First, here is a racist cartoon:
Decpite that the United Arab Emirates said it was a close ally of the US in its war on terrorism, the US senators, Hillary Clinton and Robert Menendez opposed a UAE firm's takeover of a company that operates several American ports over security concerns. The two US Democratic senators have said they will introduce legislation to block Dubai Ports World from buying P&O and gaining control over the management of US ports because of national security concerns. Now a company at the Port of Miami has sued to block the takeover of the shipping operations.
Some US officials have said the UAE has been a solid and cooperative partner in the fight against terrorism, and have praised it for steps to protect its booming financial sector against abuse by terrorism financiers. Others, however, point out that two of the September 11, 2001, hijackers were from the UAE. In addition, most of the hijackers received money channeled through various sources based in the UAE, according to the Justice Department and the 9/11 Commission.
Was Islamophobia, now Arabophobia… Goodbye free trade!
{ 54 } Comments
Hillary forgot that the U.S. supplied weapons to Iraq in the 80's, forgot that it supplied weapons to South American dictators, forgot that it bombed Sudan during her husband's sexual indiscretions.
As far as can be seen, the U.S. has been using the U.A.E. as a base in the Mid-East to get to and from Iraq. It's okay to ship soldiers in and out of Iraq via the UAE, but the UAE can't ship anything into the US ports. Sounds like a fair US trade policy. Like NAFTA.
It's the old joke: One for you, one for me. Two for you, one, two for me. Three for you, one, two, three for me…
Dubai Ports World announced it's going to "transfer operations" of the ports to a "US entity".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4791512.stm
A bunch of xenophobic moronic hypocrites is the best way I can describe these US senators who opposed the deal.
Here we go again. The US is the bad guy, jobs are leaving, the sky is falling, the US is in decline, hate Bush etc. Do you guys need cheese with that whine? Is it jealousy that America is the greatest country in the history of the world and you guys are tired of being at the bottom of the food chain or what. This is laughable. The US is bankrupt, our news is tilted against Europeans etc. That is the kind of garbage I am reading here. Don't be offended but please balance your views a little. It has become fashionable to bash the US and all of you are just going along for the ride. Be original and balanced please!
Wylie,
Thank-you for representing America in a more positive light. Don't be embarrassed to be American as others would have you be. America is being demonized profusely lately and while we are not perfect we do have much to offer. You made some good points. We have been a democratic leader for many years and countries that are able to vote can be grateful for our democratic ideals. We have influnced the world in positive ways. You are right, if we stack ourselves up against other countries we will come out smelling like roses. I don't think we are better than other countries, we are different. It is good that there is diversity but lets not forget America's positive aspects. People's hate for the current administration has blinded them to the many admirable qualities that America possesses. Lest we forget.
Wylie
Robert Ruiz
1. Democracy was invented by Cleisthenes in 510 BC in Athens, while the United States of America was declared independent on July 4, 1776 AD.
2. “I’m against your opinion but I’ll fight to death so that you could express it” Voltaire, French Philosopher, (1694 -1778)
3. What do you think of the use of depleted uranium (DU) in the Gulf war II and the unknowingly exposure of US troops and Iraqi innocent civilians to radioactive radiation?
Robert,
Wylie,
If a great many people around the world criticize The United States and if some of them openly express hostile feelings towards it or if others hate America and Americans, This is obviously not the result of the good things America does for the benefit of humanity.It's rather the result of the hostilities and the killing of innocent civilians by the American Army under the slogan of freedom and the struggle against world terrorism and the slogan of National security.When an ordinary American citizen fails to see the cruelty his country treats people of other countries with,or when he tries to find justifications for it,or when he expects other people, who are victims of atrocities committed by Americans, to love America because It cares about freedom of others from the tyranny of their unelected leaders, then you denude these people of their humanity.
I's a bit like the child who is beaten by his parents because they love him so much that they try to defend him against himself!
If countries around the world and their peoples adopted democracy as one of the best systems of government ever invented by humanity,and if they enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of belief and human rights , they never got all that from anybody as a gift.They achieved it after making dear sacrifices. many paid with their lives for it, others paid with their freedom.
Tamim,
C'mon now, I haven't heard you say anything nice about the US yet. You are entitled to your opinion. Obviously you have a one sided view of the US. We are seen as the big bully on the planet and we meddle in world affairs. There is a reason for that Tamim. We carry a bigger stick. Does that justify anything nefarious that has been done by us? Absolutely not. When I was a kid playing on the school ground, the bigger kids beat up the weaker or smaller kids. The US has more economic and military power than any other country. We can reduce your country to rubble if we choose to. That is where much of the resentment comes from. Don't worry, it is cyclical. One day it will be another country with all the might flexing its muscle. For now it is our turn. And since you are such a historian-we achieved it in record time. We are an infant of a country and look how far we've come. Our technology, ingenuity and know how is amazing. We as a country are the most charitable perhaps because we have more to give poor countries. We don't have to but American have a big heart and are charitable. I never hear that in your correspondence. It is so full of America is evil rhetoric. Tamim, you seem like a nice fellow. Can't we agree to be more balanced in our views.
Tamim,
Absolutely brilliant posts. Here in the US it is so very difficult to be aware of our country's past and present crimes vis a vis their meddling in the foreign affairs of other nations. Most Americans are sitting too cushy in their own comfort zone to even care to know about these things. Many Americans that I know even justify our government's actions by saying that we are acting in our own national interest. If individual act in their own interests and beat someone else up i it is called "bullying (psychology 101). But when we do it, it's for our own safety and nowadays to 1.combat terrorism and 2. spread democracy. This is such a pack of lies sold to Joe Blow America it makes me tremble. And then some of our citizens claim they don't even care enough to vote or become engaged as citizens. No, some of these people are just doing their own thing, seeking their own enlightenment in their own uneducated small worlds without a care to the poverty, injustices, and death that America is fostering. Our ideals as a nation are most noble, but our actions are sanctimonious and criminal. If we dare to become educated and then speak out as peace loving Americans we are told we are un-American or recently, the best lable is "Bush-Basher". Who needs Bush, he is but one small cowboy figure head, bobble head, in a long list of war-mongering, business minded, self-righteous Americans who hold themselves up to the American public as icons. When I read your links to the depleted uranium thing it frightened me to the core. How can we sit idoly by here in my country and not care that we are killing Iraquis and Afghanis, not just with bombs, but with radiation that is a slow lingering death. How can we sit by and let our military drop bombs that cause birth defects to the children in the very country we are supposedly spreading democracy to?
Robert,
wylie,
Democracy is not only a concept to be adopted in interior affairs of a country, It's a principle that does apply to inernational affairs as well. And everybody witnessed the way The US government invaded Iraq against international legitimacy and against security council resolutions.You can remember Saddam was convinced the invasion and the air raids were inevitable as he knew Bush not only wanted his head, but had made his decision to invade Iraq that's why he made no consessions.The US killed democracy the day they declared war on Iraq and killed human rights the day the first victims of the new world tyranny fell down..
Democracy is not a slogan to cover up cruelty and strategy or national intersts, It's an education and a practice and a belief.
Tmim,
Absolutely correct. Democracy is NOT a concept to only be adopted in the internal affairs of a county. Democracy is a principal which needs to be practiced worldwide with respect to the welfare of other nations. The UN, for better or for worse, is the one entity where "world democracy" is to be practiced. But yet we as a nation, the US, defied the UN and invaded Iraq. Yes we had a few friends go along for the ride, but as they learned that it was not in THEIR best interest to remain our ally, they abandoned us one by one. The only ally we have left is Tony Blair and he is only hanging on by a thread as British citizens are rallying to abandon the US in this folly. When war is sold on the basis of a lie, where is the justification for such a thing? Yes nations rise and nations fall. But if one knows their history even one tiny bit, they would know that it is the fact in almost every case that waging wars for self-interests without good planning, overextending their own military, this is what brought down these nations. Athens and Rome had their turns at one time but got too greedy. They were the big kids on the block with not a care to the peoples they sought to control and it came back to bite them in the BUTT! This is an ABSOLUTE FACT:
It is not up to the United States to control the entire world vis a vis the neo-con agenda. Controlling the world has never worked for any entity in the past, and it's not going to work now, even if it is our turn. The actions we are taking now will lead to our downfall, history will judge, and we will not be the one with the big stick any more.
Robert,
" the bigger kids beat up the weaker or smaller kids " This is called " jungle law "
" The US has more economic and military power than any other country" This is called "superiority complex"
We can reduce your country to rubble if we choose to.This is called "tyranny"
I absolutely agree that the US has acted hastily on many recent occasions. History bears out the consequences of these action and overextending of one's resources. We are in the midst of it and it is unfortunate that our leaders in the US do not restrain themeselves. That is why in 2008 the Democrats will win the presidency and I hope that things will improve. My fellow homosapiens, we will make it through whatever comes along. Worry not for this too shall pass and things will be better. America is great but not without blemish. Those of you that deplore being American should seriously consider what you are saying. I know this will not be recieved well but go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to be here contributing your tax dollars to the destruction and radiation of other cultures and their children. Those of you that are American pay taxes and empower the government financially to procure those items that you say are killing others. Hmmmmm!
Tamim,
No need to get upset. I was merely pointing out why the world is so antiamerican. They perceive that we feel and believe this way. I was also pointing out the reality of things. Did I say I agreed with those sentiments? No. Superiority complex or not, it is real. Deny it if you will. Why do people literally kill themselves to get to the US? They know it is where more opportunities lie and they want to elevate themselves. Give us some credit pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssseeeeeeeeeee!
As an American citizen who owns her own home, I am proud for the ideals we espouse and welcome all people to come and share in our prosperity. I wish to remanin an American citizen and become "enlightened" to my countries good actions as well as it's bad. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in my precious Constitution and nowhere in this beautiful document is their authority to silence another when condemning their country if done in a peaceful manner. When fellow citizens of my country seek to silence me by telling me to renounce my citizenship and move elsewhere they are exhibiting zenophobia and diminishing the glory of the melting pot we call America. Peace to all.
Please note that there are certain entities within the United States who are seeking to limit Moslem immigration to the US.
Perhaps rather than starting out the legal way of seeking a visa they should go to Cuba first and then build a raft and risk being drowned to get here. But then again, US immigration law grants asylum to Cubans, not to Moslems coming here from countries of the Middle East or Indonesia. You can research current policy to Moslem immigration here: New US visa procedures raise concerns and FT.com/World/US-visa woes cost US $5bn a year. Thank you and Peace to all
Robert Ruiz,
How can I say anything nice about The United States Of America while you keep bombarding me with unfounded arguments about the so called "strategy" and "national interest» and the right to interfere with other nations’ affairs as a strong and unbeatable country that "carries a bigger stick" and that "could reduce another country, like mine, into rubble»! How can I give America the benefit of the doubt while You keep boasting your strength and your economic and military superiority to intimidate others and to cover up cruelty and the killing of innocent people among whom so many are Americans. America killed democracy and freedom and human rights the day they invaded Iraq. I pity America as a super power I have known for going so down with the rise of this chauvinistic movement that are driving their country towards imminent disaster. Didn’t I tell you before that you're bad ambassadors of your country? You are the stereotype of the "ugly American" that gives others no choice but to see America as they choose to represent it: cruel, unjust, tyrannical and above all undemocratic .Hey Americans, read your constitution and your history and your literature to see that this is not the way they presented your country to the rest of the world. Arabs and Moslems are not terrorists. Bush and his administration are the real terrorists who exposed America to terrorism.
Robert,
Please do not under-estimate my intelligence as a mature and vaccinated human being with a voting card. Why do you feel the need to keep repeating that fatalistic theory of the world is so. The poor is poor and the rich is rich and the powerful is powerful.We are not supposed to describe just the reality.We do have to analyze this reality and say this is so, but it is wrong and that is so but it shouldn't be.
Tamim,
Don't be conquered by your anger. There you go calling me the ugly American again. I will not underestimate your intelligence if you do not put words in my mouth. I was using analogies and my estimation for why the world sees Americans in a negative light. Perhaps it is only you, Robin and Tomas since you are the ones that repeatedly degrade America. The reality is truth if you wish to see it. I have acknowledged some ugly truths about the US and so am not blind to our errors. Don't go getting all lathered up in anger when you address me please. Be the peaceful being you portray yourself as. Until now I had not seen this side of you. Remember, he who angers you conquers you. I was not trying to anger you. You chose it yourself and are therefore responsible for it. Own it. It is pretty clear that we are not ever going to see eye to eye on things. The reason is that you and others have lacked balance in your portrayal of America. I keep saying that and am still waiting for you to put forth a balanced viewpoint instead of pointing out the nasty things that are American. I am glad that I am American just as you are glad you are Morrocan I think. Sorry if I am wrong. Your last correspondence was vitriolic. Wow. By the way, I never said it was alright to meddle in other countries affairs. Please be accurate if you want to degrade me and accuse me of being unreasonable. Here it is-it is wrong to meddle in others affairs, to drop radiation on anyone, to kill innocent people, to portray Arab and Muslims as terrorists, to have a superiority complex, to think one is better than another. Period.
The following is a direct quote from the "Arabs and Moslems are not terrorists" thread Post #158 by Robert Ruiz:
"Oh my God it's a conspiracy. The US has used dirty bombs on poor Iraqi children were harmed. BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah."
Anyone reading this entire blog for this gentleman's statements will see the arrogance with which he speaks and the coldness in his heart. According to him bad things are done by all countries but it's just our turn to wield the big stick now. But also according to him, don't worry because all things come to pass. He has also claimed to be a therapist but speaks to others in a most untherapeutic fashion. He also has stated quite clearly that we have given democracy as a gift to other nations but does not vote. He claims to be on a spiritual journey and a voracious reader of Indian philosophers, but I personally do not see very much peace in his tone as he continues to tell me to leave my country. He has told me he is not interested in politics because he is "On a spiritual journey" but yet continues to discuss politics and tell others to leave when they don't agree with him. No one can deny these things he has said because they are all here in black and white. I am personally ASHAMED of him "as an American" and wish to say so. I am not going anywhere like he keeps telling me to. He has continued to be the "Ugly American" that people from other countries refer to and there is no doubt about that. If this post causes trouble, so be it, because I am PERSONALLY sick and tired of hearing this from him. I will not give respect to him when he has given absolutely none to me. There you have it Robert. Go FLY A KITE!
Haitham,
I want to apologize to you both for letting this go on so long and taking up space and for violating your comments policy above. I have tried my best to abide by it up til now, but I'm at the end of my rope. I am sorry.
Robin,
Today, I am in my quoting mood. I don't know why, because it is Monday, which is normally the day where my intellectual capacity is at its lowest (read: tired, distracted, and frustrated over that there are five more days till weekend).
Al Capone has been quoted to say: "You will get further with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word!" Unfortunately, there are a lot of what I call 'mono thinkers' in the US (and other parts of the world) and they think in the same bully fashion. The big difference in perception between them and us is that if they have the biggest stick, then they see themselves to be right, while we see them as having the biggest stick!
Another quote, from a real wise man, says: "A fool will learn nothing from a wise man, but a wise man will learn much from a fool." My problem is that I am not yet wise enough to figure out the mono thinkers, because then I would be able to communicate with them in a fashion that would make them see that having the biggest stick just means having the biggest stick!
Yet another quote, from another wise man: "A wise man will know when to change his mind; a fool never will." Hmm, in most cases that is right, but I am really stubborn in the case of mono thinkers. There must be a better way than beating some sense into them with a big stick, but maybe I have to change my mind!?!?
I don't know who the last two wise men were, but I would not be surprised if they were Chinese. Actually my favorite quote is from a Chinese, who said: "If you go to bed horny, then you will wake up with a solution at hand!" :)
Robert,
Don’t worry; your feelings of superiority do not anger me at all. I have quite a lot of experience in dealing with more delicate situations than this, I assure you. You undoubtedly overestimate your skills as a ‘therapist’!
We are not opponents in a contest as much as we are participants in a friendly interaction from which one always learns much.
I personally don’t hate America or Americans or any other human culture or religion or race or political group, otherwise I wouldn’t be here consecrating part of my time to this exchange that I enjoy and find worthwhile.
Thomas,
I get it. Thanks. Check out post #144 on "Arabs and Moslems are not terrorists". What a trick America doeth play! We're not really mean people, we're just acting that way to have balance.
America knows it incurs alot of wrath for it's behavior, but they are REALLY on a spiritual journey (IE democracy ala our brand with the BIG BUTCHER KNIFE). America has been blowing so much hot wind it won't have to wait for a change in weather to FLY IT'S OWN KITE! Ciao
Tamim,
I don't have a superiority complex period. As for my skills as a therapist they are superior. I say this only because my boss has pointed this out to me among 10 other therapists in psychiatric hospital that I work. My evaluations are super! Please don't judge me unless you know all the facts. I am trying to like you Tamim as I feel that you ar more moderate than others on this site. Stop suggesting that I have a superiority complex and assuming things about me. I am just an American, a person, a human with feelings and thoughts.
Thomas,
I really liked the quotes that you delivered and they made much sense to me believe it or not. Here is a quote I like "In a world of illusioned souls the self-realized soul will be considered a madman." Carrying a big stick is just that, I agree. It doesn't mean that they are right. That is easy to understand. Much of what I have delievered has been taken out of context to suit your purpose for some reason. I am a reasonable person. The way you sway monothinkers Thomas is by being balanced and kind. One catches more flies with honey afterall. Some of your banterings have been harsh, which then closes others of right away and they cease to listen to you even if you are right. I, by the way, am guilty also of being somewhat combative in the past but am trying to reform.
Thanks Robert,
In addition to voting I will continue to shout. All while loving my country, the constitution, it's good people (but not so much the bad), my faith and the charity you have mentioned prior.
Robin,
You are welcome and keep up the work that you are so passionate about. If everyone out there engaged their activities whatever they may be with as much passion, the world would indeed change for the better. Did I just say that? Wow, I must be reforming. That my friends is humility in action.
Humility is not a temporary state of mind .
Humility is humility no matter how long it lasts.
(Websters) humility: the quality or state of being humble
(Websters) humble: not proud or haughty, not arrogant or assertive.
This is NOT a temporary state but rather one we as human beings should strive for at ALL times, not just on occasion. A basic tenet of Christianity.
Should strive and since we are imperfect we cannot be in that state at all times. Wow Robin, you are coming across as self-righteous lately. What happened?
Robin,
I thought we got past the acrimony. If you are so Christian then speak with more humility yourself. By the way, what makes you think that I am Christian or live by those principles. Those are your principles and so you are subject to them not I. I am trying to be civil but it seems we are having a role reversal. Introspect.
hilary is a bitch! arabs arnt terrorist! fuck her!
I know this story is interperted terribly in the middle east and it does possess racist undertones, but I think there is a bit more to it that meets the eye.
George Bush over the last six years has had his administration act in unilateral ways not only in foreign affairs but also domestic. This deal was approved by George Bush's staff without proper security checks. The Dubai Ports, owned by the
United Arab Emirate, were put on the fast track to security clearance over concerns of the United States Coast Guard. This was done, most likely, because of their very generous contribution in aid after the Katrina tragedy. Under this line of reasoning the Congress, who should have been consulted if there was security concerns, sought to block Bush's roughshoud handling of this port deal; seen in the U.S. as taking money over security concerns.
Next, if one begins to understand the United States history as a narrative it is easier to see how this anti-arab bias also started creeping into the American concsiousness. American politics goes in two waves concering the rest of the world; intervention and isolation. Right now I believe that the isolationist tendency in America is increasing. People are getting sick of a war that is failing, a inability of the administration to handle international crisis, and fear of the increasing dominance of investment from the rest of the world. I believe most likely America will grow more not just anti-Arab but anti-foriegn investment.
This is just a little extra explanation of this crisis. I am not saying these are the main reasons for the decision but merely other components that affected this position.
Robin,
You consider the UN democracy in action? Are you serious? The UN was founded primarily by Communists. Not only that, 2 recent heads of the UN's Human Rights Commission were none other than Libya and Cuba! The UN has no genuine interest in liberty. They have a socialist agenda at best, and to see them as some sort of benevolent world government is myopic. Yes, the US defied the UNs wishes. Good. The UN is not the boss of the US. We are a sovereign nation. Ironically, we were enforcing a UN resolution broken 12 times by Iraq. The UN would not enforce it, because its European members were to busy cashing in on the bogus oil-for-food program. You say the US is trying to control the world, that everyone is sick of us meddling in their affairs. You may be halfway right. But when we don't meddle, guess what? Everyone screams, "Where is the US? Why won't they help?" We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Everyone says we should have just asked Saddam really nicely to stop terrorizing his own people and supporting terrorism (more and more proof has been coming out about his dealings with the same, due to scrutiny of his intelligence documents during his trial). Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The US is trying to control the world. We are trying to identify the most pertinent and strategic threats to our security and the spread of liberty…and neutralize them.
Tamim,
The US killed freedom and democracy when they invaded Iraq? Can you explain where these ideals existed in Iraq (other than in the Saddam-favored Sunni areas)? The moment you call Bush a terrorist is the moment I see that you are blinded by your ideology.
Sean,
Although I doubt we are political allies, I echo your main assertion. The "controversy" surrounding the UAE ports deal is tied to the fast-tracking. As for its legality, that is yet to be determined. But realistically, there was no real security issue. The UAE is and has been an ally against terrorism and does not promote the Muslim extremism of Usama bin Laden nor the Arab nationalism of Saddam (nor their newfound alliance based on anti-Americanism). The UAE did give a generous donation for Hurricane Katrina relief. So did Kuwait (and others). God bless them for that. The claims in your (and other) comments that it motivated the port deal is dreadful. Maybe because I live on the Gulf Coast and experienced 2 major hurricanes 2 years in a row makes me too sensitive to the whole situation. But I think it's unfair to act like the UAE is somehow evil for helping out in such a dire situation that strains even the US's sizable treasury.
Taric,
:-D
Finally, to all: The US has a terrible weight on its shoulders. As the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, what do we do with our power and wealth? I believe it was Wylie that pointed out that we are the most generous nation. For everything our government donates, our private charities do 100 times more. But how far do we go to protect ourselves? The aforementioned status automatically makes us targets. That means 280 million lives targeted. And the funny thing is, we have a responsibility to defend and spread liberty throughout the world. Unfortunately, that means we will meet resistance. And that resistance will result in deaths. Many, at times. Too many of them will be innocents caught in the crossfire. The US has led the world in its attempts to curtail civilian casualties using smart bomb technology. The results have been less than spectacular, although a far improvement over the alternative. Opponents to liberty (like the Saddam loyalists and other terrorists in Iraq) will resist, and resist HARD. But if we back down, we risk even more lives being destroyed, systematically. Isolationists in the US would have us sit in a fortress, safely protected from the rest of the world, while man, woman, and child in nation after nation is tortures, gassed, burned alive, beaten, deprived of basic human rights (like religious freedom). Oh, and we would be cursed for that, too. So we choose. That choice makes us allies of some and enemies of others. Any choice would. The saddest thing is, any choice the US (or any nation) makes will result in unintended tragedies. I for one would rather those tragedies be on the temporary path to liberty rather than under the permanent fist of a tyrant. And it is US ideals that say, "We will risk our soldiers' lives to protect innocent lives in a war zone. We will rebuild this nation whose citizens have suffered under the weight of oppression from a dictator and now the ravages of war. Not only that, but we will build it better than it was before. And we will do so largely on our dime." Raise your fists at the stars and stripes, burn effigies of George Bush, curse the day we fought to end British rule of the colonies, look at us in scorn. These are the inevitable results of making a hard, but noble, choice.
Philip,
You claim that the U.S. is damned if they do and damned if they don't. I would like you to know that that is not true. However, if you have a problem with the fact that Saddam committed genocide against his own people then you should also have a problem with the Sudanese government for doing the same thing in Darfur.
You also state that the U.S. army is spreading democracy and freedom. Is Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib how the U.S. is going to do this? Is this how they protect innocent lives? The fact is, if your country had the intentions of helping the Iraqis, why did they raid their houses and throw everyone they could in prison? Do they consider each and every single Iraqi to be an enemy or a Saddam loyalist?
I'm sure your going to claim that these soldiers were merely a few bad apples. But if you listen to the words of people such as Janis Karpinski, the commander of Abu Ghraib, you will know that all the soldiers were told to commit these crimes. The actions were approved by General Geoffrey Miller because they wanted the prisoners to break. They assumed that these people had information because they were terrorists but they knew nothing. They were all just innocent civilians. Geoffrey Miller authorized these actions first at Guantanamo Bay and then at Abu Ghraib and in Afghanistan. Why aren't more soldiers coming forward to confirm the abuses taking place at these prisons? Because Miller made them sign confedentiality agreements preventing them from ever talking about what they saw or did at these prisons. Karpinski never signed this agreement and that is why she is talking about what happened.
I want to assure you that I don't hate your country and I agree that the U.S. is a very generous and giving nation. And I also believe that Americans are some of the kindest people you will ever meet. However, for you to ignore all of the atrocities committed by the Bush administration is not right. Even people who worked for this administration are coming out and saying these crimes occurred and they were common place. The U.S. needs to stop violating the Geneva Conventions and bring security to Iraq, instead of lying to the world about the true situation there.
I agree that ANY atrocities by ANY nation are shameful. The US is included. But Abu Ghraib is not the standard. How do I know this? By the very fact that I know the name of this prison. It is a standout, an exception to the rule. The people responsible are being disciplined, hopefully severely. Perhaps the guilt goes higher up than those being charged. If that is the case, it is my desire that they be punished even more harshly. To blame Bush (or Rice, or Rumsfeld, etc.) for it, though, is excessive. It’s like blaming Bill Gates for a bad Human Resources director in Microsoft’s North Carolina operations. He can try to weed out the jerks; unfortunately, it’s impossible to make it perfect.
The assertion that the US military randomly raided every Iraqi house they could and threw the residents into prison wantonly, though, is less than believable. Likely, there were erroneous arrests. I don’t see how it is possible for there not to be. I wish it were possible. Clearly George W. Bush isn’t sitting up in the Oval Office saying, “Hey! Let’s round up some innocent Iraqis and throw ‘em in prison!”
I also am not ready to assume that most of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent. They should not have received the degrading treatment they were given. The moral high ground should be taken by the US in this. But their innocence is another story. I watched a show called “Baghdad Blogger” on a VERY left wing satellite network, and the fellow there (an Iraqi) interviewed other Iraqis, most of whom either were unimpressed by it or who said things like, “My brother watched as Saddam’s soldiers raped and then killed his wife right in front of him. I have no sympathy for these prisoners.” THIS STATEMENT IS NOT INTENDED TO JUSTIFY THE ACTIONS OF THE OFFENDING SOLDIERS! It’s just to clarify that there are many sides to it.
I do agree, though, that the Guantanomo prisoners should have due process. I know they are combat prisoners, but given the circumstances, they should have an opportunity to present their cases. I’m sure Nearly all should be there. But the “nearly” needs to be eliminated, and the only way to do that is through a fair hearing.
One thing I have consistently seen from soldiers returning home to my local area is tearful telling of stories where they have had the opportunity to help out some Iraqi children or make life a little better for a family there, stories of how they saw their friends die by insurgent/terrorist bullets while attempting to protect the homes of Iraqi civilians (and saying how they feel it was a worthwhile sacrifice). These are big, tough guys with tears running down their cheeks. They want to do good and are trying to. They are frustrated that only the bad news gets reported. Yes, there are bad guys out there, too. Evil is a sad, but true reality of human nature. But it is not representative of the intentions of our armed forces.
Philip,
Using the same way of twisting truth as those who fed you the Neocon propaganda I can state that Spanish is the official language of the USA! It is not completely true, but it is not completely untrue either – that is the 'funny' thing about propaganda.
Sorry, you may be able to fool other supporters of Neocon ideology in the USA, but when you enter the world stage, such as this international blog, then you have to do better than paroting single-sided propaganda.
You wrote: "You consider the UN democracy in action? Are you serious? The UN was founded primarily by Communists. Not only that, 2 recent heads of the UN’s Human Rights Commission were none other than Libya and Cuba!"
Are YOU serious? Let me list the main founders of the UN by the name of their Communist countries for you; the USA, the UK, France, the USSR (now Russia), and the Republic of China (now People's Republic of China). Did the Communists win WWII?!? It is common knowledge that the UN was founded by the winning alliance after WWII, regardless of how you want to twist and turn it.
You are right, that the procedures for both chairmanship and influence in the UN Commission on Human Rights were not optimal as e.g. Libya managed to chair it.
However, that is old news, because as of June this year the UNCHR is changed to United Nations Human Rights Council and now it will be very difficult for human rights violators to gain power over the processes and decisions as
a) any member is required to meet 'the highest standards' of human rights and is subject to periodic review (it is a soft terminology, but I think its a good principle),
b) Each member nation of the council must be approved by a majority (96 of 191) of the members of the General Assembly, and
c) Any member of the council can be suspended by a two-thirds mjority of the General Assembly.
The new setup was approved, in March this year, with 170 for, 4 against, and 17 blank votes/abstains out of 191. That is 89% in favor and 2% against! To me that is democracy in action. Though the USA has been the biggest critic (among many) of the old system, I think it is a bit hipocritical that the 4 votes against were cast by Israel, USA and it's two puppets (Marshall Islands and Palau). These procedures were widely accepted by 170 nations as an acceptable compromise, but the USA was not interested in a compromise (which is a democratically concept completely unknown in the 'either-you-are-with-us-or-you-are-against-us' politics of the USA administration). The new setup is probably not perfect either, but it is a whole lot better than what it replaces. Could the problem be that it is almost certain that Israel and the USA will loose face by being declared as human right violators if they stick their heads out too far?
You said: "The UN has no genuine interest in liberty. They have a socialist agenda at best, and to see them as some sort of benevolent world government is myopic. Yes, the US defied the UNs wishes. Good. The UN is not the boss of the US. We are a sovereign nation."
It is just as ignorant to say that the UN has no interest in liberty as saying that a parliament building has no interest in liberty! The UN stands for United Nations because it is a democratic forum made up of all nations regardless of whether they stand for liberty or opression. It may be nice propaganda music to your ears to say that the UN has no interest in liberty, because that give you a good propaganda reason to defy the wishes of all countries in the world, of which a majority do have a genuine interest in liberty.
So, the entire world (the UN) has a socialist agenda? Let me ask you if you know who is sitting firmly on the IMF and the World Bank and who is using it as their own instrument to force small less developed countries to e.g. sell their water supplies to American companies like Enron: The government of the USA is pulling the strings!
So your criticism is completely invalid, though it would not necessarily be that bad if it was true that it was a socialist agenda, because it would probably be much better than the greedy corrupt corporate agenda currently being stuffed down the throat of less fortunate countries.
Yes, the USA is a sovereign nation, but if your Emperator wants to operate outside his own borders, then he has to understand that his sovereignty ends at the borders of the USA.
While you are celebrating yourself as the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, we, a very large part of the world population, are loathing the way your administrations force and manipulate other countries to do what you want with no regards to their rights or wishes. In casy you have failed to figure it out, your notion of democracy in the US is very different from what everybody else understands of democracy.
You said: "Ironically, we were enforcing a UN resolution broken 12 times by Iraq. The UN would not enforce it, because its European members were to busy cashing in on the bogus oil-for-food program."
You may think that you are doing the world a big favor, but we see that your administraiton is shitting on every principle of democracy regardless of the costs that others have to bear.
Philip, repeating the same stupidity over and over and over again does not make it true. The USA cannot wash its hands of wrong-doings in the oil-for-food scandal. In fact, several of the single largest beneficiaries of the scam are US companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and ChevronTexaco Corp., not to mention the many other companies around the world which are OWNED and CONTROLLED by US companies and their management. I almost forgot, there are a lot of indications that US forces were fully aware of the smugling of oil from Iraq to Turkey and Jordan, but looked the other way. Sorry, friend, you should not throw stones when you are living in a glass house. Your greedy coporations are just as tainted as greedy European coporations regardless how many time you repeat the lie about OFF virginity.
Sorry for calling you on your self-righteous hypocricy, but you are right that it is ironical that you babble about 12 breaches of UN resolutions by Iraq when we consider that your government is the single largest supporter of breaking UN resolutions.
Did you forget about the abuse of USA veto power to water down or prevent any UN Security Council resolution going against Israel and thereby ensuring that Israel cannot be held accountable for breaching the most important UN resolutions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. And on top of that you accuse the world of not having a genuine interest in liberty.
Did you forget about that all reforms to make the Security Council more democratic and to abolish the undemocratic veto power of a few nations are being prevented by the two biggest world bullies, the USA and China? When the members of the UN can be cowed into support unilateral interests of the USA then it is being praised, but when the nations in UN demand fair, equal, and democratic representation for everyone, then the UN is bad. One more time, who was it who did not have a genuine interest in liberty?
Well, your Emperator may be president of the USA, but he has not been elected as president of the world by anybody outside the US.
Philip,
In my earlier message, I was trying to indicate to you that there is strong evidence that the guilt for the prisoner abuse goes higher up the Bush administration. However, you have closed your eyes to this evidence. I don’t find this surprising considering that you are such a strong supporter of Bush and have chosen to believe all the garbage he and his administration are feeding you, but if you claim that your soldiers are heroes and deserve your support, then you should tell your government to lay the blame where it is due, instead of only punishing a few scapegoats.
You stated: “I also am not ready to assume that most of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were innocent. They should not have received the degrading treatment they were given. The moral high ground should be taken by the US in this. But their innocence is another story.”
How can you make such an outrageous comment when you also stated that they deserve due process? You do not have the right to presume anyone’s guilt unless it has been proven otherwise in a court of law. Unless of course you only believe in innocent until proven guilty for American citizens only.
Part of me feels really sorry for you because you are so closed-minded. You seem to believe that you have the ability to decipher who is evil and who isn't. But in order to make such a distinction you really have to understand everyone's side of the story, instead of believing the propaganda fed to you by The Renden Group. When your government hires a marketing firm to sell a war to you based on lies and propaganda, and pays them millions of dollars to do it, I think that in itself is a reason to remember to question their intentions.
Thomas,
The founders of the UN were made up not simply of nations, but of individuals within those nations. 16 of the US delegates were admitted Communist sympathizers. The first secretary-general, Alger Hiss, was a Soviet spy. But the deeper issue is this: I have heard echoed over and over again outlandish theories about neocon conspiracies and Zionist plots, about monsters in the bed and creepy Americans in your closet. But yet you look at an organization that attempts to function as a world government and call it benevolent. Please! One reading of their so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights reveals the deception the UN is based upon. It declares rights at the expense of liberty. You echoed that sentiment stating that socialism is somehow a means of defense of individuals, when it oppresses individuals by confiscating their rightful earnings and distributing them to others who didn't earn them. The US is very guilty of this, too. But I don't want to get into a capitalism vs. socialism debate here. Democracy in action does not mean compromising liberty. I am certain that I am in the minority opinion on this. Democracy means the people decide through voting, thus majority rule. This is unbalanced. That's why the US is a representative republic and not a direct democracy. I would hate to see what would happen if the citizens could vote directly issue by issue. "Free BMWs for everyone? Hey! I'll vote for that!" There was a time in US history when killing all African Americans would have gotten majority support. In other words, just because measures are voted on and approved by a majority, it doesn't make them right.
Dena,
While I am a Bush supporter, I am not a blind one. I have disagreed with him on a number of issues, including the due process controversy in Cuba. And if it is true that the responsibility for Abu Ghraib goes higher up in the chain of command (and isn't just left wing propaganda…yes, there IS such a thing, and it's everywhere), then I say throw 'em all in a dark cell for the rest of their lives with no chance of parole. But your claim that I am closed-minded is ludicrous. Or, perhaps, not entirely: You and I are either both closed-minded or both open-minded. I prefer the latter. We just have come to very different conclusions. It is common for the left to say (in different words): "You are closed-minded, because you do not agree with me." I am willing, though, to say that you have examined the issues, you have chosen what sources to trust and which ones to eye suspiciously (as have I). And you have come to very different conclusions than I have. Think of it this way: President Bush never promoted the idea that the US should eliminate the income tax and cut federal spending in half. Yet I believe it. I do so by my own analysis and my own worldview. You may believe the opposite of me, that the government should manage the finances of its populace. You have done so by your own thoughtful analysis.
As for hiring a marketing firm, that's not suspect. I work in that business! Marketing and PR are simply ways to communicate a message more effectively. His use of a marketing group is probably wise. The Republicans have the worst PR I have ever seen. (I should note that I have no love for either of the 2 main US political parties. It's just that the Republicans agree with me more often than the Dems.)
I mean no malice to anyone (not even the Europeans…kidding! kidding!), if my wording on any of this seems harsh.
Philip,
You are putting words in my mouth. I would never promote socialism, which you would know if you had followed this blog for a while. What I said was simply that a socialist agenda would be better than the current capitalist agenda and the tyrrani of the USA, because socialism is definitely a lesser evil than the imperialism of the USA. (I explained my view on it in http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/03/15/breeding-extremism/ #139 if you are interested).
The difference between the USA and the UN is very significant, because the USA (the Emperator and his Neocon cronies) would like to govern the world by dictation (world dictatorship) while the UN is the closest we can get to fair represenation of all nations (world democracy) as long as the USA and China blocks reforms towards a more democratic structure. A world democracy does not mean that nations have to put the power to make national law in the hands of the UN, but that the UN is the forum for a democratic influence on international law which governs the relationships between nations.
I feel a bit sorry for you, because you are clearly a victim of simple minded propaganda. Otherwise you would easily be able to see that the only reason why the Neocon fascists make continuous attempts to miscredit the UN is that it is the only organization standing between them and 'freedom' to do whatever they want all over the world. Sorry, that I repeat myself: "It may be nice propaganda music to your ears to say that the UN has no interest in liberty, because that give you a good propaganda reason to defy the wishes of all countries in the world…"
You said: "One reading of their so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights reveals the deception the UN is based upon. It declares rights at the expense of liberty."
Please point out exactly which of the human rights you have a problem with.
Do you agree with your Imperator that e.g. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (Art. 3), "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." (Art.6), "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." (Art.9), and "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." (Art.10) are annoying technicalities that should not be rights, but privileges given only to those who fully support the Emperator and his hegemonic endeavors?
Of course there is also the right to be assumed innocent, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, and all the other nonsense that should be discredited because 'socialists' keep bringing them up to criticize your Emperator. Everything standing in the way of the Emperator cannot be with him, so it must be anti-American and completely against freedom (for Neocon Americans).
C'mon, Philip, wake up!
I posted this elsewhere, but I think it fits well here:
“Freedom – only a word?
There are only few people who speak in favour of civil liberty, although most people speak openly of freedom, and the few who follow this path and consider human rights as belonging to people in general, are themselves considered by most people as defenders of self-indulgence and political free-thinkers. Others speak much of freedom but take this to mean the freedom of certain groups of people or individuals, and forget the humblest who have not had the advantage to have sought refuge in the entrenchments of the others, but the more these entrenchments are extended to the others, then naturally the humblest become more crowded and homeless on our earth.”
Anders Chydenius: “Thoughts on the Natural Rights of Servants and Peasants”, 1778.
I would have to read through them all again, but a number of rights include free services of one form or the other. This is not a right, because of the fact that others have to be robbed of their own rights to provide them. The ones you mentioned are, for all practical purposes, acceptable, as are others. Here are some examples:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." A right to protection against unemployment? Others' rights have to be trampled on to provide this one. I say this as someone who spent over a year unemployed (I later started my own business).
"Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work." No discrimination, I agree with. Otherwise, an employer has the right to examine different factors that determine salary. Some may involve experience, time served on the job, employee loyalty.
"Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Why is this a right? I agree trade unions should be allowed to exist. But this is not a fundamental human right.
"Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." That is not up to the UN, either. Employers should provide paid vacations. Most do. But again, the employer also has rights.
"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." This also is not a right. Someone else must lose his rights to provide these things. Others should (and do…even moreso when there are less tax demands) provide for the needs of the less fortunate. But that does not make it a right. This is actually a call to socialism.
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." Again, this is not a right. Ironically, Communist China requires in many instances for families to pay for schooling. American education is a great example of "you get what you pay for" in education. The Belgian model is a good one. Someone has to pay for this "free" education, which means others' rights must be subjected.
"Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." No comment necessary.
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Again, no comment necessary.
The US wants to rule the world through a world dictatorship? *sigh* You referred to be as a victim of simplistic propaganda? Take a look in the mirror. You just regurgitated some of the most simplistic propaganda I have ever heard right there in your last comment!
For that matter, if we are actually trying to dominate the world, let's go ahead and invade the UAE, Kuwait, Israel and Singapore. Iraq isn't much of a prize, in that sense of the term.
Obviously, you are steeped in your beliefs. Your labels of "neocon" and "emperator" speak volumes.
“Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.”
This says nothing about life-long guaranteed employment, but protection against being fired from one day to the other for no reason. Nothing is stated about that it is a human right to not be fired, because there is a significant difference between "protection against unemployment" and "prevention of unemployment".
“Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.”
Where do you see that an employer may not choose to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant? It is not there. There is nothing stated that prevents anybody from being giving a bonus, just that IF there is a bonus e.g. for years of employment then it has to be equal for all and not only to an employee who share religion with the employer, cheer for the same soccer team, or based on any other reason not related to the work performed.
“Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.”
These er universal human rights, so you cannot just look at them from you little comfortable corner of the world. If you tried living in a third world country where serfdom is literally guaranteed by economic oppression, then I am sure you would see this as a human right as well. You and I can just be happy that it is more or less a non-issue for us. Of course this right can be abused and it was being abused in Denmark as the socialists were forcing people to join a union, but there is now a EU Court ruling that it is just as much a right to say no thank you (which should have been pretty clear to the socialist to begin with).
“Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”
How does this infringe on the employer rights? Nothing is stated about 20 weeks of vacation a year or that the employer has to pay for business class tickets when employees go on vacation. In practice, the costs of vacations is calculated into the normal salary so this does not infringe on the rights of the employer. Again, this may be a non-issue for you and me, but not for others. This is about protection against being exploited into serfdom, but not about forcing employers to anything unreasonable.
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
I agree that this one does smell of socialism, but fortunately it is spelled out as a principle without being quantified. In a perfect world, even the lowest paid would be able to afford these kind of insurances, but the world is not perfect. As I mentioned in the post I referred to in my last post: "That everybody will always make ethical decisions is scientifically improbable (the fallacy of the ideologies). Therefore, expecting a bureaucracy to be ethical is a naive (read: unscientific) hope for something impossible (highly improbable)." The same thing goes for those with economic power to abuse others, it would be improbable that all employers would keep own greed within reason and therefore that everybody would be paid a minimum salary in order to sustain a decent standard of living. Therefore, though I oppose socialism, I think it is relatively reasonable (more reasonable than unreasonable, though not completely reasonable).
“Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.”
This may not be that important for you or me, but elementary and fundamental education cannot be taken for granted in many third world countries. Sure, it is socialism, but there is no clear border between humanity/compassion and socialism. I think humanity/compassion for others is what differs humans from animals, but that should not be a justification for socialism in general. Besides, if you read the second sentence about technical and professional education you will see that it does not state that it should be provided for free, but that all e.g. racial or religious groups in society should have equal access and not that everybody should have equal financial ability to go to Harvard.
“Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.”
What is wrong with this? This has nothing to do with socialism in any way, but to ensure that schools are not used as drafting base for racists, religious extremists etc. This is normative and not quantitative, so I don't see why it is bad to promote the fundamentals of respect, tolerance, and peace.
…………….
"The US wants to rule the world through a world dictatorship? *sigh* You referred to be as a victim of simplistic propaganda? Take a look in the mirror. You just regurgitated some of the most simplistic propaganda I have ever heard right there in your last comment!"
What exactly do you mean by that?
That I call the Bush for Emperator has nothing to do with propaganda, but displays that I have a strong dislike for him and the policies he stands for. That is personal opinion and not propaganda.
My personal opinion is based, among others, on the examples I mentioned:
#60: "…Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” (Art. 3)…"
Already during the first days of occupying Iraq your Emperator clearly showed that protecting the Iraqi ministry of oil had higher priority than allocating resources for this right of Iraqis. According to the Geneva Conventions, this is the responsibility of the invader without room for discussion!
#60: "…Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” (Art.6)…"
Abducting people to Guantanomo is clearly a violation of this one, not to mention a viloation of international law.
#60: "…No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” (Art.9)
GUANTANAMO!
#60: "…Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.” (Art.10)…"
GUANTANAMO! GUANTANAMO! GUANTANAMO!
#60: "…Of course there is also the right to be assumed innocent, the Geneva Conventions, the International Criminal Court, and all the other nonsense that should be discredited because ’socialists’ keep bringing them up to criticize your Emperator…"
Your Emperator has violated several of the articles of the Geneva Conventions AND many of those violations constitute WAR CRIMES. This is a FACT, without room for discussion!.
The USA is in admirable company with other countries like Israel, China, and, Zimbabwe in refusing to recognize the International Criminal Court. This is a FACT, without room for discussion!
Sorry, but you cannot label facts as propaganda no matter how I personally choose to pepper them with adjectives!
By the way, the above is by no means an exclusive list as there are many other examples of US violations of international law!
Thomas,
We are not in total disagreement about these "rights" listed, but more regarding their definition as rights and what place the UN has in defining them. But the final 2: They both insist the the UN agenda be supported. That is a right? How is there a right to be required to support the UN?
Regarding the list of statements: The Iraqi Ministry of Oil was protected as a matter of strategy, not love of oil. Iraq's predominant income source is oil. Thus attacks by Ba'athists and terrorists on the ministry, as well as the oil production facilities, would have been devastating. Things are bad enough already in that regard. Second, it was already indentified as a prime target of the aforementioned groups.
The prisoners at Guantanomo are combat prisoners. That being said, I agree with you in large part on this issue. They should have, at least after the first year, been given the opportunity for a hearing and been allowed to provide for a defense. The administration is wrong in their actions on this issue. (Didn't I tell you I'm not a lock-step Bush supporter?)
As for the war crimes statement and the International Criminal Court, my time is too short to go on further. I will say, though, that the US — having strict guidelines for behavior of its military personnel — should handle its own affairs on that end, not the ICC. Is it a perfect system? No. But I could not fathom our soldiers being put up to trial against some kind of creepy "world court," where a combo of nations with grievances could decide that his being American is enough reason to punish him. Sound paranoid? Maybe. But it's no more paranoid than all of the America wants to take over the world and Zionist conspiracy stuff I read here.
The reason I said that you are spreading propaganda is this statement: “The US wants to rule the world through a world dictatorship." The US is not a dictatorship, nor are there any plans to rule any nation as such. The role the US played in establishing a new Iraqi government was one of ensuring certain fundamental liberties and a checks-and-balances system (although the British system was more the model than the American system). The US does not want to rule Iraq. When some Iraqi soldiers, overjoyed at the fall of Saddam's Baghdad, tried to hang an American flag over the face of one of those monstrous statues of Saddam, American soldiers told him to remove it. He was given an Iraqi flag to replace it. Are these the actions of an imperialist force? Iraq is dealing with a lot of crap, yes. And guess what? The US wants OUT. We don't want our men and women in uniform dying halfway around the world. The reason our forces remain is to provide stability, to give the new Iraq the assistance it needs to ensure stability for her people. The Prime Minister said some months ago that he will never understand the insurgents' ironic actions. He asked, if they want the Americans out so badly, why do they continue doing the very things that require the Americans to remain? Again, not a statement typically made regarding imperialists.
Finally, I am not offering a blind faith in American (nor British, nor Danish, nor Japanese) foreign policy. What I am saying is that the grand conspiracy ideas are ludicrous at best. These theories have existed forever and been attached to everyone from Roosevelt to Reagan…and have never materialized. I'll save everyone some trouble: Agree with his policies or not, George W. Bush is not:
1) Plotting world domination
2) Trying to steal the world's oil (rather, he provides tax breaks to those who invest in alternative fuel sources)
3) Possessed by the devil
4) A terrorist
5) Hitler's spawn
6) Riding around in black helicopters and looking in people's windows
Philip,
You said: "How is there a right to be required to support the UN?"
It is not a right, it is an obligation! The UN is far from perfect – especially thanks to a.o. the USA :( – but it is the best forum for democracy we have on an international level. Without the UN there would be absolutely no protecteion against rogue states like a.o. the USA, Israel, or China and they would be able to play their games of landgrabbing, exploitation, and empire building with no holds barred. That Israel can continue its landgrabbing and the USA its empire building withou repercussions is not a valid argument for abolishing the UN, but is a result of that there is something in its structure that needs to be reformed (again, it is the USA which is the major obstacle).
Completely dismissing the UN for not being perfect instead of cooperating with everybody else to make it less imperfect is just plain stupid.
Imagine if you or somebody else put a dent in the side panel of your car. Would the intelligent choice be to scrap the car even if you could not afford to buy a new and 'perfect' car? Or would the better solution be to either have the dent repaired or live with the dent until you could afford to repair it?
———
You said: "Regarding the list of statements: The Iraqi Ministry of Oil was protected as a matter of strategy, not love of oil. Iraq’s predominant income source is oil. Thus attacks by Ba’athists and terrorists on the ministry, as well as the oil production facilities, would have been devastating. Things are bad enough already in that regard. Second, it was already indentified as a prime target of the aforementioned groups."
I cannot agree with your and your Emperator's way of giving priority to 'strategy'. Do you deny that both of you clearly gave priority to oil income over priority to protect Iraqi civil society? Which, by the way, is in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions about war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Here is the legal text (4th Geneva Convention of 1949) of just a few ot the crimes agains humanity committed by your Emperator and his occupying forces in Iraq:
"Article 9"…"The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers [the USA] shall not in any case exceed their mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of security of the State [Iraq] wherein they carry out their duties."
This is just one or the articles that gives you responsibility for maintaining law and order in Iraq, which you failed from day one of the invasion.
"Article 29 The Party [the USA] to the conflict in whose hands protected persons [Iraqis] may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents [military and other personnel under orders from the USA], irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."
The responsibility for crimes against humanity cannot be pushed down to individuals at a lower level only, but is also carried by the higher levels of command!
"Article 53 Any destruction by the Occupying Power [the USA] of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons [Iraqis], or to the State [Iraq], or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations [within Iraq], is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
Destroying civilian infrastructure IS a crime against humanity. You cannot convince me that destroying power plants, water supplies, schools etc. was absolutely necessary. Absolutely necessary does not mean that it was necessary to ensure large reconstruction contracts for KBR and the other cronies!!!!
"Article 55 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power [the USA] has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population [Iraqis]; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory [Iraq] are inadequate…"
"Article 56 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power [the USA] has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory [Iraq], with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics…"
Looking at the increased death rates from disease alone in Iraq, the deterioration of supply of water and electricity compared to pre-war levels, your Emperator and his men are violating these two as well!
These are just a few examples, if you look at the full text (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm) then you will be able to find many other violations that you CANNOT deny or talk your way out of!
What was really devestating was your invading forces heavy handedness in bombing civilian infrastructure and their inability to live up to their responsibilities of ensuring law and order and protection of civilians in Iraq!
—————
You said: "The prisoners at Guantanomo are combat prisoners. That being said, I agree with you in large part on this issue. They should have, at least after the first year, been given the opportunity for a hearing and been allowed to provide for a defense. The administration is wrong in their actions on this issue. (Didn’t I tell you I’m not a lock-step Bush supporter?)"
You agree on this one. So what? You are still willing to accept your Emperator for being a good guy in general! Is it ethically or morally responsible to disregard the crimes against humanity and war crimes of your Emperator just because he gave you a tax break?
—————
You said: "…I will say, though, that the US — having strict guidelines for behavior of its military personnel — should handle its own affairs on that end, not the ICC. Is it a perfect system? No. But I could not fathom our soldiers being put up to trial against some kind of creepy “world court,” where a combo of nations with grievances could decide that his being American is enough reason to punish him…"
I don't give a rat's ass about the guidelines of your military personnel or any other convenient excuses you may come up with. If your Emperator acts on the international stage, then he has to accept the obligations and responsibilities of the international community i.e. international laws and treaties. Otherwise the USA under your Emperator is not one bit different than any other imperialistic dictatorship like Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin. Yes, that's right, I do compare your emperator with Hitler and Stalin, because they also completely lacked respect for the sovereignty of other nations!
Many of the most notorious Nazis were loving and caring family fathers, but that does not mean that the torture and executions they caried out were acts of love and care – I am sure their victims would agree with me if they could!!!!
————–
You said: "The reason I said that you are spreading propaganda is this statement: “The US wants to rule the world through a world dictatorship.” The US is not a dictatorship, nor are there any plans to rule any nation as such…"
Regardless of whether Hitler, Stalin, or Bush were elected in their own country or not that does not change the fact that they represented dictatorship outside their own borders!
The word 'dictatorship' comes from the word 'dictate' which Meriam Webster defines
as Intransitive Verb: "1: to give dictation, 2: to speak or act domineeringly : Prescribe",
as Transitive Verb: "1: to speak or read for a person to transcribe or for a machine to record 2a: to issue an order b: to impose, pronounce, or specify authoritatively c: to require or determine necessarily ", and
as Noun: "1a: an authoritative rule, prescription, or injunction b: a ruling principle 2: a command by one in authority"
It cannot be denied that your government has instated or supported US-friendly dictators in many places around the world and that you only rid countries of those dictators when the relationship turns sour and they become US-unfriendly. In a majority of cases those dictators are replaced by 'milder' but US-friendly dictators who may become more and more ruthless and will one day become US-unfriendly and then the circle takes a new beginning. Supporting dictators in order to have them dictate US-friendly policies is an act of dictation and therefore dictatorship.
The CIA involvement in the failed coup against Chavez cannot be denied. Fortunately the Venezuelan people were stronger than your spooks and the opposition they supported, so there is still democracy in Venezuela no matter what kind of 'dirty operations' your government carried out. Just another example of dictation and therfore dictatorship – though a failed effort.
When Hungary was looking into replacing their old and outdated MIG jet fighters, your Ambassador to Hungary made it very clear that it would be in the interest of Hungary to buy American made fighters. To prevent the Hungarian government from deciding to lease Grippen fighters from Sweden (the best solution financially) your embassy tried to pull of a defamation campaigng in Hungarian newspapers to miscredit the ministers in charge of making the decision – another 'dirty operation'. One more example of dictation and dictatorship that, in this case failed.
Though there is no concrete proof, it conspicuously speeded up the process for Romania to join NATO as soon as they signed an agreement that immunize all American official personnel from prosecution due to criminal offenses, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Romania. This stinks of dictation, but to be fair I will call it an example of alleged dictatorship only!
You may not want to instate a Paul Bremer in most of the other countries that are subject to your dictatorship, but US-friendly policies that goes against the best interests of those populations is dictatorship just as much as if the puppet was a citizen of the USA!
And don't try to brush these off as conspiracy theories, that carries no value as it is too easy instead of coming with proof and argumentation of the opposite.
By the way, Per Stig Møller, the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs recently informed the European Council that Denmark will not accept that the US intelligence services use Danish air space for the alleged secret prisoner transports. He further states that such flights would be illegal and that such a plane would be forced to land. If the order to land would not be followed then the Danish authorities may choose to take measures that would prevent the plane from carrying on with its operations.
This is diplomatic speak without saying that the CIA prisoner flights are true or not, but I guess the Danish authorities must have deemed it possible that it is more than conspiracy theory if they come with such a statement.
————–
You said: "When some Iraqi soldiers, overjoyed at the fall of Saddam’s Baghdad, tried to hang an American flag over the face of one of those monstrous statues of Saddam, American soldiers told him to remove it. He was given an Iraqi flag to replace it."
I do not have evidence at hand, only my own recollection of seing the events transpire on TV, but I challenge your notion that it was an Iraqi soldier who placed the US flag on the statue. I think it is history revision, but I cannot prove it – only dispute it.
—————
You said: "What I am saying is that the grand conspiracy ideas are ludicrous at best. These theories have existed forever and been attached to everyone from Roosevelt to Reagan…and have never materialized."
You can fool some people some times, but you cannot fool all the people all the time! Here is what I said previously about conspiracy theories (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/03/15/breeding-extremism/ #163)
—————
You said: "I’ll save everyone some trouble: Agree with his policies or not, George W. Bush is not:
1) Plotting world domination
2) Trying to steal the world’s oil (rather, he provides tax breaks to those who invest in alternative fuel sources)
3) Possessed by the devil
4) A terrorist
5) Hitler’s spawn
6) Riding around in black helicopters and looking in people’s windows"
Add. 1: Your Emperator is not plotting, he is actively trying to establish world domination by proxy by forcing US-friendly policies that are against the interests of other nations down their throats. That you and the Emperator says it is not true and just labelling it as conspiracy theory carries very little weight compared to all the facts and indications supporting claims.
Add. 2: Controlling oil (favorable pricing and dictation of distribution) is not necessarily stealing, but it does stink of corruption and covert dictatorship. And just because the Emperator gives tax breaks to investments in technologies that SLIGHTLY REDUCES your need for oil that is not evidence of that his greedy little fingers are not in the cookie jar!
Add. 3: I am an atheist, so I don't believe in the devil. However, I think your Emperator is possessed, but in the sense that he has been purchased by the lobbyists working for large US companies! The Bush is nothing but a simple prostitute in the possession of the ones with the highest campaign contribution!
Add. 4: Terrorism has many definitions, but is generally accepted to be something in the direction of using a tactic of coercion or violence that targets civilians in order to further ones objectives by creating fear or intimidation. Your Emperator easily fits most of the different definitions, so yes, he is a terrorist. The examples of coercion I mentioned as dictatorship easily fits the definition of state sponsored terrorism or political terrorism!
Add. 5: As far as I know, Eva and Adolf did not have any children, but many of the principles Hitler used in terms of propaganda and populism in order to gain power can be recognized in the actions of your Emperator and his men.
Add. 6: How your Emperator gets himself off and other details of his sex life is really none of my business :)
The beginning of your comment, Thomas, was telling:
"It is not a right, it is an obligation!"
No it isn't. I have no obligation to the UN whatsoever. Former President Bill Clinton declared himself a citizen of the world. Good for him. I am not. I am a citizen of the United States. I am not a citizen of Australia, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Comoros or Canada, and I have no obligation to support them nor the policies of their governments, just as you — a Dane — have no obligation to support the policies of the US. No nation, and no individual, has any obligation to support the UN nor its policies. I once was an advocate of getting the US out of the UN (I'm sure you would like that, for different reasons). But in reality, the US is one of the few nations that actually tempers the UN's lunacy. When the UN had their conference on women, American conservatives balked that we sent Hillary Clinton as our primary representative and then were further aghast (and amused) to find that she was one of the most conservative delegates! I will be more than honest in saying that in the sense that the UN represents democracy, I do not want democracy on a worldwide level. I want individual nations to achieve democracy, but I do not like a worldwide organization attempting to be the standard bearer of it. The UN will not bring world peace. It is questionable as to whether they have even aided the process. It is another silly utopian scheme. I mean, for crying out loud, they actually suggested a world tax! Good heavens, I already pay a quarter of my meager income in taxes here in the US!
—
[“Article 9?…”The representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers [the USA] shall not in any case exceed their mission under the present Convention. They shall, in particular, take account of the imperative necessities of security of the State [Iraq] wherein they carry out their duties.”
This is just one or the articles that gives you responsibility for maintaining law and order in Iraq, which you failed from day one of the invasion.]
This the US has attempted, unsuccessfully, to do. Lack of success is not a violation. The Article requires the Protecting Powers to go to necessary lengths to do this. There is never a guarantee of success to any degree (i.e., there is no violation).
[“Article 29 The Party [the USA] to the conflict in whose hands protected persons [Iraqis] may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents [military and other personnel under orders from the USA], irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.”
The responsibility for crimes against humanity cannot be pushed down to individuals at a lower level only, but is also carried by the higher levels of command!]
If your statement is proven true, then such disciplinary actions must be taken, and US law accounts for that.
[“Article 53 Any destruction by the Occupying Power [the USA] of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons [Iraqis], or to the State [Iraq], or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations [within Iraq], is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”
Destroying civilian infrastructure IS a crime against humanity. You cannot convince me that destroying power plants, water supplies, schools etc. was absolutely necessary. Absolutely necessary does not mean that it was necessary to ensure large reconstruction contracts for KBR and the other cronies!!!!]
The US is nor destroying these things; they are building and rebuilding them. In fact, they are building more than existed prior to the invasion, and building better ones at that. Any collateral damage to Iraqi infrastructure was rebuilt on our dime.
[“Article 55 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power [the USA] has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population [Iraqis]; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory [Iraq] are inadequate…”
“Article 56 To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power [the USA] has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory [Iraq], with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics…”
Looking at the increased death rates from disease alone in Iraq, the deterioration of supply of water and electricity compared to pre-war levels, your Emperator and his men are violating these two as well!]
The US is not the violator, but rather the Saddam loyalists and terrorists, who are purposefully harming their own countrymen. The US has gone to great efforts to build, rebuild and upgrade. Although saying that these things are below pre-war levels is scurrilous. Especially in Kurdish and Shiite regions, these items exceed pre-war levels. It's just that (surprise, surprise), the terrorists, who care nothing for human lives beyond their own, continue to sabotage and attach these things. Which, again, is why the Ministry of Oil was defended so much. Your argument here proves my point regarding the need to protect oil facilities and the oil ministry.
Thomas, do you not realize that the Ba'athists and the terrorists care NOTHING about these rules? The US strives to maintain order while following decent conduct of war (frequently exceeding requirements), but the enemy we are fighting has no respect for human life, nor dignity. Yes, there have been violations by US soldiers, Abu Ghraib being the most obvious (and again, the fact that it stands out shows that the problem is not systematic but exclusive). But guess what? Had it been Denmark invading, the same kind of crap would have happened. If it were France, the cheese and wine supply in Iraq would have been impressive, but the same "violations" would have occurred. Had it been Iran invading, it would have been far, far worse. There would have been, in essence, no Geneva Convention at all.
In fact, to ensure effective security, the US would have to violate other more crucial articles.
—
"You agree on this one. So what? You are still willing to accept your Emperator for being a good guy in general! Is it ethically or morally responsible to disregard the crimes against humanity and war crimes of your Emperator just because he gave you a tax break?"
Rather, I believe that he is taking excessive security measures. I disagree with him on this. I disagree with you on even more, but I don't consider you to be Satan incarnate!
—
"If your Emperator acts on the international stage, then he has to accept the obligations and responsibilities of the international community i.e. international laws and treaties. Otherwise the USA under your Emperator is not one bit different than any other imperialistic dictatorship like Germany under Hitler and Russia under Stalin. Yes, that’s right, I do compare your emperator with Hitler and Stalin, because they also completely lacked respect for the sovereignty of other nations!"
Their lack or respect for international law and treaties is not what defined them. And the US, including President Bush, does respect those laws and treaties. However, he did not (and should not) wait for UN permission (what a novel concept) before defending our own interests. There is no logical comparison of Bush with Hitler or Stalin. Does your Prime Minister support gun control? If so, then he is like Hitler, who also did. You're making a connection based on one loosely-defined characteristic.
—
"It cannot be denied that your government has instated or supported US-friendly dictators in many places around the world and that you only rid countries of those dictators when the relationship turns sour and they become US-unfriendly. In a majority of cases those dictators are replaced by ‘milder’ but US-friendly dictators who may become more and more ruthless and will one day become US-unfriendly and then the circle takes a new beginning. Supporting dictators in order to have them dictate US-friendly policies is an act of dictation and therefore dictatorship."
I have actively criticized this foolish practice. It is less common now than it has been, but it's just as foolish. This is not limited to the dreadfully evil Bush. The holy and exalted Bill Clinton purposefully did the same in Haiti. And we all see how that turned out.
–
Regarding the rest…it is all the same stuff I see from the left frequently. A dictatorship is anything they don't like. The US should not defend her interests. We should be more like Europe. Bush wants to control the world. There is no God, but if there was one, she would hate Bush. Bush targeted civilians (ludicrous). The corporations own Republicans, but Democrats are free thinkers (the left in America has significantly higher corporate contributions).
—
Luckily, by all indications, Laura Bush is the sole recipient of the Prez's sexual activities (a far cry from the previous administration)! Do you really think Laura Bush would let George W. get away with all you say he's up to? :-D I know MY wife wouldn't! ;-)
Philip,
You said in your post to Mougly on another thread: "I am hoping to avoid a back-and-forth nowhere argument like I have had with “Thomas, A Dane.”…"
I would have preferred that said this to me directly, but let that be. However, I do find it a bit strange that you call our exchange of opinions as 'a back-and-forth nowhere argument'. I interpret that as a negative, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Is an exchange of differing opinions a negative discussion while an exchange of opinions that conform to yours is a positive discussion? Or, is the discussion going nowhere beacause I do not readily adopt your assertions and opinions without critique or counter arguments? Or, are you getting tired of that I back up my opinions with argumentation or reference to facts? or, are you just running out of arguments in general?
Sorry for being a bit provocative on this one, but I find it very cowardly to write off the opinion of others in the way you did it. I am not saying that we have to agree on anything, but then I would prefer that we agree that we do not agree instead of you hinting that I am wasting your time by declaring my points invalid without having the decency to back that up with argumentation.
I have no problem with standing up for my opinions and I am not afraid of stating disagreement if I do not agree with the assertions your base your argumentation on or if I do not agree with the opinion you derive from facts because I back my statements of disagreement up with argumentation.
It is fair enough if you do not want to continue our discussion of the topic, but then come out and say so (with or without a reason) or just do not reply to the topic, but please do not negate me for having differing opinions, because I find that childish and disrespectful.
————–
I find your views on the United Nations very myopic and, to put it mildly, a bit naive and ignorant. Here is why:
You said: "…Former President Bill Clinton declared himself a citizen of the world. Good for him. I am not. I am a citizen of the United States. I am not a citizen of Australia, Bangladesh, Venezuela, Comoros or Canada, and I have no obligation to support them nor the policies of their governments, just as you — a Dane — have no obligation to support the policies of the US.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, you are a citizen of the world, but it does not come with a passport. It is a serious misconception that if you are a citizen of the world, then you are also a citizen of Australia, Bangladesh, etc. and it does not give you any obligation whatsoever to support the policies of any country at all (you even have the freedom to choose not to support the policies of your own country, though you may be obliged to respect them by law).
You said: "…No nation, and no individual, has any obligation to support the UN nor its policies…"
Yes and no (or 'jain' as they say in Germany, which is short for 'jah und nein')! It depends whether we are talking about UN conventions or UN resolutions. And on the question of jurisdiction.
The USA has autonomy and jurisdiction within its own borders, so everybody (citizens, visitors, etc.) are subject to US law, but as soon as you leave the USA then you will move into international jurisdiction (international waters, no-man's land etc.) before you move into the jurisdiction of, say, Denmark where you, as a visitor, are subject to Danish law. Without the UN there would be no rules in the area in-between two countries. Imagine if a woman happens to give birth while on a plane in flight between two countries over international waters, which country would decide the nationality of the child if the naturalization laws of both countries only covered their own territory? A child with no nationality would be like Tom Hanks in 'The Terminal', stuck in no-man's land.
International jurisdiction is based on UN conventions, but it is possible that a relevant UN convention points to e.g. either US or Danish law if the incident/case is not explicitly governed by the UN convention itself.
For example, the UN Convention on International Sales of Goods (CISG is ratified by most nations, including both the USA and Denmark) which will be applied in the trade relationship between a US and a Danish company. The CISG makes it absolutely clear which rules apply – whether US law or Danish law governs in case of a problem between the two companies. Before CISG, this was a mess and the legal tangle could take ages before the Danish court and the US court could agree which law should apply. Another area governed by UN conventions is acts of aggression involving two countries (e.g. the Geneva Conventions). In some cases these kind of resolution may not necessarily result in any national laws, but it still has to be upheld if it is accepted by your government (acting on your behalf).
A UN convention goes through three stages before you have an obligation to accept it (regardless of whether you support it or not). A UN convention is the product of a democratic process of commitees, plenary discussions etc. that ends up with the final wording that the members of the UN have agreed on. First step is that individual members decide whether they want to be a signatory to the convention or not. If the UN General Assembly vote in favor of the convention, then it becomes part of 'international law', but in order to have effect in individual countries the parties to the convention sign it (signatories signal 'an intention' to adopt it) and then the national government of the signatory countries has to decide whether they ratify it or not.
An example is the 'UN Convention on the Rights of the Child' to which all members of the UN are signatories and which has been ratified in all signatory countries except for the USA and Somalia (which has no recognized government to ratify it at the moment). In the US, the main problem is that Article 37 prohibits imprisonment and execution of children, which is legal in several states (who would have to change their state laws first in order to enable ratification).
Regardless, if and when this convention or any other convention is ratified in the USA, then it will be implemented as part of your national law and then (only then) you have an obligation to respect it while you are physically in the USA (regardless of whether you support it or not) and your government has an obligation to enforce it (if they sign and ratify then it means they support it). If you travel to Denmark, even if it is not ratified in the USA, then you will still have to respect it as it is part of Danish law – which is sovereign as soon as you leave the passport control check point and enter Denmark.
UN resolutions are a different story, because they express 'the will' of the international community (the UN) and can be issued by the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, or any other UN body, depending on its contents. The contents can be anything from accepting the next budget for UNICEF or 'the world' condemning a particular action (or non-action) of any country. The UN resolutions go through the same kind of bureaucracy for the wording, but they take effect as soon as they are chosen by a majority vote (simple or absolute majority depending on the issue). I would love to call this a real democratic process, but it is not as long as a handful of countries have undemocratic veto power they can use to threathen with in order to e.g. soften a resolution against Israeli human rights abuse or any other offense against international law!
As I have said before, being against the UN is not very constructive, because the alternative is international lawlessness and jungle law. Besides, I hope you have understood that the UN cannot force you to accept anything that is not ratified and turned into US law – as long as you stay within your own borders!
Let me say, that I am not an expert in UN laws and the nitty-gritty procedures, but I did a 'quick research' to verify that my understanding of the system fits into the big picture.
You said: "…I once was an advocate of getting the US out of the UN (I’m sure you would like that, for different reasons)…"
No, I would not like that. I believe in the rule of law, both national and international, and I am sure everybody are better off with it than without it.
I do not believe in jungle law, so I think it is better that rogue nations are part of the dialogue in the UN rather than being completely isolated. In most cases, a reasonable and lasting solution cannot be imposed, but has to be negotiated.
What I would like is that the USA (and the other veto nations) continue to be part of the world community but stop blocking for democratic reforms of the UN so it can be transformed into a more democratic world forum and not be abused as a toy of big nations.
"…I will be more than honest in saying that in the sense that the UN represents democracy, I do not want democracy on a worldwide level. I want individual nations to achieve democracy, but I do not like a worldwide organization attempting to be the standard bearer of it. The UN will not bring world peace. It is questionable as to whether they have even aided the process. It is another silly utopian scheme…"
I hope I have been able to convince you that, though less than perfect, the UN is in fact the best forum for reaching peaceful solutions and that you realize that a lot of your misconceptions are planted by misinformation, not because the UN poses an obstacle to your daily life, but because it poses an obstacle for your Emperator to do whatever he pleases with other nations and people against their will.
Hopefully you realize that it is populistic propaganda that the UN seeks to change the wonderful capitalistic system of the USA into a nasty communistic system ;)
Philip,
PS: Don't call me left!
I am living in Hungary because this is where I found myself a wonderful wife, but we live here because I do not want to live under the socialist society in Denmark (the socialists lost power a few years ago, but I guess it will take at least another 15-20 years before Denmark will be worth living in – provided that the socialists do not get back into power).
Where I come from life is more plentiful in terms of politics, so just because I do not support the foreign policies of your Emperator and his Republicans does not mean that I have to support the foreign policies of the Democrats. To me, it is pretty much the same old shit.
Compared to European politics, your Democrats would be midle/a little right of center while your Republicans would be about two-thirds towards the extreme right from the center point of the political spectre. On average the parliaments in European countries have 4-5 parties in parliament and another 4-5 which did not make the minimum (in most countries a party needs 3-5% of votes to get into parliament).
To me, a two-party system is seriously lacking in political options for its voters :)
Thomas,
I apologize for my wording. The meaning was that it could end up be a long thread and go nowhere by being, essentially, a replica of this one. Rather, I find our debate engaging! The proof of this is that I conitnue despite my time constraints. Rereading the comment, I see how it gave that impression. Perhaps a better way to put it would be, "I do not want this to go nowhere by replicating a debate I am already engaged in with 'Thomas, A Dane,' so I'll just make these points…" Sorry about that!
—
My position with the UN is somewhat similar to my view of the US federal government. The US was designed to be a union of 50 sovereign states, unified under one national banner. Each state was to be equal in power to the federal government. The feds were to do the will of the states as an agent of the states. As you are probably familiar with, the US fought a war between 1861 and 1865, commonly called the US Civil War (though, by definition, it was not one, as the Confederates did not seek control of the US). 16 states decided they no longer wanted to participate in the union. The main reasons were increasing federal encroachments into the Southern economy, especially levying of tariffs on Southern goods while allowing free trade of Northern goods. In addition to this, the Port of New Orleans was forced to raise taxes and fees on international port use in favor of New York ports. While slavery is usually claimed to be the cause of the war, it was only a small part (if at all…the 2 top Confederate generals — Lee and Jackson — were opposed to slavery; 60,000-90,000 black Americans willingly served in the Confederate forces). Anyhow, the act of secession ignited Lincoln's federal government. They sent troops to fortify the various military installations, with the first shot being fired by a Confederate soldier at a South Carolina fort. After 4 years of the bloodiest war in US history, the Confederates surrendered. This US victory began a remarkable chain of events, politically. First, there was a period of about 10 years, in which federal troops and officials occupied Southern states, requiring loyalty to the US to be "allowed" back into the country they chose to leave. During that time, law after law was passed, granting the federal government more and more control, with the courts nodding approval, as there was no one significant to offer dissent. By the time the Southern states were all reinstated, the groundwork was laid, and the federal government had already become the supreme power in the US. Now, of course, that is the reality still. Certainly, the states do still manage a fair amount of their own legalities. But the federal government is in control of the majority of laws, whether through federal law or federal mandates (which require states to provide certain services, yet are given the responsibility to manage them).
This is a long way of explaining where my issue with the UN lies. By virtue of its most basic purposes (international trade and commerce mediation…actually, mediation in general as a last resort), I am fine with it. The majority of what you initially described in the way of resolutions is acceptable, within limits. It's the fact that it has grown far beyond that, much as the US federal government has. I do not want to abolish the US federal government. I want it to regain sight of what it should be and let go of its power. It's difficult to be the "supreme" legislative body of the wealthiest nation and not grab for power over the states. The UN is susceptible to the same temptations, only on a worldwide level. And this is where my suspicion and mistrust lie.
—
Hungary is an interesting place! I frequently use a free stock photo exchange from there. I understand the dynamic in European vs. American politics. I actually consider the Republicans to be too liberal! Actually, both parties have no concept of the Constitution, and the parties that do either have no chance of consideration (part of the many flaws of the 2-party system) or are filled with kooks. So forgive me for calling you left wing! It was just what I had gathered from the more recent posts. ANd yes, the Democrat policies in international affairs really don't differ. They were the prime opponents to the UAE ports deal (as well as some blind, opportunistic Republicans). Why did they oppose it? Because Bush supported it.
Philip,
All well!
I'll get back when I sober up. My Finnish friend just became father of a baby boy. It took a long time to wriwte this, so I will bee back later!
Go easy on the juice, Tom! Given the introduction of a newborn into his home, it's your friend that may need the spirits! :-D
People Sayin That *All* Arabs Are Torrorist's Make Me Laugh Bcuz Reali It Shows How Childish N Racist You Actually Are I Would Love To Meet You Just To Prove To You How Rong You Actually Are! Grow Up….. You Aint Proving Nothing!
Although I agree with Maleeka, the grammar left some to be desired. Please refrain from arguments based entirely around stereotypes or the fact that you have your face up your ass.
{ 1 } Trackback
[...] 11. Hillary Clinton says: Arab are Terrorist! [...]