Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Western Europe becoming more and more anti-American?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   


America has always taken the case of the Iraqi people and even though we have Saddam captured he has been treated with full honor........granted to him by the Geneva Convention

Of all your rantings, this is by far the most offensive and hypocritical. Parading Saddam in his tighty whities on the front of the New York Post is a breach of the Geneva conventions. Using the images of his dead sons for propaganda while crying foul when Iraqi's did the same. Never mind the legal swerving involved to create Guantanmo, never mind Abu Ghraib.



That has to be one of the most telling (and accurate) posts I've seen in days. The Geneva Convention was virtually ignored during that entire debacle, sadly.

Anyway. It's becoming more and more evident that if we ("we" being "us" in a generic, "humans living on this planet" type of thing) are to make any moves towards lasting freedom and peace, then attitudes are going to have to change, and change drastically. That cannot happen until we lose the seemingly pandemic attitude that "it's us against them".

It's not us versus them

We are them.

And they are us.

The sooner we start to recognise - and more importantly, act upon - that notion, the sooner we can start behaving like civilized humans. Sure, "they" have to do the same - I'm not saying for one second that the Allies/whoever are the only ones at fault here - but it has to start somewhere.

Why must we wait?




posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

The sooner we start to recognise - and more importantly, act upon - that notion, the sooner we can start behaving like civilized humans. Sure, "they" have to do the same - I'm not saying for one second that the Allies/whoever are the only ones at fault here - but it has to start somewhere.


And while you sit here preaching about peace, more people around the world are tortured and slaughtered by their corrupt governments...

There are a lot of things worse then war, and leaving guys like Saddam in power is one of them.


JAK

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There are a lot of things worse then war, and leaving guys like Saddam in power is one of them.


So actually putting him there in the first place must be even worse.

Jak



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   


And while you sit here preaching about peace, more people around the world are tortured and slaughtered by their corrupt governments...


(I wasn't exactly preaching - but if you think I'm good enough, I suppose I could start a home business...)

You're assuming that talking about peace means doing nothing about torture and slaughter? On the contrary. It is possible to do both - that is, to support a peace process, and still campaign against human rights violations.

You should check it out sometime. It's not a bad way to pass your time.

I don't think I need to point out the multitude of human rights organizations just clamouring for more people to join their fights against torture.

And yes, there are worse things than war.

Apathy is one of them.

Edited for code diarrhea.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by JAK

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
There are a lot of things worse then war, and leaving guys like Saddam in power is one of them.


So actually putting him there in the first place must be even worse.

Jak



LMAO!!!! Ahh man there you go using logic and reason again. Will you ever learn??



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

So actually putting him there in the first place must be even worse.


America didn't put Saddam in power. And in spite of what many liberals would like to believe, America didn't put every other dictator in power, either.


You're assuming that talking about peace means doing nothing about torture and slaughter? On the contrary. It is possible to do both - that is, to support a peace process, and still campaign against human rights violations.



Really? What else has worked? Sanctions are the only other action to take against corrupt governments, and they just hurt the people more in the end.


I don't think I need to point out the multitude of human rights organizations just clamouring for more people to join their fights against torture


Talking is all those groups can do, and the only thing that ever comes out of their actions are talks of sanctions.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Disturbed - I can only guess that you're not familiar with the multitude of political prisoners, torture victims, etc etc, who've been freed in part because of intervention by such groups?

Seriously?

Observing AI, HumanRightsWatch, ICT, for example....there are many, many examples of how freedom can be obtained without firepower.

Having said that, I'm painfully aware that these groups - AI in particular, at the moment - are ridiculed and/or frowned upon by many. I'm not asking anyone to support their cause....but yes, it would be a nice change if their work - and their successess - could be acknowledged once in awhile.

S'all.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Talking is all those groups can do, and the only thing that ever comes out of their actions are talks of sanctions.



I seem to remember Donald Runsfield citing Amnesty International back in early 2003. One of the reasons used to justify your little mid-east jaunt were the human rights abuses in Iraq, as reported by Amnesty.

So now they come after you, and their opinion is worthless? Smacks of double standards to me!!

Keep digging Disturbed, that hole is getting nice and deep now.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Disturbed - I can only guess that you're not familiar with the multitude of political prisoners, torture victims, etc etc, who've been freed in part because of intervention by such groups?


First, I'm not aware of too many instances where they've changed anything alone. The only reason anyone would listen to them is because they can get nations to possibly take economic action. And when have they ever brought about wide sweeping changes in a nation?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

The only reason anyone would listen to them is because they can get nations to possibly take economic action.



This is true enough. Walk softly but carry a big stick. How effective do you think AI are going to be now, as America has more or less said their opinion can be ignored?

Now every country that was under international scrutiny for human rights abuses can invoke the magic word "terrorist" to justify their actions. They can say "But, America is doing it? Why can't we?". Just like the excuses Sharon used to step up his campaign in the middle east. He was after the dreaded "terrorists" as well....



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Just like the excuses Sharon used to step up his campaign in the middle east. He was after the dreaded "terrorists" as well....


Violence flared up in the region before 9/11 and the War on Terror. Sorry, but you'll have to find another way to bring Israel into this topic.


Now every country that was under international scrutiny for human rights abuses can invoke the magic word "terrorist" to justify their actions. They can say "But, America is doing it? Why can't we?"


You know, for people who like throwing around accusations of ignorance so much, you guys sure are naive.

Do you honestly think the world of politics is like that? The world is run on rhetoric, it's run on power. Other nations won't get away with that behavior because they aren't the world's strongest nation. A pretext for the people isn't good enough for other nations, and if you tried that, and America (or any nations stronger then you) had serious objections, you'd be screwed.


This is true enough. Walk softly but carry a big stick. How effective do you think AI are going to be now, as America has more or less said their opinion can be ignored?


About as effective as they were before? I'm sorry, but it takes their full resources to win even a victory against some petty dictator. Getting one person out of jail in a third world hellhole doesn't change anything about the basic political structure in that nation, and for that one guy released, they've probably taken in a few dozen more people.

Besides that, America has been ignoring groups like this for a lot longer then Bush. They're always bitching about America.

Once again, every nation does not play by the same rules. The world isn't all nice and fair.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

Other nations won't get away with that behavior because they aren't the world's strongest nation.



Yup. The perfect summation of the entire problem. 'Nuff said.....



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   


Sorry, but you'll have to find another way to bring Israel into this topic.


I'd rather not bring in the whole Israeli mess as well, but it served as the best example of how the world stage changed after 9/11.

The point I was making was, up to that point, any country that had rebels or freedom fighters fighting oppresive regimes suddenly had carte blanche from the world community to crush those rebellions, as long as it invoked the magic "terrorist" word.




Besides that, America has been ignoring groups like this for a lot longer then Bush. They're always bitching about America.



I love the way you glossed over my point about Donald Rumsfield. Seems you, same as Rummy and Co. ignore comments which aren't beneficial to your agenda.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Terrorist have been hating America way before Abu Garib and they will continue to hate us no matter what we do. You guys are so naive you think its that simple we close Gitmo and they say “ ...oh wow much better we can stop this whole jihad against American now see you later” C'mon use you brain!

Do you guys remember Somalia, where were those soldiers rights, were was their proper treatment, where was the international outrage at how they were treated? Pure BS.
Terrorist and our enemies will always treat our soldiers/citizen worse then we can imagine no matter what we do, they don't care.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Terrorist have been hating America way before Abu Garib and they will continue to hate us no matter what we do. You guys are so naive you think its that simple we close Gitmo and they say “ ...oh wow much better we can stop this whole jihad against American now see you later” C'mon use you brain!


As long as there is oil and duct tape to be sold, the jihad will never end.



Do you guys remember Somalia, where were those soldiers rights, were was their proper treatment, where was the international outrage at how they were treated? Pure BS.
Terrorist and our enemies will always treat our soldiers/citizen worse then we can imagine no matter what we do, they don't care.


Well the thing is, America as a supposedly civilized country, is held to much higher standards than some tin-pot dictator or terrorist group.

We expect terrorists to act this way. Why do you feel the need to sink to their level?



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Everybody needs a little time away, I heard her say, from each other.

Even lover’s need a holiday far away from each other.




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 04:18 AM
link   

I'd rather not bring in the whole Israeli mess as well, but it served as the best example of how the world stage changed after 9/11.


Except nothing changed for Israel after 9/11.


The point I was making was, up to that point, any country that had rebels or freedom fighters fighting oppresive regimes suddenly had carte blanche from the world community to crush those rebellions, as long as it invoked the magic "terrorist" word.


And as I stated, this doesn't work in the real world. Which natino has actually changed their actions based off any sort of War on Terror?


I love the way you glossed over my point about Donald Rumsfield. Seems you, same as Rummy and Co. ignore comments which aren't beneficial to your agenda.


If you took a look, that post was just two minutes before one of mine. I didn't gloss over it, I simply missed it.


I seem to remember Donald Runsfield citing Amnesty International back in early 2003. One of the reasons used to justify your little mid-east jaunt were the human rights abuses in Iraq, as reported by Amnesty.


I'm sure we really needed to cite AI to show Iraq's human rights violations, which had already been well documented...


So now they come after you, and their opinion is worthless? Smacks of double standards to me!!


As I've already said, the world isn't run on rhetoric or what's fair, but what's convenient for the powerful. Europe should be greatful at how kind America truly is, because they sure as hell weren't that kind when, or aren't when they're given power.


We expect terrorists to act this way. Why do you feel the need to sink to their level?


We haven't. Anyone who could classify what the pictures of Abu Ghraib showed as torture is living in a fantasy world. None of the interrogation techniques shown to have been used are in fact torture in any sane persons mind. It's a lot of hype, but it has no base.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   


And as I stated, this doesn't work in the real world.


What world are you living in? I am begining to question whether it is worth going round in round in circles with you, but for the sake of the one or two braincells which may begin to spark in you or others reading, one more time for the hell of it!



I'm sure we really needed to cite AI to show Iraq's human rights violations, which had already been well documented...


Outside of AI, who was documenting human rights violations? That you reckon are worth listening to?



As I've already said, the world isn't run on rhetoric or what's fair, but what's convenient for the powerful.


I agree wholeheartedly. The question is why are we butting heads over things like who is anti-who and all the time the guys with the power are trading lives and blood for money and oil. I can see the strings attached, as many in Europe do, if you can see them too then maybe we can agree and do something about it?



Europe should be greatful at how kind America truly is, because they sure as hell weren't that kind when, or aren't when they're given power.


America's kindness is really apparent to those in Iraq right now. Just know that America exists at the behest of institutions resident in Europe, but with no ties or loyalty to Europe!



We haven't. Anyone who could classify what the pictures of Abu Ghraib showed as torture is living in a fantasy world. None of the interrogation techniques shown to have been used are in fact torture in any sane persons mind. It's a lot of hype, but it has no base.


When the rest of the story comes out, history will have a different tale to tell I think. The line between interrogation and torture is thin indeed. Often in countries to which the US has been exporting "information resources" (i.e. detainees) it is non-existant.

The only fact is if they were to do what the US did to them and take photos of it we would be hearing about ab nauseatum......double standards and different worlds. Keep digging....



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Terrorist have been hating America way before Abu Garib and they will continue to hate us no matter what we do. You guys are so naive you think its that simple we close Gitmo and they say “ ...oh wow much better we can stop this whole jihad against American now see you later” C'mon use you brain!


You call people naive when you actually believe Arabs hate us for our freedoms? They hate us because we can't stop [edit] around with their countries. Not to mention supplying Israel with the made in America equipment to kill Palestinians. But no they hate us for our feedoms.




Jak

[edit on 14/6/05 by JAK]



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

When the rest of the story comes out, history will have a different tale to tell I think. The line between interrogation and torture is thin indeed. Often in countries to which the US has been exporting "information resources" (i.e. detainees) it is non-existant.


The only thing history will remember is how America won their war in Iraq.


The only fact is if they were to do what the US did to them and take photos of it we would be hearing about ab nauseatum......double standards and different worlds. Keep digging....


Really? There are entire videos you can go pick up that are nothing but Saddam's men recording real torture, like throwing people off buildings, and hanging them by their limbs for days.

For some reason, that hasn't been the headline for any newspaper. But then papers like the New York Times run over 50 frontpage stories on Abu Ghraib.


America's kindness is really apparent to those in Iraq right now. Just know that America exists at the behest of institutions resident in Europe, but with no ties or loyalty to Europe!


America's kindness is apparent in Iraq. The fact that we've stayed to help them build a stable government while loosing lives of our own only shows that kindness. The fact that we've given them freedom, and a democracy shows our kindness.

And what loyalty should we have to Europe? Europe is only free today because of America, while America had to fight its way out of Europe's control to become free in the first place.


I agree wholeheartedly. The question is why are we butting heads over things like who is anti-who and all the time the guys with the power are trading lives and blood for money and oil. I can see the strings attached, as many in Europe do, if you can see them too then maybe we can agree and do something about it?


Because the great evil in this world isn't the corporations who start a war for money. Sorry, but if a war ultimately does good, it doesn't matter what the reasons it started were. It doesn't matter if the nation that started it benefits. The Iraq war is one in which both sides will gain in the end, and that doesn't America evil or immoral.

If America ever starts invading and colonizing the world as Europe did, then maybe I'll reconsider.


Outside of AI, who was documenting human rights violations? That you reckon are worth listening to?


The Iraqis who all fled Saddam? Congress? The CIA? We know he gassed his own people. We had high ranking officials from Saddam's government defect. We have millions of Iraqi exiles around the world.

We don't need some internation organization to tell us which governments are abusive to their people.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def