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!

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

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

[“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? I know MY wife wouldn’t!

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