the Foreign Minister of Iraq is visiting Australia and New Zealand this week requesting military assistance? It doesn't look like a country that hates us. Countries do not hate. There are a lot of people living in Iraq that regard americans with emotions really near to hate.
|
|