Re: Sources and Sinks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This is why the Tax Freedom Day approach is more useful. Tax freedom day is of course the day when the average American or Brit or whatever has stopped working for the government and has the rest of his income for himself. For most years, this is estimated to around May-June. That is, for almost half of a year a typical taxpayer is working for the government. Replace Government with Society and you're getting somewhere. Where will your brand new sports car go when you don't have a road to drive on? Who will pay the cops when there are no taxes being collected? Not a perfect measure, as it averages together folks of various tax brackets, including the many in America who pay nothing (but it doesn't assign a negative number to those who receive net net money from the government). And it fails to take into account the double taxation which a business owner faces: roughly a 50% tax on his profits, then when the profits are disbursed to the owners of the corporation, another 35-45% tax bite. For a business owner, he is effectively working for the government for the first 70% of every year. Which means only October-December is he working for his own interests. The business though benefits extremly from the infrastructure that is build with taxes. Plus a lot of companies can exempt even more money, so in essence a lot of companies don't pay a dime in taxes. Jabber about how poor people are actually receiving fewer tax benefits than rich people misses the point of who's working for whom. Yes, the poorer are working and contributing to the Riches. Always Remember: YOU stand on the backs of those who you despise so much. Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government. And how much money does she get back by services? Say: Homelandsecurity? Say: Roadconstruction? etc.? Bob, a crack addict collecting disability or welfare or other government freebies, works 0% of his time for the government/society. (Dat not true. I gots to stands in line to get my check increased!) Well, why don't you just take him out and shoot him then? Alice is a source, Bob is a sink. Talk about how Alice gets benefits ignores the fact that she's working for the government for a big chunk of her life. Bob is not. Alice is a slave for the government, and society, so that Bob can lounge in his mobile home watching ESPN and collecting a monthly check. And how many Bobs are out there? Also, you forgot Fred. Fred is the guy who works for Alice, supposly only 40 hours a week, but they are short staffed as Alice needs to make sure that her investors get a good bang for the buck so Fred has been in reality working more to 70 hours a week and hasn't really seen his kids anymore. He is only paid for 40 hours though as Alice explained to Fred that she just doesn't have the money to pay for overtime. Then Fred gets sick, but Alice didn't provide any benefits (after all she needs to make a profit for the shareholders), thus Fred has to get by what he has saved up while hoping that the government would give him some money. (I'd like to know why all of the folks here in California who are getting benefits and services are not at my door on Saturday morning to help me with my yard work. I'd like to know why finding reliable yard workers has become nearly impossible in the past couple of decades. Will work for food signs are a fucking joke...try hiring one of those layabouts to actually do some work for food and watch the sneers, or watch them threatening to fake a work injury if a shakedown fee is not given to them. These people should be put in lime pits.) blah blah blah. The world is so unfair to you. You just can't get a good slave anymore these days for nothing. When you hear John Young and Tyler Durden nattering about the persons of privilege are reaping the rewards of a benificent government, think about Alice and Bob and ask yourself who'se doing the real work. Ask who're the sources and who're the sinks. Fred is doing the real work, and gets a kick in the butt by Alice the moment he is not worth enough anymore. You, of course, still carry the idea that everybody has the right to be rich. That the World doesn't have infinite resources nor that the money is an infinite resources is ignored by the likes of you. After all you have made it on the backs of all the Freds out there. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/VtHGlCnxcrW2uuEQJHawCgpIcaR+lRC2MwqFJzebr+XxEshzMAoKPP yRgG7Q1OLgzfcOzTFHbOqGP6 =HPPh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sources and Sinks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ever heard of toll roads? Yes, those things you drive on and pay for their use. They work quite well in many of the socialist European countries so they ought to work in the land of the free too. Yes, the way this usually works is that the government builds the road, then sells it to a private company for some money and then the upkeep is handled by the company. It is rather seldom that someone builds a road for a business venture. Where there is no governmental police force, their is demand for private enforcement. And you know what? They regularly do their jobs better than the police. Of course there is no oversight body, so if they use excessive force well, It's all part of doing business and after all they didn't smash YOUR skull so what do you care, right? The business though benefits extremly from the infrastructure that is build with taxes. Plus a lot of companies can exempt even more money, so in essence a lot of companies don't pay a dime in taxes. Show me a company that doesn't pay a dime in taxes, please, make it one that actually has employees and does something useful and makes profit. Amuse me and try it out. I don't have a link ready right now, but there were several US corporations as well as some in Germany who did NOT pay any taxes for the past couple of years because of either breaks they got so not to leave, OR because they posted such high losses that they did not post any profit on the books, thus not pay any taxes. Alice, an engineer or pharmacist or perhaps a small business owner, works between 40% and 70% of her time to pay money into government. And how much money does she get back by services? Say: Homelandsecurity? Say: Roadconstruction? etc.? A lot less than she would have to pay for those services in a free society. This is very easy to determine from the fact that a big part of tax money goes into one social welfare scheme or another. Assuming right now that you are living in Finland, i am wondering why you not move into the land of the free and do it without any social net? Take that and in addition remember that goverments tend to do things inefficiently (yes, that road building and security and other stuff tend to cost more than they'd have to) and that he gets a lot of 'services' that have purely negative value to him (say tariffs, drug laws, government help monopolies [AMA is first to come to mind here], etc). I guess it depends on which study you look. If the Army / Homeland security costs more when run by the government than when run by private firms the US Army should be highly efficent. After all WITHOUT private contractors none of the personell would be fed (that is done by a french catering company), without the likes of Halliburton and such the US Army would not be in Iraq, the support is pretty much outsourced for greater efficency and cost saving. Of course companies tend to overcharge quite a huge amount, but hey, I am sure at the end they are still cheaper, right? What you fail to realize is that you get what you pay for and why would I want a company cut corners in things like social services, Security (i.e. police) or any other of these services only to save a buck or two? If that is the mentality no wonder companies attach a value to human life and don't really care if you burn up in your car or get killed as long as it is cheaper than to fix a problem. I guess that is also a reason why insurance rates for SUVs aren't up, while smaller cars are getting hit (Want to know why? Because if you die it is a one time payment and the insurance companies are off the hook. If you're just insured though, they pay a lot more to get you fixed again. SUVs tend to kill more people than maime them, thus by their logic they are cheaper). But all of you who seem to think that social services et al, should be run on a profit maximiation basis, tell me this: How much are you worth in Dollars and cents (or Euros)? I would like to know how much you think you are worth to your friends, family, kids, spouses etc.? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP/a/DmlCnxcrW2uuEQIkXACcC5x0ac8TJ+elTCJThFZlWwMnyQ0AoKkf Vy5kyDyc9Hq/uCDyOCgCUF6Z =e5W6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
Major Variola (ret) wrote: TV stations which exploit the aetherial commons are a tricky case. The government licensors have to be very careful not to induce censorship. Yet, the FCC has guidelines what can and cannot be aired. Thus no free speech as you claim it to be. Michael
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27-Dec-03, at 9:53 AM, Tyler Durden wrote: All symbols that are related to Nazism. One of the reasons (if not the reason) why they banned Wolfenstein 3D. Interesting. So even if the swatsika is protrayed as a bad thing (to the point of practically being a bullseye) it's banned. So...can you have swastikas in Textbooks? Perhaps 100 years from now the Holocaust will be forgotten. Of course, that'll make Tim May happy because then it could happen all over again. So a question for you: If I want to write a book on the history of the swastika, or teach about the holocuast in Germany, do I need a license or something? (And let's just assume I have a politically correct view.) To my understanding Historical documents are exempt from this. Wolfenstein was banned in the end because the symbols where used in Entertainment. If it is a historical drama in which the Symbols appear this seems to be permissible as well. If you put one on your jacket though and walk around with it in the streets they can get you. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+2q3mlCnxcrW2uuEQLSggCfYUtI+BIz6KVZzpWHUyq28DpGEm8AoME9 3OJy6lG0zwAsFacIwujAZswI =/pq7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Play it again Donald...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 .. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm - -- Michael Smithers this is ridiculous, this is America. Justice should favour the rich! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+pA9WlCnxcrW2uuEQKGWQCcCXqf20irfggXWeDNu3Mc1VSuyvEAoJyR Sr+EsjIUJFIso4OpWLuwEeqb =tViD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Singers jailed for lyrics
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Dec-03, at 12:37 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: A Berlin criminal court sentenced 38-year-old Michael Regener to 40 months in prison after a six-month trial that tested the boundaries of free expression in a nation with strict laws against hate speech. Of course, that should be a nation with strict laws against free speech. Crying Hate Speech is the last resort of people who cannot debate what is being said and convince anyone. Being from Germany I would like to detest that statement. The German law clearly defines what is hate speech. It is not an easy task as you can see in a six month trial. Certain symbols (e.g. Swastika) are forbidden as well. And I would like to add that most of these laws were made up by the allies (read US and Britain). There is no ultimate free speech as the US promises, but let's be serious here for a moment: The US is not as free as people like to think. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+yRcmlCnxcrW2uuEQKDZACfc63XujDFQOJ+bcyGq1xtQc8l1yYAoNd1 vcmRWdOkxly/219fuaNHB/kL =lA06 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: I am anti war. You lot support Saddam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It really is that they hate us for our (relative) freedom. Believe it or not, but most people do not care about what way you live. The only way they know about your freedom by watching american TV. So blame it on yourself. I can see that on this list with all the big salt tears wept for poor little victimized Saddam, and the outraged indignation that various third worlders have been cruelly deprived of the wonderful socialism so generously bestowed upon them by various bloodstained, but nonetheless benevolent and popular, dictators. Sponsored either by the US or the ones you love to hate: USSR (who has perished over 10 years ago). M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+nMHGlCnxcrW2uuEQLpdgCgmrPkAHDpDioke2TetvDQ2o1HNVQAnRWQ AKAreSANbksHclFiPIGDk0mF =k07r -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Dec-03, at 10:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- James A. Donald: I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam. Michael Kalus Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam? Because you have been justifying his actions, denying his crimes, and calling for his release. I guess statements like these come about when there is a disconnect between the brain, the eyes and the fingers who type out these words. I suggest you go back and re-read the arguments. James A.Donald: But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery. Michael Kalus Yet you still think there was a good reason to Oppose the Vietnam war? Make up your mind man. Was it a just war like (in your opinion) Iraq right now or was it unjust? It was an unwise war fought by unjust means. The cause of saving the Vietnamese from Soviet domination was a just cause, as the terror and the flood of refugees that followed the defeat of the west in Indochina proved. However, just cause is only one of the several criteria needed for a just war. (And the Iraqi war does not satisfy all the criteria of just war either, though hanging Saddam is surely a just cause.) Ah, so now we agree that neither war was justified. So, there you go. The end not always justifies the means. As in the case of Iraq which is pretty much everybody saying here. Why does the american way of life have to win? The world cannot remain half slave and half free. We must become slaves, or they must become free. Well, in america instead of being the slave to the man (just yet) you're the slave to your credit card bills, your employers and all the other robber barons you have in the industry, while under Castro you are Well what? You can't travel to the US? You are not necessarily always able to state your political opinions (which sound vaguely familiar in the US right now) etc. Yeah, I see how much freer the US is. Repeat after me: Freedom is something that is defined differently by every human being. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA+AwUBP+b2bGlCnxcrW2uuEQLmgACeIVNDbG+Jk1QUmh2gdr/eH23NExcAlAtj SgKdNNiF2T+zWByS27hyMIU= =jU2o -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Dec-03, at 8:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote: I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam. Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam? That's an interresting logic you have here: I am against the war, unless of course, it is initiated by lies, deceit and the US of A. YOU are all of course for Torture, Murder and Saddam because he is the one the US of A is fighting the war against. Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, Oh, so if it can hit your friend Buddy from down the road who just got drafted it is okay to be against it. But if a kid from the Bronx who has no other viable choice but join the military gets into the crossfire (and don't tell me he understands the reasons any better than your Buddy did back in Vietnam) it is okay? and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy. Ah, and this right now was / is a clean war? You now, good and honest? Two guys facing each other? One a couple of thousand feet up in the air dropping cluster bombs on cities while the other one hides in a hole, together with his family? But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery. Yet you still think there was a good reason to Oppose the Vietnam war? Make up your mind man. Was it a just war like (in your opinion) Iraq right now or was it unjust? And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam. Because, if we claim to be humane, do these wars for the greater good, we better act like it. (By it i mean the West in general). If we don't then we better shut the fuck up about our 'ideals and how everybody should live by them. Why do you think we're such a target? Because the majority of the world population sees us for what we are: Opportunistic killers. Either we do it ourselves or we pay others to do our dirty work. Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it. First of all the USSR was not Commust, it was a Stalnistic country. Second of all: Shouldn't people be free to choose under which political system they want to live? I grew up in Western Germany, I have been to what was then the GDR several times. I have still family in those areas. You know what? They said overall it was just as good if not better than it is today. It is your kind of Arrogance that causes wars like one in Iraq right now. It is arrogance like yours that makes millions suffer without you even notice. There were a million more places where an intervention would have done any good. Yet in none of these places do we see anybody (Ivory Coast anyone?) Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish. Why does the american way of life have to win? What is it about the american way that has to win? The ability to dream of maybe becoming rich one day? The american dream and lifestyle has just as much right to win as any other. There is no right in any of these. Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. Sammdam and the two towers had nothing to do with each other. That for one. Second of all. Did they had it coming? Yes. It was only a question of time until something like this would have happened. The fact that the majority refused to see it has nothing to do with it. Something will happen again, doesn't matter how many grannys you take away their needles, or how many people you put on a no-fly list because they are reading the wrong books. History is beginning to repeat itself. The Colonial Powers got kicked out of their colonies. As the world can hardly kick the US out of the Earth they will strike home. If you really think that the US's behaviour (in regards to foreign policy) has nothing to do with 9/11
Re: I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing, because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human rights, just like everyone else, which includes due process, right to counsel, and to face your accusers in an open court that has legitimate authority to find you innocent or guilty. The US is clearly and wrongly doing the opposite of this, and if this makes me pro-Saddam, then I will wear the label proudly. How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have no good evidence that he's committed crimes against Americans, and unless we find some, I don't think that anyone would want him anywhere near a Federal courtroom. He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it. So this one is out. That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them. McRumsfeld and co. should be held accountable if they violate the Geneva Convention with respect to Saddam or any other prisoner. But the procedural guarantees you talk about are attached to U.S. trials, which Saddam will not enjoy (or dread, depending...). See above. Because of the possiblity that either Rumsfled friends might end up in front of the ICC they never signed off on it. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+WcnGlCnxcrW2uuEQKsaACgiPD6Kbq/WN0qTL2eDyllk8QBC+0AoIxa SboDJZtx5bUh6IrVFc9PShmh =Hkgx -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: the Kuwait issue is not associated with America
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Dec-03, at 1:04 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what your motivation is for wanting to rewrite history, but that isn't what Glaspie said. I am guessing here that he just wants to believe that the US is acting in their foreign policy for the greater good, not for some selfish reasons. Nagging Conscience maybe? M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+Sg12lCnxcrW2uuEQIzawCgtpmGBBy4B3f+nrbVWXQ0eo6HlFIAoJ/6 L6YIZYQbQhuuv1kcM/WgomLX =u4/h -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote: Nomen Nescio wrote: Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated. Eh? And have you heard about the Soviet Union? I'll take it then that the US has become the USSSR these days? After all this is the argument that gets brought up here all the time But the USSSR did it. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLbmlCnxcrW2uuEQLq0ACgilN5t6kaUb2ypyTgt/KoX6jv4r4Ani/c hGl1/s2A2eO1C8yPb0x9n5+x =mDsf -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The US has global hegemony because in reality its policies are reasonable, because it isn't worth anyone's while to try to oppose it. that I would like to oppose. It is rather the fact that in the past it wasn't very feasible. The world is getting smaller. People can fly airplanes now in every part of the world. What you see happening right now is what happened back in the late 1800s and in the early 20th century when the colonies started to rise up. The difference this time around is that the oppressed have the ability to strike back where it hurts: In the homeland. None of the colonial powers got away with it forever, sooner or later the price was too high and to think that the US is above the lesson learned it will be in for a rude awakening. European calculations are the same: the potential cost of challenging the US is incalculable, the potential gain relatively miniscule. Come on, let's go down to the pub instead. Still... I wouldn't count on it though. China is picking up steam, the EU is expanding and the fight over Iraq let Europe to move closer together, not further apart. Aznar and Berlusconi did what they did because they tried to have a voice in the EU that was mightier than it really is (they are afraid to loose subsidies when the EU expands eastward). Berlusconi also is on a power trip and tries to become the next Duce in Italy. Chances are neither of them will survive for much longer. Even with the Berlusconi controlled media in Italy people took notice. The little bit of democracy we have might still make a change. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NLM2lCnxcrW2uuEQK5ZQCeJrNQDq5J7C6Sfl3ePoAid9cH9OIAmwQZ X0cFkSbhnj4LxvYuOgMtO7w+ =ETH9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This green light story is a commie lie (originally a Baathist lie, but these days mostly repeated by commies) I take it then that the heroic rescue of Private Jessica Lynch is also the truth, while the story about the use of excessive (and unnecessary) to free her is also a commie lie. I am just wondering, but is anything that has happened (or is happening) in Iraq and done by the US / Western powers wrong in your eyes, or simply can they do no wrong? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NuNWlCnxcrW2uuEQJ/PQCcDO5sjq/Gs/2sVK31cVl/Zdq0v/YAoIuW HYwUlpWDsjD/OUpdCRooFbSZ =FKfd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The west, including the US traded and continues to trade heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to believe they are actively supporting him. I don't think Castro is a bad guy either. Believe it or not but not everything that is not Freetrade made in America is bad. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it Yet you show no similar astonishment concerning the evil of Stalin. Stalin has been dealt with. His empire has fallen. I am very well aware of the past. But my concern right now is the present and the future. Also, what you don't seem to get. This is not about Saddam, it is about how the US acts. Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent. I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation he gave was false in some central and crucial way. See my very long posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=739htvsqv3bteggtq8p2ht5ae1fl8g3rj [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/yzao I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too? If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. It merely means you are dealing with one enemy at a time, rather than all of them at once. Ethics and morales are non negotiable. Either you have it or you don't. If you don't have them, fine, but don't pretend you act because of them. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMMWlCnxcrW2uuEQK0PACg5wJOlgUm6JQkkeTJx8tpxvalTxUAoPe6 tkln3VpG4iX/435Sdu1OlMGD =NKYl -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18-Dec-03, at 9:34 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote: By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. This does not resemble in the slightest sending collossal amounts of logistic aid to Stalin, or even supplying the murderous marxist Mengistu with free cattle trucks to ship the peasants to death camps in the course of imposing forced collectivisation, yet somehow I never hear the fans of terror and slavery complaining about those episodes. Could we move into the current time zone for a moment? Thanks. Now re-read what was written there... Got the words? Good, now try to understand the meaning of those words, done? Okay. Now try to understand the implications of these actions... Getting somewhere now? Yes? Perfect. So maybe now we can start to have a constructive discussion about the way the US is saying one thing and doing the other without trying to point at someone who is worse. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NMk2lCnxcrW2uuEQKn3gCfSgNIFsMO0J8EbNqBpB6l0TTKVWcAniKC OVHhPVNujXiw7SpeO2qV8pj9 =1nR9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 National Sovereignty, like the divine right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as wars of national liberation. the more I read of you the more I get the feeling that you think McCarthy was the best thing that ever happened to the US. It also seems to me you don't have any real argument. You just like to point to the Soviet Union for everything. Who brainwashed you if I may ask? Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NJ1WlCnxcrW2uuEQLcegCgj3ZP50alQEzNLWlB7LX7TROD57QAoKal OtP9wE1e+KrM4t/aLTCz61J4 =/gHZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Dec-03, at 2:35 PM, James A. Donald wrote: -- On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote: Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations. Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans... Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that Americans deserved 9/11 and have no right to whine about it. Nations are not morally entitled to any rights. They have rights merely by habit and convention, a convention formalized in the peace of Westphalia, and now at long last fading. Interresting note. Did they deserve 9/11? If you go by eye for an eye then yes. If you think that Ossama (if it was him) and his cronies are evil, then yes, they deserved it too (wasn't Jesus all about suffering for the greater good?). If you think that nobody has the right to terrorism than they didn't. But neither did the Iraqis during the sanctions, nor the countless people who died in South America because the good guys were waging a war. Let's not even talk about all the things that were done by the good guys in Vietnam. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+NspWlCnxcrW2uuEQIQRACeLIEpk760YpoNgMSsa1IZzg20ZusAoKmI IIo6dnih7/pjDBcd1sbkVB0C =kya6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty. No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). To use those people as a reason to wage war (even if the outcome would better their lives and the votes on this is still out) still has moral implications, and if it is only by the sanctions that did nothing to prevent those cruelties from happening but actually adding more to their daily lives. I don't know about you. But I know that if I would have lost family members in the past 12 years because of Sanctions and Saddam I would (at best) find the current arguments FOR the war (if I would know about them) more than cynical. M. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+Ek5GlCnxcrW2uuEQL2mgCgu51ILwv30Oa8V8te8IRfSMnCySkAn08A DF9dO7ROZY/QsT33q7Qp2r7E =TqNF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: -- On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. Am I? The west traded heavily with him, be it the US, France, Germany, the UK. Nobody was left out. All dealt with Saddam and made a lot of money off of him. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Who is you lot? [...] So in September 1980, Hussein's troops crossed the border into Iran. At first the war went well for Iraq, but eventually Iranian forces pushed the invaders out of their country. By spring 1982, the Iranians had gone on the offensive. And that greatly worried the Reagan White House, knowing that an Iranian victory could have a disastrous effect on America's power base in the oil-rich Middle East. Before long the Reagan administration began openly courting Saddam Hussein. In 1982, the United States removed Iraq from its list of countries that supported state-sponsored terrorism. In December 1983, President Reagan sent to Baghdad none other than Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy to the Middle East and today one of Hussein's harshest critics as U.S. secretary of defense. Rumsfeld's visit opened up America's relations with Iraq for the first time since the Arab-Israeli war in 1967. Later, Rumsfeld said that it struck us as useful to have a relationship and revealed that Hussein had indicated he wasn't interested in causing problems in the world. [...] http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/iraqwar/timeline/timeline_03.html Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. Does the mean anything to you? He was our good guy as long as we though we could use him. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. I think the circumstances where a bit different at this point in time. Besides. Nobody (at least not I) said anything about supporting him or cheering for Saddam. The Question here is not if he is a bad man or a good man. It is not if he did or did not do what they accuse him of. But it is about the double morale that the west has been advocating for the past 50 years. Especially when it comes to Oil. It is astonishing that it was okay for Saddam to be as evil as be and we (as a society) turned a blind eye to it, until WE (for whatever reason) felt threatened by him and than dragged it all out again, just to proof how bad he is. Face it. If the West didn't want Saddam in Power they could have removed him a long time ago. The matter of fact is, we are as much to blame for what happened to the people in Iraq as is Saddam, if not more so. Evil men, by their nature, find themselves in conflict with other evil men for the same reasons as good men do. So where do your enlightened Western Politicians fit in? Good or Evil? Thus evil men and good men will often find themselves in a temporary alliance of convenience against a common enemy, an alliance that both sides know will end in war or near war fairly soon. I suggest you read Chomsky's new book, and if only as a reference to the sources he lists. This however seldom leads good men to mistake evil men for 'good guys No, but it leads good men to become evil. If you ally with the enemy than you are giving up what makes you good. Turning away when someone is abused doesn't make the abuse stop and it makes you just as guilty as the one who commits the abuse. Ignorance might be bliss for most people, but from an ethical and moral standpoint it is not. Parading Saddam around and humiliating him just shows how low we really are, despite the fact that we don't want to acknowledge it ourselves. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote: On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote: No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by that I mean the Western world general). You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power, he seized western property and murdered westerners, especially Americans, and you lot cheered him to an echo. Saddam was always an enemy of the west, he was never a good guy. He was at times an ally, in the sense that Stalin and Pol Pot were at times temporary allies, yet somehow I never see you fans of slavery and mass murder criticizing the west for allying with Stalin. Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January 2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia), East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China. Sales from the United States were inconsequential and did not make the list. From earlier articles in other publications I believe that in fact US sales were a small fraction of 1%. From the same site I linked to before: [...] By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S. interests. That sent the message that America would not object to U.S. allies offering military aid to Iraq. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait sent howitzers, bombs and other weapons to Iraq. And later that year the U.S. government pushed through sales of helicopters to Hussein's government. But that was just the beginning of Reagan's pro-Iraq campaign. The United States sold the Iraqis military jeeps and Lockheed L-100 transports. And, according to a recent report in /The New York Times/, as many as 60 American intelligence officers provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance, lending detailed information on Iranian deployments, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments. The /Times/ story further reported that this intelligence assistance was offered even though American officers knew the Iraqi commanders would probably use chemical weapons against the Iranians. The military aid helped Iraq hold off the Iranians, and the war dragged on until 1988. That year the U.S. Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions against Hussein's regime. But the Reagan White House opposed the bill, calling it premature. When it eventually passed, the White House made little effort to enforce it. [...] Just because they didn't sell the weapons directly doesn't mean they didn't sell them. It is an age old practice to sell weapons to a middle man in order to get them where they are not supposed to be. And in regards to arms sales: [...] * U.S. arms exports in 1995 amounted to $15.6 billion, three times that of the next supplier and 49 percent of the world's. Over the 1993-1995 period, U.S. exports went equally to developed and developing countries. * The six next largest suppliers, with over $0.5 billion each and together accounting for 42 percent of the world total, were: U.K.$5.2 billionGermany 1.2 Russia 3.3 Israel 0.8 France 2.2 China, Mainland 0.6 * The Middle East imported over 30 percent of the total number of major weapons in trade over the last 12 years (1984-1995). In 1993-1995, Western Europe became the main importing region with 32 percent. [...] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/acda/factshee/conwpn/wmeatfs.htm It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were France, Russia, Germany, and China: Iraq's weapons suppliers. http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html [...] *Kroft. *And other arms dealers and countries did. Brazil provided thousands of armored vehicles. China and the Soviet Union sent tanks, missiles and munitions. German companies sold Saddam poison gas technology, and France, not only approved the sale of artillery to Iraq, but [also sold] armed helicopters and antiaircraft missile systems. This Chilean arms manufacturer [shown on screen] sold Saddam deadly cluster bombs--reportedly with technical assistance from U.S. companies, and the United States allowed American computer technology to go to Iraq as well. It allowed Sarkis to sell Hughes and Bell helicopters. The U.S. government approved the sale after Iraq promised that they would only be used for civilian purposes. Sarkis told us that the helicopters were used as transportation during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. *Sarkis. *I did it with the knowledge of U.S. authorities, policy makers--and also they have delivered weapons that are equally weapons as I did. I do not have anything on my conscience. I did not sell
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others, annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people, dispatched assasins after enemies abroad, laughed at anyone who objected -- and then had been submitted to what appeared to be a polite and conscientious public dental exam and haircut? Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Jim Dixon wrote: I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and getting a haircut. :-| And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and get a haircut with the whole world watching? M.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
James A. Donald wrote: Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention: Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight. That might have been. But he was not, and he is shown and paraded on TV (and don't tell me he wasn't because showing a man in his state, showing how he gets examined is clearly an attempt to break the morale). Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings of those poor fragile souls that hate us and seek to murder us, that got us into these trouble. Our enemies take it for weakness, reasonably enough. We should make it obvious that nothing will stop us from striking at our enemies, that we will cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders waded to the holy sepulchre. Most people outside of the US are blissfully aware of this. After all they had bombs dropped on them for the last 50 years, being shot at by people that were founded by the US Government (have a look at South America) and so forth. It is almost astonishing to hear arguments like these. You (and people who make these arguments) sound like the kid who gets smacked after burning down the house and then starting to cry and call foul. As Bin laden said slaughtering the occupants of the twin towers made them look strong: : : when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by : : nature, they will like the strong horse. This is : : only one goal; those who want people to worship the : : lord of the people, without following that doctrine, : : will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be : : upon him So you advocate to follow Bin Ladin? If you (as in the US Government) consider him evil, then following him and do the same way he does makes you evil as well. Having said that: What makes you the good guy? To the best of my knowledge, the UN only grants those awards to those who inflict quite extraordinary ruin and horrible destruction on their subjects -- such awards are as infamous and perverse as the UN human rights commission, headed by Libya las time I heard. Of course Libya is evil when it doesn't fit into the US foreign policy, but is a good friend' when you can send someone there to get vital information. If that involves torture than this is none of your business. It is sort of ironic that a state like the US can claim no interrest in how the information was obtained and cheerfully extorts people to countries where they know very clearly that those people will be tortured. It seems not even another passport (like say, Canadian) is protecting those people from the wrath and zeal of the US Administration and their henchman. If the Henchman happens to wear a turban while doing his deed, it is fine, as long as it is done under US Supervision, which can be denied if need be. The UN is a cartel of governments against their subjects. Just as a cartel of ordinary businesses requires its members to charge high prices and supply low quality, and grants honor and recognition to those members that charge remarkably high prices and unusually low quality, in the same way the UN grants honor and recognition to unusually destructive episodes of looting and pillaging against formerly prosperous law abiding peaceful subjects. The UN is a meeting chamber. The UN is an ability for countries to meet and try to find solutions that do not involve dropping heavy explosives on other peoples head. The UN also fails regularly because heavy weights like the US use it to throw their weight around. If there would be a proportional (as in number of people living in a country) representation the tables would turn very very quickly. The UN security council should be dropped in it's current form and instead should be re-created without any permanent members or any countries power to veto the decisions. The UN was established to protect against direct military conflict, but in ordinary day to day life, peaceful competition is a greater threat to the rulers, for example harmful tax competition. One of the major goals of the EU is to restrain 'harmful tax competition. Similarly one of the major goals of the WTO is to prevent what cypherpunks call regulatory arbitrage. It is not the leaders of most countries I am afraid of. It is the leaders of a handful of countries which possess the most power and have no problem in abusing it to further their own agenda. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: Damn lucky, to be honest. No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. Oh but it is. Ah? Why? Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a court of law. You remember, Justice the thing the US supposely is standing for? Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, that it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the good guys than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the best bang for the buck but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the US Government (and thus the US Military). Two wrongs still don't make a right. What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer to your question is no. The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not according to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with the United States. Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama bin Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it done deal. Same in Japan. So what's different this time? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? Our enlightened western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those primitive cultures in the middle east). The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to defend the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest. If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. In what war has this been common practice? See above. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. What International Law says that unlawful combatants get to contact their governments in this manner? The term unlawful combatants doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say Human being instead. What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held as a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to
Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
Jim Dixon wrote: If the prisoners at Guantanamo are POWs, why should they be charged with crimes? It is no crime to be an enemy soldier. According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are unlawful enemy combattants. However, customary practice is to lock POWs up until the conflict is over. This certainly is what happened in the two world wars, at least in Europe; it also happened during the Korean and Vietnam wars. If these are members of al-Quaeda and prisoners of war, should they not be released when and only when al-Quaeda declares the conflict over? Would not a US government releasing them before the end of the war be derelict in its duty? The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus they should be released, no? If they are terrorists and they have proof of this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). If they are instead unlawful combatants because they have violated the Geneva conventions (because they have carried arms in battle but discarded them and hid among civilians, say) or if they are spies (out of uniform, engaged in espionage), is the US not being somewhat charitable in treating them as POWs? But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually convict them? If they are neither POWs nor unlawful combatants nor spies, if they are just terrorists, why is the US obliged to treat them as though they are in the United States? Presumably they were captured outside the US and were not taken into the US after capture. Why does the US military have to treat them as though they had US constitutional rights? They are not citizens or physically present in the United States. Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to be allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I might require. This right has not been given. Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly violated as well. If any of those at Guantanamo is an American citizen, then of course he should be returned to the States and tried for carrying arms against his country. Treason, isn't it? Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have been brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did anything wrong. Let us say that by agreement between the US and the Afghan government (which no one seems to deny is the rightful government of the country) terrorists captured in Afghanistan are being held in Guantanamo. Why should US law apply instead of Afghan law? It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not happening? I know for a fact that conditions in Afghan jails are nowhere near as comfortable as those in Guantanamo. May as it be, but that still doesn't make the actions of the US Government right. Or are you telling me right now that Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia are part of a humanitarian mission? An American friend of mine spent six months in a jail in Kabul. If you didn't buy food from the guards, you starved. If you bought coal from them to heat your cell -- tiny windows high in thick stone walls, so no real ventilation -- you were slowly poisoned by carbon monoxide. If you didn't, you froze. It's cold in Kabul in the winter. Bad conditions, so help the Afghani government to improve the conditions. Michael
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Anatoly Vorobey wrote: If I had record like Saddam's on me? Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured. Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob. Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and give me a haircut in front of the cameras? Boo fucking hoo. I'd be real happy about millions of bleeding hearts all over the world jerking their knees in unison, ready to cry a fucking ocean over this unbelievably cruel haircut and medical check-up I'm being given. Fucking tools. Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment. Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the enlightened western society, no? M.
Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Tyler Durden wrote: Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam would be subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get any rest until answers are provided. At least here in NYC local news, it's common to hear newsmaggots issuing leadins such as, Will the CIA be able to make Saddam talk? and so on. I think this implies the obvious, but it's an obvious that should be stated: The US public basically now generally knows that some forms of extreme measures are being applied to prisoners and detainees, and we're willing to look the other way. After all, 9/11 proves they (picture a cluster of darkish-skinned turbanned men wearing fatigues and huddling in caves) are out to take away our freedoms. so why shouldn't we do the same thing to them? I'll take it that was a rhetoric question but: Eye for an Eye and the world goes blind. Michael
Re: (No Subject)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Dec-03, at 11:10 PM, J.A. Terranson wrote: On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Anatoly Vorobey wrote: Just a few hundred dead federal goons, spread over a relatively short period (~6 months), where the attacks were obviously coordinated, made against officers enforcing particularly rancid unconstitutional laws (say the federal tax code), and without discoverable perpetrators, would result in an almost instantaneous shortage of officers available to enforce such uncontitutional laws - the survivors would simply refuse. Long fucking overdue. Of course the little thing you are overlooking is that if this would happen the Spinmeisters would manage to turn it into another terrorist treat (which in a strict sense it is) and yank even more civil rights. And knowing the majority of people: they just happily go along. Or differently: This would backfire Badly. - -- Michael On the internet, no one can see the meds you take. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP9f1N2lCnxcrW2uuEQIhdgCffEQLxYuHw5uUsUNWOiGcbksx/1EAoInz XvbIEIQ6YfSU34g/xsRT+OnU =wON0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
