PDA

View Full Version : 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging conflict in 50 years


Hank
June 5th 04, 01:42 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311

Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging
conflict in 50 years
By Kim Sengupta
27 May 2004


Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained
attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and
Britain, Amnesty International says.

The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused the
US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies
"bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".

The American government is charged with "sacrificing human rights in the
name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, using
pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses". This draconian
approach, Amnesty says, has "damaged justice and freedom, and made the world
a more dangerous place".

In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were
killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores of
women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after the
war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."

The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and to
provide food, medical care and relief assistance".

While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was taken
to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.

Three years after the 11 September attacks, Amnesty paints a picture of
governments around the world using "security" as an excuse to authorise
killings and torture, introduce repressive legistlation and exploit people's
fears and prejudices. These regimes, the report says, have behaved with
impunity under the cloak of America's own global campaign against those it
considers its enemies, and the results are instances of injustice such as
the prisoners held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Hundreds of
other detainees from 40 countries are also incarcerated in Afghanistan and
Iraq.

"The photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is the logical consequence
of the pursuit of the war on terror by the United States since 9/11," Irene
Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty, said.

Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
charges.

Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
asylum-seekers.

And while international focus has been on the Iraq war, the report says,
attention has been diverted from other bloody conflicts and human rights
abuses in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and
Nepal, which remain "a breeding ground for some of the worst activities".

The report concludes: "The current framework of international law and
multilateral action is undergoing the most sustained attack since half a
century ago. Human rights and humanitarian law is being directly challenged
.... In the name of the 'war on terror', governments are eroding human rights
principles, standards and values.".



-


http://www.911forthetruth.com/united_states_district_court.htm
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/
http://www.septembereleventh.org/
http://www.hermes-press.com/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

Dick Cheney: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam
Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." August 26, 2002.

Ari Fleischer: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
January 9, 2003.

Colin Powell: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep
his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
February 5, 2003.

Donald Rumsfeld: "We know where they are," about these weapons.
"They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." March 30, 2003.

George W. Bush: "We have sources that tell us that Saddam
Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical
weapons." February 8, 2003.

George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments
leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." March 17, 2003.


"I think this is the worst government the US has ever
had in its more than 200 years of history. It has
engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not
only in foreign policy and economics but also in social
and environmental policy.....This is not normal government
policy. Now is the time for people to engage in civil
disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as
possible....What we have here is a form of looting."
- George A. Akerlof, 2001 Nobel prize laureate economist

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/


"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...


"Personally, I don't think all the Iraqis on earth are
worth even a single American life." - A usenet rabid
right wing extremist terrorist.

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 02:19 AM
(CNN) -- A U.N. report released Friday on human rights in Iraq's
post-Saddam Hussein era found some violations committed by U.S.-led
coalition troops, including prisoner abuse, which it called a "stain"
on the effort to foster freedom.

But the 45-page document stressed that "the removal of Saddam Hussein
must be counted a major contribution to human rights in Iraq" and said
the coalition has made strides in planting human rights during its
occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/04/un.humanrights/index.html

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 02:19 AM
(CNN) -- A U.N. report released Friday on human rights in Iraq's
post-Saddam Hussein era found some violations committed by U.S.-led
coalition troops, including prisoner abuse, which it called a "stain"
on the effort to foster freedom.

But the 45-page document stressed that "the removal of Saddam Hussein
must be counted a major contribution to human rights in Iraq" and said
the coalition has made strides in planting human rights during its
occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/04/un.humanrights/index.html

Peter Webb
June 5th 04, 07:54 AM
> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
> result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were
> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
of
> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
the
> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."
>

Gee whiz, "hundreds of civilians killed in liberating Iraq". Makes the
300,000 bodies in mass graves that have been dug up in Iraq and the 500,000
that Amnesty itself estimates Saddam killed pale into insignificance.

> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
to
> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".
>
> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
taken
> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.
>

> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> charges.
>
> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
> asylum-seekers.
>

14 people detained without trial may not seem like a lot in the context of
world-wide crimes against humanity.
But the point here is that these 14 people are being detained by white
people - Europeans - people like you and me - people who should know better.
Really, having mass executions and imprisonment in Africa and North Korea is
bad, but these are done by coloured folk who know no better. The 14
detentions without trial are being done by white people, so clearly a
completely different moral standard applies.

Peter Webb
June 5th 04, 07:54 AM
> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
> result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were
> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
of
> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
the
> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."
>

Gee whiz, "hundreds of civilians killed in liberating Iraq". Makes the
300,000 bodies in mass graves that have been dug up in Iraq and the 500,000
that Amnesty itself estimates Saddam killed pale into insignificance.

> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
to
> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".
>
> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
taken
> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.
>

> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> charges.
>
> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
> asylum-seekers.
>

14 people detained without trial may not seem like a lot in the context of
world-wide crimes against humanity.
But the point here is that these 14 people are being detained by white
people - Europeans - people like you and me - people who should know better.
Really, having mass executions and imprisonment in Africa and North Korea is
bad, but these are done by coloured folk who know no better. The 14
detentions without trial are being done by white people, so clearly a
completely different moral standard applies.

Lester Long
June 5th 04, 12:24 PM
"Hank" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311
>
> Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging
> conflict in 50 years
> By Kim Sengupta
> 27 May 2004
>
>
> Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained
> attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and
> Britain, Amnesty International says.
>
> The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused the
> US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies
> "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".

Self-defense for act of war.

> The American government is charged with "sacrificing human rights in the
> name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, using
> pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses". This draconian
> approach, Amnesty says, has "damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world
> a more dangerous place".

Madrid, Pentagon, US Embassies in Africa, Shoe Bomber, WTC attack #1, Attack
#2 (9/11), USS Cole. These "made the world a more dangerous place."

> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
> result of bombing by the US and Britain

I guess they are still ahead, then.


, it says. "Many civilians were
> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
of
> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
the
> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."

So, it's our fault that the Islams abducted, raped and killed women? And
the torture statement is waay out of line. My uncle was fighting the front
in Italy as a paratrooper. Believe me, the Axis didn't point at POWs
genitals.


> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
to
> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".


For the life of me I still don't understand "international law". What is
it? Who are its "police"?

> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
taken
> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.

So, we capture the murdered of hundreds of thousands, but we haven't yet
addressed his human rights violations, genocide, etc.? What about the
thanks for the capture?


> Three years after the 11 September attacks, Amnesty paints a picture of
> governments around the world using "security" as an excuse to authorise
> killings and torture, introduce repressive legistlation and exploit
people's
> fears and prejudices. These regimes, the report says, have behaved with
> impunity under the cloak of America's own global campaign against those it
> considers its enemies, and the results are instances of injustice such as
> the prisoners held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Hundreds of
> other detainees from 40 countries are also incarcerated in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.


The Amnesty are a bunch of assholes. People, I saw the towers fall. If you
didn't see it, well, STFU.


> "The photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is the logical
consequence
> of the pursuit of the war on terror by the United States since 9/11,"
Irene
> Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty, said.


No, ****. The war on terror started as a response to systemic, long term
acts of war by Islamic terrorists.


> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> charges.


If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare to
the acts of war committed by the terrorists.


> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
> asylum-seekers.


So, much of the free world?


> And while international focus has been on the Iraq war, the report says,
> attention has been diverted from other bloody conflicts and human rights
> abuses in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and
> Nepal, which remain "a breeding ground for some of the worst activities".

So, we try to stop one enemy, and we'd criticized for it, and then we're
attacked for not doing anything to "a breeding ground for some of the worst
activities".

> The report concludes: "The current framework of international law and
> multilateral action is undergoing the most sustained attack since half a
> century ago. Human rights and humanitarian law is being directly
challenged
> ... In the name of the 'war on terror', governments are eroding human
rights
> principles, standards and values.".

Was it not 14 years that the UN had its thumb up its ass re Iraq?

Regards,
Lester

Lester Long
June 5th 04, 12:24 PM
"Hank" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311
>
> Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging
> conflict in 50 years
> By Kim Sengupta
> 27 May 2004
>
>
> Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained
> attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and
> Britain, Amnesty International says.
>
> The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused the
> US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies
> "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".

Self-defense for act of war.

> The American government is charged with "sacrificing human rights in the
> name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad, using
> pre-emptive military force where and when it chooses". This draconian
> approach, Amnesty says, has "damaged justice and freedom, and made the
world
> a more dangerous place".

Madrid, Pentagon, US Embassies in Africa, Shoe Bomber, WTC attack #1, Attack
#2 (9/11), USS Cole. These "made the world a more dangerous place."

> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
> result of bombing by the US and Britain

I guess they are still ahead, then.


, it says. "Many civilians were
> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
of
> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
the
> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."

So, it's our fault that the Islams abducted, raped and killed women? And
the torture statement is waay out of line. My uncle was fighting the front
in Italy as a paratrooper. Believe me, the Axis didn't point at POWs
genitals.


> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
to
> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".


For the life of me I still don't understand "international law". What is
it? Who are its "police"?

> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
taken
> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.

So, we capture the murdered of hundreds of thousands, but we haven't yet
addressed his human rights violations, genocide, etc.? What about the
thanks for the capture?


> Three years after the 11 September attacks, Amnesty paints a picture of
> governments around the world using "security" as an excuse to authorise
> killings and torture, introduce repressive legistlation and exploit
people's
> fears and prejudices. These regimes, the report says, have behaved with
> impunity under the cloak of America's own global campaign against those it
> considers its enemies, and the results are instances of injustice such as
> the prisoners held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Hundreds of
> other detainees from 40 countries are also incarcerated in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.


The Amnesty are a bunch of assholes. People, I saw the towers fall. If you
didn't see it, well, STFU.


> "The photographs of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners is the logical
consequence
> of the pursuit of the war on terror by the United States since 9/11,"
Irene
> Khan, the secretary general of Amnesty, said.


No, ****. The war on terror started as a response to systemic, long term
acts of war by Islamic terrorists.


> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> charges.


If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare to
the acts of war committed by the terrorists.


> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
> asylum-seekers.


So, much of the free world?


> And while international focus has been on the Iraq war, the report says,
> attention has been diverted from other bloody conflicts and human rights
> abuses in Chechnya, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and
> Nepal, which remain "a breeding ground for some of the worst activities".

So, we try to stop one enemy, and we'd criticized for it, and then we're
attacked for not doing anything to "a breeding ground for some of the worst
activities".

> The report concludes: "The current framework of international law and
> multilateral action is undergoing the most sustained attack since half a
> century ago. Human rights and humanitarian law is being directly
challenged
> ... In the name of the 'war on terror', governments are eroding human
rights
> principles, standards and values.".

Was it not 14 years that the UN had its thumb up its ass re Iraq?

Regards,
Lester

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 03:39 PM
"Lester Long" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Hank" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311
> >
> > Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging
> > conflict in 50 years
> > By Kim Sengupta
> > 27 May 2004
> >
> >
> > Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained
> > attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and
> > Britain, Amnesty International says.
> >
> > The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused
the
> > US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies
> > "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".
>
> Self-defense for act of war.

Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no.

> For the life of me I still don't understand "international law". What is
> it? Who are its "police"?

Agreed-upon documents, e.g. maritime law, Geneva convention, etc.

And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country breaking
the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country doing
the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it or
we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
behaviour of powerful countries.

> > Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals
in
> > jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
"Among
> > other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that
its
> > rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions,"
the
> > report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested
on
> > suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> > charges.
>
>
> If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare to
> the acts of war committed by the terrorists.

No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his family.

Snipped things I either can't be arsed to argue about or agree with your
comment.

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 03:39 PM
"Lester Long" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Hank" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=525311
> >
> > Amnesty: 'Bankrupt' war on terror is world's most damaging
> > conflict in 50 years
> > By Kim Sengupta
> > 27 May 2004
> >
> >
> > Human Rights and international laws have come under the most sustained
> > attack in 50 years from the "war on terror" led by the United States and
> > Britain, Amnesty International says.
> >
> > The scathing indictment came in Amnesty's annual report, which accused
the
> > US administration of George Bush in particular of pursuing policies
> > "bankrupt of vision and bereft of principles".
>
> Self-defense for act of war.

Afghanistan, yes, Iraq, no.

> For the life of me I still don't understand "international law". What is
> it? Who are its "police"?

Agreed-upon documents, e.g. maritime law, Geneva convention, etc.

And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country breaking
the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country doing
the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it or
we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
behaviour of powerful countries.

> > Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals
in
> > jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.
"Among
> > other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that
its
> > rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions,"
the
> > report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested
on
> > suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
> > charges.
>
>
> If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare to
> the acts of war committed by the terrorists.

No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his family.

Snipped things I either can't be arsed to argue about or agree with your
comment.

Peter

Adam Fahy
June 5th 04, 05:05 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country breaking
> the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country doing
> the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it or
> we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
> behaviour of powerful countries.

If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
them any heed?


-Adam

Adam Fahy
June 5th 04, 05:05 PM
Peter Allen wrote:

> And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country breaking
> the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country doing
> the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it or
> we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
> behaviour of powerful countries.

If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
them any heed?


-Adam

Lester Long
June 5th 04, 05:17 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare
to
> > the acts of war committed by the terrorists.
>
> No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
> your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his
family.

Well, it sure would feel good. And it would prevent them from repeating it.

But I get your point. You're a sissy. :)

Regards,
Lester
PS: Thanks for the informative post.

Lester Long
June 5th 04, 05:17 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare
to
> > the acts of war committed by the terrorists.
>
> No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
> your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his
family.

Well, it sure would feel good. And it would prevent them from repeating it.

But I get your point. You're a sissy. :)

Regards,
Lester
PS: Thanks for the informative post.

Proton Soup
June 5th 04, 05:51 PM
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 16:54:59 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> wrote:

>> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
>> result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were
>> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
>of
>> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
>the
>> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."
>>
>
>Gee whiz, "hundreds of civilians killed in liberating Iraq". Makes the
>300,000 bodies in mass graves that have been dug up in Iraq and the 500,000
>that Amnesty itself estimates Saddam killed pale into insignificance.
>
>> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
>> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
>> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
>to
>> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".
>>
>> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
>> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
>taken
>> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
>> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
>> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.
>>
>
>> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
>> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
>> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
>> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
>> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
>> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
>> charges.
>>
>> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
>> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
>> asylum-seekers.
>>
>
>14 people detained without trial may not seem like a lot in the context of
>world-wide crimes against humanity.
>But the point here is that these 14 people are being detained by white
>people - Europeans - people like you and me - people who should know better.
>Really, having mass executions and imprisonment in Africa and North Korea is
>bad, but these are done by coloured folk who know no better. The 14
>detentions without trial are being done by white people, so clearly a
>completely different moral standard applies.

I don't think it's really about color, but rather that people expect
us to live up to our own standards.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Proton Soup
June 5th 04, 05:51 PM
On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 16:54:59 +1000, "Peter Webb"
> wrote:

>> In Iraq, "hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands injured" as a
>> result of bombing by the US and Britain, it says. "Many civilians were
>> killed as a result of excessive use of force by coalition forces. Scores
>of
>> women were abducted, raped and killed as law and order broke down after
>the
>> war. Torture and ill treatment by coalition forces were widespread."
>>
>
>Gee whiz, "hundreds of civilians killed in liberating Iraq". Makes the
>300,000 bodies in mass graves that have been dug up in Iraq and the 500,000
>that Amnesty itself estimates Saddam killed pale into insignificance.
>
>> The report accuses the US and Britain of "failing to live up to their
>> responsibilities under international humanitarian law as occupying powers,
>> including their duty to restore and maintain public order and safety, and
>to
>> provide food, medical care and relief assistance".
>>
>> While President Bush and Tony Blair proclaimed that they had liberated the
>> people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutal regime, "little action was
>taken
>> to address past human rights violations, including mass disappearances, or
>> to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes against
>> humanity, genocide and war crimes", Amnesty says.
>>
>
>> Britain was singled out for criticism for keeping 14 foreign nationals in
>> jail indefinitely under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. "Among
>> other reasons, the UK has justified these measures on the grounds that its
>> rules of evidence are too stringent to allow successful prosecutions," the
>> report says. It also points out that although 572 people were arrested on
>> suspicion of "terrorist- related" offences, just one in five have faced
>> charges.
>>
>> Britain, Spain, France, Portugal, Malta and Ireland, and Australia, a
>> partner in the war on terror, are also censured for tough policies on
>> asylum-seekers.
>>
>
>14 people detained without trial may not seem like a lot in the context of
>world-wide crimes against humanity.
>But the point here is that these 14 people are being detained by white
>people - Europeans - people like you and me - people who should know better.
>Really, having mass executions and imprisonment in Africa and North Korea is
>bad, but these are done by coloured folk who know no better. The 14
>detentions without trial are being done by white people, so clearly a
>completely different moral standard applies.

I don't think it's really about color, but rather that people expect
us to live up to our own standards.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 07:59 PM
"Lester Long" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Peter Allen" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > > If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare
> to
> > > the acts of war committed by the terrorists.
> >
> > No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
> > your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his
> family.
>
> Well, it sure would feel good. And it would prevent them from repeating
it.

Well, they wouldn't be able to kill all your family again, unless you're
posting from Transylvania. But they would be able to kill someone else's
family. I said nothing about whether it gives you a moral right to go shoot
the killer; I'm not entirely sure it does, but I think I know what I would
do.

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 07:59 PM
"Lester Long" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> "Peter Allen" > wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > > If we shot all 572 in the head, twice, dead, it still wouldn't compare
> to
> > > the acts of war committed by the terrorists.
> >
> > No. But it would bring you down to their level. If someone shoots all of
> > your family dead, it doesn't give you the right to shoot all of his
> family.
>
> Well, it sure would feel good. And it would prevent them from repeating
it.

Well, they wouldn't be able to kill all your family again, unless you're
posting from Transylvania. But they would be able to kill someone else's
family. I said nothing about whether it gives you a moral right to go shoot
the killer; I'm not entirely sure it does, but I think I know what I would
do.

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 08:05 PM
"Adam Fahy" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
breaking
> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
doing
> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it
or
> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
> > behaviour of powerful countries.
>
> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> them any heed?

They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
leadership cares about the population in general being starved when trading
stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
with the US, you'd be screwed economically and the government policy which
caused the UN to be unhappy would be changed PDQ. Except that I think we'd
both agree that short of the US doing something hugely unlikely that sort of
thing isn't happening.

Of course, if the US thought the Geneva Convention etc. was a good idea when
it signed, why does it disagree now?

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 08:05 PM
"Adam Fahy" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Allen wrote:
>
> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
breaking
> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
doing
> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it
or
> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
> > behaviour of powerful countries.
>
> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> them any heed?

They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
leadership cares about the population in general being starved when trading
stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
with the US, you'd be screwed economically and the government policy which
caused the UN to be unhappy would be changed PDQ. Except that I think we'd
both agree that short of the US doing something hugely unlikely that sort of
thing isn't happening.

Of course, if the US thought the Geneva Convention etc. was a good idea when
it signed, why does it disagree now?

Peter

Madelin McKinnon
June 5th 04, 09:18 PM
No kidding, it eveen forced the resignation of the person who is
supposed to protect against terrorism

http://www.geocities.com/re_justice4all/cia.htm

Madelin McKinnon
June 5th 04, 09:18 PM
No kidding, it eveen forced the resignation of the person who is
supposed to protect against terrorism

http://www.geocities.com/re_justice4all/cia.htm

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 09:35 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote:
>"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
>> > breaking
>> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
>> > doing
>> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it
>> > or
>> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
>> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
>> > behaviour of powerful countries.
>>
>> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
>> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
>> them any heed?
>
>They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
>leadership cares about the population in general being starved when trading
>stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
>effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
>with the US, you'd be screwed economically

as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
with the US. And you know that.

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 09:35 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote:
>"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
>> > breaking
>> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
>> > doing
>> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop it
>> > or
>> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
>> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting the
>> > behaviour of powerful countries.
>>
>> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
>> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
>> them any heed?
>
>They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
>leadership cares about the population in general being starved when trading
>stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
>effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
>with the US, you'd be screwed economically

as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
with the US. And you know that.

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 10:14 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> >> Peter Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> >> > breaking
> >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
> >> > doing
> >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
it
> >> > or
> >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
the
> >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> >>
> >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> >> them any heed?
> >
> >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
> >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
trading
> >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
> >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
> >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
>
> . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> with the US. And you know that.

I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
doing something comparable to the Nazis. (without trying to invoke Godwin
here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,
but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 10:14 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> >> Peter Allen wrote:
> >>
> >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> >> > breaking
> >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
> >> > doing
> >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
it
> >> > or
> >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
the
> >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> >>
> >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> >> them any heed?
> >
> >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
> >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
trading
> >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
> >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
> >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
>
> . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> with the US. And you know that.

I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
doing something comparable to the Nazis. (without trying to invoke Godwin
here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,
but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

Peter

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 10:55 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote:

>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
>> >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
>> >> Peter Allen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
>> >> > breaking
>> >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
>> >> > doing
>> >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
>> >> > it or
>> >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
>> >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
>> >> > the behaviour of powerful countries.
>> >>
>> >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
>> >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
>> >> them any heed?
>> >
>> >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
>> >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
>> >trading
>> >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
>> >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
>> >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
>>
>> . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
>> with the US. And you know that.
>
>I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
>doing something comparable to the Nazis. (without trying to invoke Godwin
>here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,
>but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
>of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

I don't know about "slightly more screwed." The US has a tremendous
capacity for self-sufficiency given its extensive indigenous natural
resources. Yes, those indigenous resources would become more
expensive, but how much would the former suppliers of cheaper
resources suffer from the lack of US dollars for their wares?

John M. Williams
June 5th 04, 10:55 PM
"Peter Allen" > wrote:

>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
>> >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
>> >> Peter Allen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
>> >> > breaking
>> >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
>> >> > doing
>> >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
>> >> > it or
>> >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
>> >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
>> >> > the behaviour of powerful countries.
>> >>
>> >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
>> >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
>> >> them any heed?
>> >
>> >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
>> >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
>> >trading
>> >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
>> >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
>> >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
>>
>> . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
>> with the US. And you know that.
>
>I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
>doing something comparable to the Nazis. (without trying to invoke Godwin
>here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,
>but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
>of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

I don't know about "slightly more screwed." The US has a tremendous
capacity for self-sufficiency given its extensive indigenous natural
resources. Yes, those indigenous resources would become more
expensive, but how much would the former suppliers of cheaper
resources suffer from the lack of US dollars for their wares?

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 11:24 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know about "slightly more screwed." The US has a tremendous
> capacity for self-sufficiency given its extensive indigenous natural
> resources. Yes, those indigenous resources would become more
> expensive, but how much would the former suppliers of cheaper
> resources suffer from the lack of US dollars for their wares?

Interesting one to think about - do you / anyone reading know any economist
types who could give an authoritative answer?

I'd be inclined to suspect that since the rest of the world is a good deal
bigger than the US the US would suffer more. In particular, IIRC you import
quite a lot of oil and cheap far-east consumer goods stuff - the latter
probably doesn't matter that much in the event of an enormous recession,
which I'm fairly sure would happen, but the oil probably does.

On the other hand, the said far-east consumer goods do export to Europe etc.
too, but you're probably right that they'd have massive issues without an
American market.

Peter

Peter Allen
June 5th 04, 11:24 PM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know about "slightly more screwed." The US has a tremendous
> capacity for self-sufficiency given its extensive indigenous natural
> resources. Yes, those indigenous resources would become more
> expensive, but how much would the former suppliers of cheaper
> resources suffer from the lack of US dollars for their wares?

Interesting one to think about - do you / anyone reading know any economist
types who could give an authoritative answer?

I'd be inclined to suspect that since the rest of the world is a good deal
bigger than the US the US would suffer more. In particular, IIRC you import
quite a lot of oil and cheap far-east consumer goods stuff - the latter
probably doesn't matter that much in the event of an enormous recession,
which I'm fairly sure would happen, but the oil probably does.

On the other hand, the said far-east consumer goods do export to Europe etc.
too, but you're probably right that they'd have massive issues without an
American market.

Peter

sp1974
June 6th 04, 03:55 AM
What does this have to do with fitness?

Amnesty International has already lost my respect. They support
cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I can't remember them ever condemning
the 9/11 attacks or the beheading of Nick Berg - Hum...why would that
be? Amnesty International has lost its purpose and has devolved into
yet another leftist hate group of radical ignorance like PETA.

sp1974
June 6th 04, 03:55 AM
What does this have to do with fitness?

Amnesty International has already lost my respect. They support
cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I can't remember them ever condemning
the 9/11 attacks or the beheading of Nick Berg - Hum...why would that
be? Amnesty International has lost its purpose and has devolved into
yet another leftist hate group of radical ignorance like PETA.

Roamer7
June 6th 04, 06:11 AM
"sp1974" > wrote in message
om...
> What does this have to do with fitness?
>
> Amnesty International has already lost my respect. They support
> cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I can't remember them ever condemning
> the 9/11 attacks or the beheading of Nick Berg - Hum...why would that
> be? Amnesty International has lost its purpose and has devolved into
> yet another leftist hate group of radical ignorance like PETA.

The purpose of Amnesty International is to spotlight human right abuses
sanctioned or perpetrated by governments against their own citizens or those
of other nations, not to report on the actions of criminal
organizations(that role is served sufficiently by the world's media).

Terrorist organizations aren't governments so I wouldn't expect A.I. to
focus it's attention on them. Amnesty International is continuing to fulfill
it's purpose as it has since it's inception. I for one am glad that
organizations like this one exist, and would place it in a class along with
the International Red Cross. That you compare it with lunatic fringe groups
like PETA simply showcases the depth of your ignorance....

Perhaps you should turn Rush Limbaugh off and do a little reading? Might I
suggest:
http://www.amnesty.org/ , http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng for
a start.

Roamer7
June 6th 04, 06:11 AM
"sp1974" > wrote in message
om...
> What does this have to do with fitness?
>
> Amnesty International has already lost my respect. They support
> cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and I can't remember them ever condemning
> the 9/11 attacks or the beheading of Nick Berg - Hum...why would that
> be? Amnesty International has lost its purpose and has devolved into
> yet another leftist hate group of radical ignorance like PETA.

The purpose of Amnesty International is to spotlight human right abuses
sanctioned or perpetrated by governments against their own citizens or those
of other nations, not to report on the actions of criminal
organizations(that role is served sufficiently by the world's media).

Terrorist organizations aren't governments so I wouldn't expect A.I. to
focus it's attention on them. Amnesty International is continuing to fulfill
it's purpose as it has since it's inception. I for one am glad that
organizations like this one exist, and would place it in a class along with
the International Red Cross. That you compare it with lunatic fringe groups
like PETA simply showcases the depth of your ignorance....

Perhaps you should turn Rush Limbaugh off and do a little reading? Might I
suggest:
http://www.amnesty.org/ , http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng for
a start.

Will Brink
June 6th 04, 03:50 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
"Peter Allen" > wrote:

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> > >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> > >> Peter Allen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> > >> > breaking
> > >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
> > >> > doing
> > >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
> it
> > >> > or
> > >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> > >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
> the
> > >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> > >>
> > >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> > >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> > >> them any heed?
> > >
> > >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
> > >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
> trading
> > >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
> > >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
> > >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
> >
> > . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> > with the US. And you know that.
>
> I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
> doing something comparable to the Nazis.

What, like invading Europe?

> (without trying to invoke Godwin
> here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,

And you conclude that how? The US is the economic driver for the entire
world and will be for some time.


> but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
> of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

Might reduce gas prices at least....

>
> Peter
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
June 6th 04, 03:50 PM
In article <[email protected]>,
"Peter Allen" > wrote:

> "John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> > >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> > >> Peter Allen wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> > >> > breaking
> > >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the country
> > >> > doing
> > >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of 'stop
> it
> > >> > or
> > >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which will
> > >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in restricting
> the
> > >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> > >>
> > >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> > >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies pay
> > >> them any heed?
> > >
> > >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that the
> > >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
> trading
> > >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN more
> > >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop trading
> > >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
> >
> > . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> > with the US. And you know that.
>
> I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
> doing something comparable to the Nazis.

What, like invading Europe?

> (without trying to invoke Godwin
> here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the world,

And you conclude that how? The US is the economic driver for the entire
world and will be for some time.


> but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be less
> of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.

Might reduce gas prices at least....

>
> Peter
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Peter Allen
June 6th 04, 11:26 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
>
> > "John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> > > "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> > > >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> > > >> Peter Allen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> > > >> > breaking
> > > >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the
country
> > > >> > doing
> > > >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of
'stop
> > it
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which
will
> > > >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in
restricting
> > the
> > > >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> > > >>
> > > >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> > > >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies
pay
> > > >> them any heed?
> > > >
> > > >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that
the
> > > >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
> > trading
> > > >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN
more
> > > >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop
trading
> > > >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
> > >
> > > . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> > > with the US. And you know that.
> >
> > I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
> > doing something comparable to the Nazis.
>
> What, like invading Europe?

Probably wouldn't be enough to stop the various far east coutries trading,
unless they thought the US was going for them next. That and a genocidal /
blatant world conquest policy would probably do it.

> > (without trying to invoke Godwin
> > here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the
world,
>
> And you conclude that how? The US is the economic driver for the entire
> world and will be for some time.

Read my reply to JMW. It is, but probably not to the point where total
isolation would do more harm to the US than the rest of the world.

>
> > but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be
less
> > of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.
>
> Might reduce gas prices at least....

:-)

Peter

Peter Allen
June 6th 04, 11:26 PM
"Will Brink" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Peter Allen" > wrote:
>
> > "John M. Williams" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> > > "Peter Allen" > wrote:
> > > >"Adam Fahy" > wrote:
> > > >> Peter Allen wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > And the 'police' is any country which objects to another country
> > > >> > breaking
> > > >> > the law. Except that of course that is only effective if the
country
> > > >> > doing
> > > >> > the objecting can make credible threats, either in the form of
'stop
> > it
> > > >> > or
> > > >> > we kick the **** out of you' or 'we won't trade with you', which
will
> > > >> > actually scare someone. Therefore not very effective in
restricting
> > the
> > > >> > behaviour of powerful countries.
> > > >>
> > > >> If international treaty organizations can't even credibly threaten
> > > >> countries like Iraq under Saddam, why should liberal democracies
pay
> > > >> them any heed?
> > > >
> > > >They can effectively threaten countries, but it sort of requires that
the
> > > >leadership cares about the population in general being starved when
> > trading
> > > >stops. Saddam didn't. Actually, the US could be threatened by the UN
more
> > > >effectively than Saddam's regime: if all UN members were to stop
trading
> > > >with the US, you'd be screwed economically .
> > >
> > > . as would the economies of all the countries that currently trade
> > > with the US. And you know that.
> >
> > I do; that is one reason why it's never going to happen short of the US
> > doing something comparable to the Nazis.
>
> What, like invading Europe?

Probably wouldn't be enough to stop the various far east coutries trading,
unless they thought the US was going for them next. That and a genocidal /
blatant world conquest policy would probably do it.

> > (without trying to invoke Godwin
> > here!) The US would be (slightly) more screwed than the rest of the
world,
>
> And you conclude that how? The US is the economic driver for the entire
> world and will be for some time.

Read my reply to JMW. It is, but probably not to the point where total
isolation would do more harm to the US than the rest of the world.

>
> > but if things ever got that far out of hand economics would probably be
less
> > of a worry than the ongoing nuclear holocaust.
>
> Might reduce gas prices at least....

:-)

Peter

Jack Nichols
June 7th 04, 06:08 AM
(Madelin McKinnon) wrote in message >...
> No kidding, it eveen forced the resignation of the person who is
> supposed to protect against terrorism
>
> http://www.geocities.com/re_justice4all/cia.htm

Just like Nixon

Jack Nichols
June 7th 04, 06:08 AM
(Madelin McKinnon) wrote in message >...
> No kidding, it eveen forced the resignation of the person who is
> supposed to protect against terrorism
>
> http://www.geocities.com/re_justice4all/cia.htm

Just like Nixon

sp1974
June 14th 04, 12:55 AM
Why thank you for the replay Roamer7. I found your post very
enlightening and progressive. Unfortunately, my mind is wired to
think of politics in a logical and factually-based manner. Amnesty
International has no business getting its nose into issues as small as
those like the Mumia Abu-Jamal issue or those as big as global
terrorism if they are not going to:
A) Look at the situation with an open mind
B) Look at all the facts

If they are simply going to take the side of the issue that satisfies
the rantings of the latest politically ignorant punk band so that
naive teenagers and overage hippies will send them money then they
deserve no respect.



> Perhaps you should turn Rush Limbaugh off and do a little reading? Might I
> suggest:
> http://www.amnesty.org/ , http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng for
> a start.

HA! You people are so funny! Rush has been on the air for, what, 15
years yet all you do is mention how much you hate him or his drug
problem. 15 years of spouting political opinions and you have nothing
of substance on him yet! Sad. Perhaps you should stick with radio
formats like "NPR" and "Err America". Unlike conservative talk radio
that successfully exists in the arena of ideas due to having an actual
audience and stations willing to air their shows due to the
advertising dollars they'll receive, those other formats are a bit
different. First, NPR is government funded so it sorta fits in with
the lefty dreams having Big Brother micromanage every aspect of our
lives. "Err America" is different, it has to pay radio stations to
put it on the air! You see "Err America" works by kicking
marginally-profitable minority programming off the air by giving the
station owner money to air their DNC informercials! Oops, that is it
SAYS it's going to pay the station owner money to air their widdle
kiddie programs! See, the checks don't exactly...you know... clear.
They bounce about as high as Garofalo's little superball brain! Uh
ho! I hear you can even buy a bib from their websites to handle those
icky drooling problems people like you have when forced to rub your 2
brain cells together! Good thing "Err America" isn't caller friendly!
Someone might call up and ask Garofalo why she wasn't protesting
Clinton's attack in Iraq in 1998 but whines like a brainless lefty
crybaby when Bush does it. You see, her official answer was "it
wasn't hip to protest" Clinton's actions to destroy Iraqi WMDs! Oh I
wish I could see Al Franken's beady little eyes turn red when someone
asks why it was OK for Clinton to claim Iraq had WMDs, but a lie for
Bush to say the exact same thing! I'd love someone else to ask why
his book about "Liars" he writes to the attorney general on Harvard
University letterhead on the issue of abstinence. He claimed it was
for a book called "Saving It" but it wasn't! Oh well. The people who
actually look towards these liberal loons for guidance aren't exactly
rocket scientists! They certainly won't question the lies we've been
told for decades on the value of socialism (from filthy rich celebs of
all things) to the stories of environmental doom and gloom!
Shouldn't that rainforest have been paved a decade or so ago?
Shouldn't Manhattan be under 50' of sea water by now? Weren't the
world's oil supplies supposed to be gone by now? Oh well!

Just don't climb any on November 3rd!!! Even though you won't get the
socialist people to impose the nanny state of which you dream, it
will be OK! Just dust off that brain of yours and function as an
individual! It's not that bad! You can always drown your sorrows by
watching a Star Trek episode with the Borg and dream for the day you
can be part of a mindless collective too.

sp1974
June 14th 04, 12:55 AM
Why thank you for the replay Roamer7. I found your post very
enlightening and progressive. Unfortunately, my mind is wired to
think of politics in a logical and factually-based manner. Amnesty
International has no business getting its nose into issues as small as
those like the Mumia Abu-Jamal issue or those as big as global
terrorism if they are not going to:
A) Look at the situation with an open mind
B) Look at all the facts

If they are simply going to take the side of the issue that satisfies
the rantings of the latest politically ignorant punk band so that
naive teenagers and overage hippies will send them money then they
deserve no respect.



> Perhaps you should turn Rush Limbaugh off and do a little reading? Might I
> suggest:
> http://www.amnesty.org/ , http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-udhr-eng for
> a start.

HA! You people are so funny! Rush has been on the air for, what, 15
years yet all you do is mention how much you hate him or his drug
problem. 15 years of spouting political opinions and you have nothing
of substance on him yet! Sad. Perhaps you should stick with radio
formats like "NPR" and "Err America". Unlike conservative talk radio
that successfully exists in the arena of ideas due to having an actual
audience and stations willing to air their shows due to the
advertising dollars they'll receive, those other formats are a bit
different. First, NPR is government funded so it sorta fits in with
the lefty dreams having Big Brother micromanage every aspect of our
lives. "Err America" is different, it has to pay radio stations to
put it on the air! You see "Err America" works by kicking
marginally-profitable minority programming off the air by giving the
station owner money to air their DNC informercials! Oops, that is it
SAYS it's going to pay the station owner money to air their widdle
kiddie programs! See, the checks don't exactly...you know... clear.
They bounce about as high as Garofalo's little superball brain! Uh
ho! I hear you can even buy a bib from their websites to handle those
icky drooling problems people like you have when forced to rub your 2
brain cells together! Good thing "Err America" isn't caller friendly!
Someone might call up and ask Garofalo why she wasn't protesting
Clinton's attack in Iraq in 1998 but whines like a brainless lefty
crybaby when Bush does it. You see, her official answer was "it
wasn't hip to protest" Clinton's actions to destroy Iraqi WMDs! Oh I
wish I could see Al Franken's beady little eyes turn red when someone
asks why it was OK for Clinton to claim Iraq had WMDs, but a lie for
Bush to say the exact same thing! I'd love someone else to ask why
his book about "Liars" he writes to the attorney general on Harvard
University letterhead on the issue of abstinence. He claimed it was
for a book called "Saving It" but it wasn't! Oh well. The people who
actually look towards these liberal loons for guidance aren't exactly
rocket scientists! They certainly won't question the lies we've been
told for decades on the value of socialism (from filthy rich celebs of
all things) to the stories of environmental doom and gloom!
Shouldn't that rainforest have been paved a decade or so ago?
Shouldn't Manhattan be under 50' of sea water by now? Weren't the
world's oil supplies supposed to be gone by now? Oh well!

Just don't climb any on November 3rd!!! Even though you won't get the
socialist people to impose the nanny state of which you dream, it
will be OK! Just dust off that brain of yours and function as an
individual! It's not that bad! You can always drown your sorrows by
watching a Star Trek episode with the Borg and dream for the day you
can be part of a mindless collective too.