|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/31/2007 11:31:15 AM · #51 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Your comments are so ignorant, Matthew, that I don't even know where to begin. Come spend a little more time over here in the Middle East and have your eyes opened. Better yet, just go into London and look at the filthy extremists that are taking over your nation so you can catch a glimpse of what your future will be like if better men than you don't put their lives on the line while your sort sits back and whines. |
Since when has reasoned argument, putting forward a proposition, elucidating one's opinion, and correcting the mischaracterizations of others been the same as whining? Since when has it been acceptable to to suggest that someone is a less good man because his opinion merely differs from someone else's?
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 12:53:46 PM · #52 |
| Nice rhetoric Louis -- especially in its emptiness. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 01:52:33 PM · #53 |
OmanOtter -- while this is rant, I am going to ask you not to make personal attacks. Failure to do so will result in action from the Site Council.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 02:20:50 PM · #54 |
better watch what you type OmanOtter,
you may be subjected to the site council. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 02:30:56 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...consider that baiting foreign Western powers is merely going to foment resentment toward Iran at best, and push those powers ever closer to armed conflict at worst. How is this good for Iran? |
Are you assuming that the goal is a result that's good for Iran? I submit that the real purpose here is to bolster public support for those in power. Historically, the best way to achieve absolute power is to find an enemy that resonates with the people. Hitler rose to power by pinning his country's misfortunes on the Jews. Bin Laden has used several "causes" to gain support: the Saudi monarchs, the Palestinians, America... whatever rallies the people to believe he stands for them.
The Iranian leadership (and Hugo Chavez, for that matter) point to America and Western countries in general as the enemy and the root of all evil. Nevermind that it's their own actions that result in isolation when their enemies also happen to be their source of wealth that they COULD be using to build better lives for themselves instead of spreading hatred.
This is the ONLY reason to broadcast hostages on television. After a trial run in 2004, the Iranians waited for a window of opportunity to grab hostages and parade them before the public. Now they'll milk this for all it's worth so it looks like they're standing up to the West. There is no chance of allowing consular access since Iran won't risk revealing the location to a potential rescue mission. The hostages will likely face a public "trial" for some ridiculous charge like spying to ratchet up pressure. Why would a handful of soldiers in uniform board a merchant ship miles off the coast in broad daylight to "spy" when a satellite can look right into their backyard? Answer: because spying will resonate with the people.
This will go on for months and diplomacy will not work at this point since relenting would signal weakness to their people. Iran is gambling that Britain and the U.S. aren't willing to engage in another war. Remember that the Iranian president was apparently involved in the 1970's hostage crisis that led to the current government. They've been down this road before.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 02:56:12 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Your comments are so ignorant, Matthew, that I don't even know where to begin. Come spend a little more time over here in the Middle East and have your eyes opened. Better yet, just go into London and look at the filthy extremists that are taking over your nation so you can catch a glimpse of what your future will be like if better men than you don't put their lives on the line while your sort sits back and whines. |
Oman,
If you would relax a little on the personal attack, I'd be interested in knowing why you think that I am so totally off target. Just "opening my eyes" doesn't tell me much and your suggestions are unhelpful since I have travelled in the ME and I live in London and am none the wiser as to your point of view.
I agree that fundamentalism is a huge problem - but being "brave" and putting my life on the line appear to be particularly poor ways of combatting it. I would think that physical opposition to a philosophical difference is highly unlikely to succeed - for example in Iraq it appears to have made the position far worse.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 03:00:36 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for the individual released from Guantanamo, was he also paraded on TV and forced to make false, public proclamations of guilt? |
I believe that after 5 years with essentially no contact with the world (including several months with no word to his family as to his whereabouts), he is planning to shout his story from the rooftops (and international tv) when he can do so.
I think that you are on a very sticky wicket if you intend to hold up Guantanamo as an example in defence of the US in an argument on human rights and the treatment of POWs.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 04:04:50 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for the individual released from Guantanamo, was he also paraded on TV and forced to make false, public proclamations of guilt? |
I believe that after 5 years with essentially no contact with the world (including several months with no word to his family as to his whereabouts), he is planning to shout his story from the rooftops (and international tv) when he can do so.
|
True, he probably is planning to tell the world, but it will be in his own words, not words stuffed in his mouth by his captors at gunpoint. |
|
|
|
03/31/2007 04:13:48 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by frisca:
OmanOtter -- while this is rant, I am going to ask you not to make personal attacks. Failure to do so will result in action from the Site Council. |
I certainly do not represent this site nor the site council, however, the phrase "your comments are ignorant" as directed to Matthew are not particularly offensive to me. However, I am also not Matthew.
After seeing OmanOtter's post, I took the time to review his profile and even read some of his other recent posts on other threads. I was so impressed with his point of view that I sent him a PM. As a serviceman in that area, I have concluded that he has a particularly accurate take on the issue at hand. Additionally, his service to this country is appreciated - at least by me.
edit to add: For me, a much more personal attack on Matthew would be comparing his views to Rosie O'Donnel (sorry Matthew). She also believes that Iran should be coddled and that "Terrorists" are our friends, that the US is behind this Iranian capture of British sailors and that the US in fact planted explosives to help facilitate the carnage on 9-11.
To merely claim that someone's views/comments are ignorant, may actually be true. A lack of knowledge is ignorance and commenting on an item that you do not know about, would qualify as ignorant. As Rosie clearly has demonstrated.
Further edit to add: Matthew took the high ground IMO with his reply to OmanOtter and sincerly requested insight as to why the feelings were so strong. I hope a reply is made.
Message edited by author 2007-03-31 16:27:00.
|
|
|
|
03/31/2007 04:51:22 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are you assuming that the goal is a result that's good for Iran? I submit that the real purpose here is to bolster public support for those in power... |
Very good points all. I had actually considered that the entire ordeal was a public relations operation, and the more one considers it, the more likely this is the case. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 12:17:01 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by frisca:
OmanOtter -- while this is rant, I am going to ask you not to make personal attacks. Failure to do so will result in action from the Site Council. |
Ok, I'll stop. But I find it duplicitous that others are allowed to make vicious attacks against my country and my President and are shielded by the Site Council, just as I find duplicitous the site council's ignoring their own Rule 4.2 regarding religious denigration in my recent objection to certain photos that clearly violate 4.2's prohibition of images that do "OR MAY" denigrate religion, etc... Please recall that when I recently objected to certain photos that do "or may" denigrate religions, the Site Council opted not to apply 4.2 and stated that the real standard for what speech will be protected and what will be censored was the law of the State of Virginia. Concluding that 4.2 was now defunct, I relied on the laws of the State of Virginia in my response to Matthew. I did not violate those laws. But, I am nevertheless being threatened with "action" by the Site Council.
What gives?
And why is it that pictures showing a knife through the Ten Commandments, a Woody Praying next to a Bible with the title "Placebo" and two t-shirts bearing inflammatory images of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed that, when published in Danish newspapers, led to riots that killed people and the whole Muslim world boycotting Danish products, are allowed to remain on the site? If you don't find that they actually denigrate religions, are they not still violations of 4.2 in that they "May" denigrate them?
Is 4.2 being applied even-handedly? Or is it being used selectively?
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 01:55:42. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 01:40:43 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for the individual released from Guantanamo, was he also paraded on TV and forced to make false, public proclamations of guilt? |
I believe that after 5 years with essentially no contact with the world (including several months with no word to his family as to his whereabouts), he is planning to shout his story from the rooftops (and international tv) when he can do so.
I think that you are on a very sticky wicket if you intend to hold up Guantanamo as an example in defence of the US in an argument on human rights and the treatment of POWs. |
This an example of where you're going wrong on the law. International Law of War is codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Any old person captured while fighting in a conflict does not just automatically get to claim Prisoner of War status and the accompanying protections of the Geneva Convention Relative to Treatment of Prisoners of War (also known as GPW for short). Article 4 of that convention sets forth the specific requirements that people fighting in a war must meet in order to be entitled to "Prisoner of War" status and claim the protections of the "GPW".
Some of the requirements include:
Wearing uniforms (so that the opponent can distinguish you from the civilian populace and not kill non-combattants by accident -- something the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not doing -- you didn't think we wore those uniforms just to get girls, did you?) Note that the Taliban in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq ignore this requirement.;
Obeying the laws of war (like wearing unifoms and not executing prisoners) - Note, this does not mean that individual violations of specific soldiers invalidates the status of the rest of the soldiers or the force overall as long as the force generally abides by the law of war and enforces it among its soldiers and punishes violations. As an example, when individual American or British soldiers commit war crimes, they are prosecuted in courts-martial.
These are just two of several requirements.
People fighting in a conflict that do not meet those specific requirements are referred-to, by the Geneva conventions as "unlawful combattants" and do not benefit from the protections of GPW.
The folks locked-up at Guantanamo are unlawful combatants, not Prisoners of War, and do not get to claim the protections of GPW.
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 01:59:15. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 01:42:42 AM · #63 |
| If britian wasn't guilty then why didn't they show the GPS first??? Who cares tho really just bring down the price of gas or go to war and take it over. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 05:43:42 AM · #64 |
(today heralded the release of another probably innocent man after 5 years of solitary confinement without trial in Guantanamo Bay).
Matthew:
If you're speaking of the Australian, how can you call him "annother probably innocent man?" 1) Who are the others?; 2) he was caught supplying arms to the Taliban to kill Americans -- an act to which he has admitted; 3) He had a trial, was presented with the evidence and plead guilty in exchange for a reduced sentence. What sort of due process did/do the Taliban, insurgents in Iraq, or Al Qaeda give to the people they capture???? |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 05:55:24 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
[quote=Flash] 15 Briton's in Iran
"Are you suggesting that we should take a leaf out of Israel's book when dealing with captured soldiers? How many Iranian lives are they worth?
Thank goodness the Iranians are not taking a leaf out of the US's book on the mental and physical torture of detainees.
Seriously - it is not as if they are being tortured, and there is at least a decent chance that they were somewhere they were not supposed to be. |
Ok, don't know why the Site Council lets you say slanderous things liket his against Israel and the U.S., but I can't say unkind things to you, but, whatever...
RE: U.S. mental and physical torture of detainees - Torture? Are you serious? Torture is like what we found in Iraq -- blood covered walls with meat hooks in the ceiling from which people were hung as Saddam's men beat them to death or a four year old boy tied to the decapitated corpse of his father and thrown into the Euphrates to drown.
Abu Ghraib may have had some violations of the Law of Armed Conflict, but they hardly amounted to torture. Moreover, the soldiers responsible were court-martialed and imprisoned.
And what makes you so sure the Iranians aren't subjecting your countrymen to mental or physical torture? At least two of them have already succumbed to whatever it is that the Iranians are doing by publicly making statements disloyal to their country (the lone female and one of the males, now, too). That's not something a military person does lightly. I'd say they are being, at a minimum, mentally abused. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 06:02:11 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
If I were being provocative, I would point out that of course the US already has the bomb, but also an extreme religious leader |
What right do you have to call him extreme? What? Anyone who believes in God these days is extreme?
Originally posted by Matthew:
willing to fight wars in the name of god and in extreme self interest, |
Empty Rhetoric
Originally posted by Matthew:
abuser of the democratic system, |
In what way?
Originally posted by Matthew:
user of torture |
Untrue
Originally posted by Matthew:
who refuses to be bound by major international treaties on the legality of war or human rights, |
Untrue. We are parties to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. What major international treaty on the law of war and human rights are you referring to? Again, empty rhetoric.
Originally posted by Matthew:
possible war criminal (but who refuses to recognise the authority of the international courts), |
Untrue. We recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court, however, has no authority over the United States because we did not ratify its treaty. As a sovereign nation, we have the right to ratify or refuse to ratify whatever treaty we wish to, just as you, as an individual citizen, have the right to sign or not sign any contract.
Originally posted by Matthew:
who has repeatedly and unilaterally breached nuclear non-proliferation treaties |
Substantiate this.
Originally posted by Matthew:
and expressed a willingness to use nuclear force. |
I haven't heard this
What more personal attack could there be than this? But, you'll apparently get away with it. I should think that this is far far more offensive than anything I said about Matthew.
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 06:13:21. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 06:20:00 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The general point I was trying to make was that when you are dealing with military forces in what you think to be your territorial waters from a nation that has expressed deep hostility to you, then capture may not sound so unreasonable.
|
Since you're so big on diplomacy, Matthew, I can tell you that what is done when another nation's ship strays into your waters is that you file a "Demarche" with their Embassy in your country and via your embassy in their country. If that doesn't resolve it, a complaint can be filed with the United Nations. What you don't do, is take their sailors hostage at gunpoint. Iran did this a few years ago, as well (2004, I believe).
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 06:20:26. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 07:19:05 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Matthew, speaking generally, I'm sure you would agree that the possibility exists for a regime to be inherently bad, in the sense that its government or even its raison d'être is inimical to its environment, its people, its international community, or the world in general. As an obvious example, who could argue but that Germany from 1933 to 1945 was "bad". Perhaps you could also agree that Zimbabwe's current regime is "bad" for its people. |
I see what you are saying - I'd like to explore it a little further.
"Bad" is a difficult word - like "good", it means different things to different people (ie it is subjective). To boot, it is an adjective with many many meanings and uses.
You suggest that a regime can be inherently bad. I find that hard to agree with in a couple of ways. First, since whether something is good or bad is subjective, I don't think that it can be inherent because IMO for something to be inherent it must be bad to all people (ie objective) and it is not. Secondly, people or human institutions do a lot of things: while some may be bad, they are never all bad and therefore, even though an institution may do bad things, it cannot be inherently bad.
So â if it is not inherently bad, could it be going through a patch of being âbadâ? I think that this impacts on another area of subjectivity.
When deciding whether an act is good or bad the decision may be different depending on what group of people you apply the decision to: by way of (extreme) example, one could argue that for the Aryan race, Germany from 1933 to 1945 was good. The reason we consider it âbadâ is because restricting the group to just Aryans is in most peopleâs views (mine included) inappropriate.
With Iran, what makes up the relevant group? I would say principally Iranians. Their government should act in their best interests as a whole. Iran is in a peculiar position at the moment: I would say that it is one of the nationâs main interests that they avoid an Iraq-like invasion (because hundreds of thousands of dead would be wholly contrary to their interests). Other significant issues in a nationâs interest are economic prosperity and (IMO) recognition of human rights. Incidentally, these national interests do not sit happily with individual self-interest, highlighting the importance of accountability.
Iran is choosing a particular course: its capture of the sailors is probably intended as an aspect of the policy to avoid invasion and assert political dominance. The nuclear policy is another example of the same. They are balanced against the economic barriers introduced by the West in sanctions. My own view is that the sailor capture is a heavily flawed tactic â and one that Iran will have to take steps to reverse quickly (and diplomacy is working towards this). However, I donât think that it is a sign of âevilâ.
Factors where the Iranian government are fail include the democratic deficit, policies on women, the breakdown of the rule of law. However, I do not think that these failures are comparable to the genocidal repression that took place in Germany in the 1930s or modern Zimbabwe, or a half dozen other states. Allegations of evil are, IMO, very premature.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 07:24:50 AM · #69 |
Matthew:
How about arming children with plastic keys, telling them that these keys are the keys to heaven, and sending them running across minefields in order to clear them for the Iranian military that followed behind? This happened in the Iran-Iraq war. Would that be evil? |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 11:45:41 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
You suggest that a regime can be inherently bad. I find that hard to agree with in a couple of ways. First, since whether something is good or bad is subjective, I don't think that it can be inherent because IMO for something to be inherent it must be bad to all people (ie objective) and it is not. Secondly, people or human institutions do a lot of things: while some may be bad, they are never all bad and therefore, even though an institution may do bad things, it cannot be inherently bad. |
I accept all of this. Examples you cite may make things clearer, because whereas it's useful to define one's terms accurately, there's something to be said for the brevity that comes with common use. For example:
Originally posted by Matthew:
When deciding whether an act is good or bad the decision may be different depending on what group of people you apply the decision to: by way of (extreme) example, one could argue that for the Aryan race, Germany from 1933 to 1945 was good. The reason we consider it âbadâ is because restricting the group to just Aryans is in most peopleâs views (mine included) inappropriate. |
Not the best example, considering the "scorched earth" policy at the end of the war, something clearly designed for nobody's benefit, being universally detrimental to Germany, its people, and its enemies. Ultimately not good for Aryans, or anyone else. Even the day-to-day workings of the government, setting aside its unstoppable course to war, was bad for Germans, if for no other reason than that they were made pariah in the rest of the world by the policies of the regime. (The experience of my parents and other family members on emigrating to Canada in the forties and fifties substantiates this.)
Originally posted by Matthew:
Other significant issues in a nationâs interest are economic prosperity and (IMO) recognition of human rights. Incidentally, these national interests do not sit happily with individual self-interest, highlighting the importance of accountability. |
I think this is the point, that individual self-interest in the persons of the ruling elite has trumped both accountability in this regime and national interest. Why else would opposition be so mercilessly crushed in the country, if not for the dictatorial paranoia of the Supreme Islamic Council?
It's truly a matter of perspective, and it's difficult to withdraw entirely from it. Someone like me, who lives in the West and simply reads the news, can only ogle at this spectacle, and watch slack-jawed as Iran makes one seemingly stupid move after another.
The regime is irretrievably bad in this respect, and I personally think it's doomed. But I'm not confusing "bad" with "evil", nor have I lost the sense of perspective required to understand how differently "bad" can be interpreted. The foreign policy of Iran is flawed, since it's so innately bellicose and hostile; it is the foreign policy of a country that could well determine its future. Its policy is executed by a small group of people and fronted by an anti-semitic Holocaust denier who may or may not have had connections with the US hostage crisis. Aside from delivering government services to its people (when not obliterating opposition), there is little to be found in Iran that is good. (We're not talking culture, or about Iranians - that is, those not calling for the blood of British sailors in the streets anyway - but the ruling elite that imposes its narrow will on the country and exercises its flawed foreign policy.)
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, I do not think that these failures are comparable to the genocidal repression that took place in Germany in the 1930s or modern Zimbabwe, or a half dozen other states. |
Well, I was using Germany and Zimbabwe as examples of what could be agreed on as "bad", and wasn't making direct comparisons with Iran. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 01:16:02 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
You suggest that a regime can be inherently bad. I find that hard to agree with in a couple of ways. First, since whether something is good or bad is subjective, I don't think that it can be inherent because IMO for something to be inherent it must be bad to all people (ie objective) and it is not. Secondly, people or human institutions do a lot of things: while some may be bad, they are never all bad and therefore, even though an institution may do bad things, it cannot be inherently bad.
|
How can you say that good and bad are subjective? You've said that the Third Reich was not inherently bad because it was good for Aryans. By that logic, cannibalism is not inherently bad, either, because it's tasty to the cannibal, rape is enjoyable to the rapist, murder is enjoyable to the psycho-killer, stealing gives a thrill to the shoplifter, making money makes the drug dealer happy, etc... It's all relative! I'm ok, you're ok! That kind of amorality is not useful.
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 13:19:57. |
|
|
|
04/01/2007 05:19:48 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
How can you say that good and bad are subjective? You've said that the Third Reich was not inherently bad because it was good for Aryans. By that logic, cannibalism is not inherently bad, either, because it's tasty to the cannibal, rape is enjoyable to the rapist, murder is enjoyable to the psycho-killer, stealing gives a thrill to the shoplifter, making money makes the drug dealer happy, etc... It's all relative! I'm ok, you're ok! That kind of amorality is not useful. |
Oman,
it will take me a bit of time to respond to your many points - I am a bit pressed for time at the moment.
On this point: whether something is good or bad is highly subjective. You have taken a number of extreme points and proved the point: to some, drug dealing can be good. It is therefore subjective - the act of drug dealing is not inherently bad.
People who say that there is an objective truth are speaking about their own morality and denying the existence of other moralities - but since there is no touchstone, we cannot determine whether they are correct or not.
What we can say is that certain acts are bad in certain contexts and by reference to certain standards. In Western society, in respect of hard drugs, drug dealing is a cause for crime and incapacity that acts to the general economic detriment of non-drug abusing society. By those standards we can identify it as undesireable and, colloquially, "bad".
In the context of a multiple sclerosis sufferer and the provision of otherwise illegal drugs by prescription, we might say that the act of drug dealing is merciful and "good" - by reference to the changed circumstances.
Our assessment is subjective.
To draw useful moral standards, you could review the activity in the context of an appropriate group of people (say, a nation) and determine "good" or "bad" by detriment against some method of measurement.
An alternative is to do this unconsciously by relying on your gut feeling to carry out this analysis (but be unable to explain your reasoning) or to adopt someone else's rationale (for example those provided by various religions). I would argue that these two examples provide unhelpful "moral" guidance, whereas my approach offers a helpful analysis.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 05:37:02 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Not the best example, considering the "scorched earth" policy at the end of the war, something clearly designed for nobody's benefit, being universally detrimental to Germany, its people, and its enemies. Ultimately not good for Aryans, or anyone else. Even the day-to-day workings of the government, setting aside its unstoppable course to war, was bad for Germans, if for no other reason than that they were made pariah in the rest of the world by the policies of the regime. (The experience of my parents and other family members on emigrating to Canada in the forties and fifties substantiates this.) |
I am not sure how your analysis of my example defines the point: if you are arguing that a nation or policy or group of people can be inherently bad, then it should be self evident that the pursuit of one policy for a short period (even if that policy is irredemiable) does not make them inherently bad - just that they pursued a bad policy for a period of time.
Originally posted by Louis:
I think this is the point, that individual self-interest in the persons of the ruling elite has trumped both accountability in this regime and national interest. Why else would opposition be so mercilessly crushed in the country, if not for the dictatorial paranoia of the Supreme Islamic Council?
...
The foreign policy of Iran is flawed, since it's so innately bellicose and hostile; it is the foreign policy of a country that could well determine its future. Its policy is executed by a small group of people and fronted by an anti-semitic Holocaust denier who may or may not have had connections with the US hostage crisis. Aside from delivering government services to its people (when not obliterating opposition), there is little to be found in Iran that is good. (We're not talking culture, or about Iranians - that is, those not calling for the blood of British sailors in the streets anyway - but the ruling elite that imposes its narrow will on the country and exercises its flawed foreign policy.) |
I agree that the ruling elite are objectionable from a Western point of view on many fronts.
Bear in mind that the Iranians calling for the blood of the invading English have been fed a particular media spin - but then also that we are being fed political spin. IMO they are no more evil than the people on this site who call vehemently for Iran's immediate nuclear obliteration.
In terms of bellicosity and the concerns of the elite trumping those of the electorate, I would still maintain that the US in particular suffers the same issues.
Ahmajinebad does of course have his own difficulties at home: he has not delivered the economic prosperity that he promised when voted into power and warmongering and shows of strength are popularist - again, IMO, GWB engaged in war in Iraq for the same reasons.
I also think that it is politically convenient for our governments to cast Iran as the sole problem maker and to ignore our part in stirring up military discontent in the region.
Originally posted by Louis:
I was using Germany and Zimbabwe as examples of what could be agreed on as "bad", and wasn't making direct comparisons with Iran. |
I was using your examples to make the comparison and draw out a distinction: Iran does not reach those levels of objectionability.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 06:25:48 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
What right do you have to call him extreme? What? Anyone who believes in God these days is extreme? |
There are very few national leaders who will explain their policies by reference to what god has told them to do.
But a quick search will bring up various examples, such as:
"President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq â¦" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
I would argue that a leader who acts on god's word is on the extreme side of religiosity.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
abuser of the democratic system, |
In what way? |
Various ways, but one example would be abuse of the electoral system in the first election, others would be misleading the houses of representatives and the public on the intelligence for WMDs.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
user of torture |
Untrue |
//www.airtorture.com
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
who refuses to be bound by major international treaties on the legality of war or human rights, |
Untrue. We are parties to the Hague and Geneva Conventions. What major international treaty on the law of war and human rights are you referring to? Again, empty rhetoric. |
The US rejects International Criminal Court jurisdiction.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
possible war criminal (but who refuses to recognise the authority of the international courts), |
Untrue. We recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court, however, has no authority over the United States because we did not ratify its treaty. As a sovereign nation, we have the right to ratify or refuse to ratify whatever treaty we wish to, just as you, as an individual citizen, have the right to sign or not sign any contract. |
[/quote]
So you accept that the US rejects the jurisdiction of the ICC - my point, I think.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Originally posted by Matthew:
who has repeatedly and unilaterally breached nuclear non-proliferation treaties |
Substantiate this. |
In pursuit of new nuclear technologies and failing to liquidate existing stickpiles in breach of Article VI.
Originally posted by Matthew:
and expressed a willingness to use nuclear force. |
I haven't heard this[/quote]
I believe that a number of states have asserted a willingness to use nuclear force against rogue states - unfortunately the wiki on the subject has no references on point.
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
If you're speaking of the Australian, how can you call him "annother probably innocent man?" |
I was talking about the British man .
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
What more personal attack could there be than this? But, you'll apparently get away with it. I should think that this is far far more offensive than anything I said about Matthew. |
You do take offense very easily. I have justified my criticisms against Mr Bush and the policies of the US (even if you disagree with them). Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of letting me know how you came to know enough about me to conclude that I am ignorant, or the sort who just sits back and whines?
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 18:26:31.
|
|
|
|
04/01/2007 06:34:39 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Ok, don't know why the Site Council lets you say slanderous things liket his against Israel and the U.S., but I can't say unkind things to you, but, whatever... |
Are you suggesting that political opposition should in some way be curtailed - perhaps in the name of freedom (to be issued by minipax)?
The reason is because it is fair game to criticise the actions of nation states. Indeed, it is essential for democracy to work. Because of the media, we all get to hear a certain amount about our nations and can reach our own reasoned conclusions about their actions. However, I suspect that you know a little less about me and your conclusions are a little less reasoned.
By attacking me, rather than the points made, you effect an ad hominem. Apart from being generally distasteful and breach of the DPC rules, it is something to be avoided because most people reading it will/should realise it for what it is and it will weaken your argument and reputation, not strengthen it.
Message edited by author 2007-04-01 18:35:05.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 09:35:40 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/17/2025 09:35:40 AM EDT.
|
