World Politics

[straydog]

Killing of journalists in war zone can certainly be justified and in some cases should not be seen as a regrettable mistake. When a journalist goes into a battle zone he knows the risks he leads, especially if he alligns himself with people carrying weapons and going into a high risk area. In this case I am most certainly on the side of the soldiers. Now again, the second instance, I most certainly am not on their side.

...... First critize our own governments for their own actions and their condonement of far greater human rights abuses, before getting bent out of shape for reasonably minor violations of the US. (minor in comparison to certain regimes in the middle east and Asia especially)

justified? alligned? huh? in some cases should not be seen as a regrettable mistake?....seriously???? Barrus the ground between us, I fear, is never likely to be smooth, even, or anything other than extremely distant.

beware embedded journalists everywhere....your number is up! And then thank god we can just hear it from our side.

before getting bent out of shape for reasonably minor violations of the US....wow...Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, El Salvador...and now Iraq, extroadinary rendition, Gauntanamo, Falujah, Abu Grayib, this list can go on and on....clearly minor...inconsequential even

Mush as I like to promote rapprochement and harmony, I honestly fear Barrus, that you and I aren't ever going to see even remotely eye to eye on much in life if this is your honest view.

p.s....please don't think for one second I am English by the way....that will make me really mad!

 

[Barrus]

justified? alligned? huh? in some cases should not be seen as a regrettable mistake?....seriously???? Barrus the ground between us, I fear, is never likely to be smooth, even, or anything other than extremely distant.

beware embedded journalists everywhere....your number is up! And then thank god we can just hear it from our side.

It is an occupational hazard. Look we're not talking about a my lai here, in this case the reporters were not identifiable as such and were quite clearly legitimate targets. Even if it was shown that they were reporters, but they were in a group of armed man, of a danger to the soldiers, or who were a target, their deaths would still be of no consequence as at that point they would be colleteral damage. Perhaps my view is eskewed as I look at it from a legal standpoint, but truly I see nothing wrong with their initial action

before getting bent out of shape for reasonably minor violations of the US....wow...Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, El Salvador...and now Iraq, extroadinary rendition, Gauntanamo, Falujah, Abu Grayib, this list can go on and on....clearly minor...inconsequential even

Mush as I like to promote rapprochement and harmony, I honestly fear Barrus, that you and I aren't ever going to see even remotely eye to eye on much in life if this is your honest view.

p.s....please don't think for one second I am English by the way....that will make me really mad!

I never said you were English, I just used that as an example of worse things occurring within European soil. I presume you are British however?

To be clear I do not condone what happened in Guantanamo, howeverit is too often used by America bashers, those that do not acknowledge what happens in their own state and don't recognize that in the scheme of things it is quite minor. If you compare it to what happens in Darfur, China, what happened recently in Sri Lanka, what happens with condonement from European states in Rwanda, what happens in many other African states indirectly condoned by European states. That all is far more important and is of far more consequence than what happens in Guantanamo for Europeans and for those that are so outraged by Guantanamo, yet say nothing about anything that has nothing to do with the US.

Perhaps my statements in this thread were worded so strongely and in this manner, due to the fact that you only targeted the US and its human rights violation, something that I've seen people do to often. People who are only concerned with such things because it goes against the US, but who have no opinion, or outrage about anything else. People who say nothing about their own soldiers geting torture lessons under the guise of anti-torture tactics. The fact that their own states give out developmental aid to states involved in wars where the most gruesome acts take place, states that practice discrimination, states that systemicly abuse human rights.

 

[The Hitch]

before getting bent out of shape for reasonably minor violations of the US....wow...Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, El Salvador...and now Iraq, extroadinary rendition, Gauntanamo, Falujah, Abu Grayib, this list can go on and on....clearly minor...inconsequential even

First of all, I see something revealing about the fact that you use the phrase "and now Iraq". AMericas by far greatest crimes in Iraq occured at the same time as Vietnam, Panama, El Salvador,in the 70's and 80's.

Secondly it is true that the US has commited all those events you mention, and in fact far worse crimes in South Asia. Thats why i dont see any of those revelations as remotely catastrophic or even damaging to the us.

If you want to see what really is catastrophic wait till the Kissinger documents come out, after he dies, though I would add, that nothing the US has done in the last 20 years can be even compared to what Kissinger was up to.

Im not sure if you would care though seeing as recent Nixon revelations got knowhere near the same press. I guess all that matters in steering up all that shock and surprise and outrage, is the here and now.

But Barrus most definately has a point when he says that there is a total lack of opposition to various crimes and abuses, when they are not commited by the US.

Its actually mind boggling what you any country, both deomcratic and totalitarian, can get away with if you are not the united states. Its als mind boggling how much support mass murderers can get from so called "liberals" and from western europeans, the moment they become the enemy of the US.

 

[straydog]

It is an occupational hazard. Look we're not talking about a my lai here, in this case the reporters were not identifiable as such and were quite clearly legitimate targets. Even if it was shown that they were reporters, but they were in a group of armed man, of a danger to the soldiers, or who were a target, their deaths would still be of no consequence as at that point they would be colleteral damage. Perhaps my view is eskewed as I look at it from a legal standpoint, but truly I see nothing wrong with their initial action



I never said you were English, I just used that as an example of worse things occurring within European soil. I presume you are British however?

To be clear I do not condone what happened in Guantanamo, howeverit is too often used by America bashers, those that do not acknowledge what happens in their own state and don't recognize that in the scheme of things it is quite minor. If you compare it to what happens in Darfur, China, what happened recently in Sri Lanka, what happens with condonement from European states in Rwanda, what happens in many other African states indirectly condoned by European states. That all is far more important and is of far more consequence than what happens in Guantanamo for Europeans and for those that are so outraged by Guantanamo, yet say nothing about anything that has nothing to do with the US.

Perhaps my statements in this thread were worded so strongely and in this manner, due to the fact that you only targeted the US and its human rights violation, something that I've seen people do to often. People who are only concerned with such things because it goes against the US, but who have no opinion, or outrage about anything else. People who say nothing about their own soldiers geting torture lessons under the guise of anti-torture tactics. The fact that their own states give out developmental aid to states involved in wars where the most gruesome acts take place, states that practice discrimination, states that systemicly abuse human rights.

Firstly...you would be very wrong if you presumed I was british too....very wrong....and why is it relevant anyway?

The journalists were legitimate targets? I think you have missed the entire context of that video. The point being that the "targets" were never identified at all. They were presumed targets. " No Innocent civilians were killed on our part deliberately" Major Brent Cummings said in reaction to the incident after WL posted the footage.

Try reading this too http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/ from a source definitely closer and possibly less critical than me.

And I have so far only targeted the US human rights violations because they were being used as an example in this thread....I am very well aware of numerous other human rights abuses in other countries...and European misdemeanours and crimes in Political life generally. I happen to be pretty indiscriminate and equitable in my disgust for any such behaviour. But frankly I find the assertion that the US crimes are "minor" is a ridiculous one. Further more I find the assertion that they should get some kind of pass because of other countries' actions even more ridiculous.

Hey, if your argument is "why do you guys hate the US so much? Everyone is at it." Then what exactly is your problem with a certain Texan cyclist again?

If any country holds itself up as a bastion of democracy engaged in a deadly war against "terror", if it considers itself the world's police force, if it tries to co-opt other countries into being it's lieutenants in it's "righteous" crusade against an axis of evil, then it better make damn sure it behaves in a way that indicates they have at least one toe on the higher ground, otherwise, they are going to seem no better than the enemies they are so selflessly "defending" the rest of us from.

 

[straydog]

First of all, I see something revealing about the fact that you use the phrase "and now Iraq". AMericas by far greatest crimes in Iraq occured at the same time as Vietnam, Panama, El Salvador,in the 70's and 80's.

Secondly it is true that the US has commited all those events you mention, and in fact far worse crimes in South Asia. Thats why i dont see any of those revelations as remotely catastrophic or even damaging to the us.

If you want to see what really is catastrophic wait till the Kissinger documents come out, after he dies, though I would add, that nothing the US has done in the last 20 years can be even compared to what Kissinger was up to.

Im not sure if you would care though seeing as recent Nixon revelations got knowhere near the same press. I guess all that matters in steering up all that shock and surprise and outrage, is the here and now.

But Barrus most definately has a point when he says that there is a total lack of opposition to various crimes and abuses, when they are not commited by the US.

Its actually mind boggling what you any country, both deomcratic and totalitarian, can get away with if you are not the united states. Its als mind boggling how much support mass murderers can get from so called "liberals" and from western europeans, the moment they become the enemy of the US.

Hitch...this honestly pains me to say...honestly....but your use of your avatar and moniker in this forum is utterly ridiculous and frankly insulting to Chris Hitchins, when one actually reads your posts and the clear lack of any real knowledge or understanding of history (or cycling now that we come to mention it) contained within them...may i offer a bit of advice?...quality not quantity.

Calling yourself the "hitch" does not for one second make anyone think that you share any of the same intellectual rigor or insight as your hero.

There is a total lack of opposition to various crimes and abuses not committed by the US?...Where have you been you young sweet naive thing? Did you miss Rwanda?....Apartheid?....The Balkans?....Tibet?...Falun Gong?....Somalia?....Siera Leone?....Saddam's attempted Genocide of the kurds?....North Korea? ....this list goes on and on and on by the way....wow you have some catching up to do, and when do, you might need a lie down. There have been people disgusted by governments' behaviour since governments began. Whether the media...or more specifically the "media" you have been reading (for you I will allow FHM, Heat, "American fiction and HBO straight to TV movies") have been as inclined to cover it in the same way that they are covering US involvement in Iraq and WL is debateable.

Americas bar far biggest crime against Iraq was in the 80s?....dear sweet god hitch....write your post...then read it back to yourself before you press "submit"...it just might...might stop you looking so uninformed....and maybe just a quick once over for typos too We don't expect perfection....but just a bit of care huh?

Kissinger and Nixon....wow...you really do have some catching up to do in your world affairs class if you think further "revelations" of things we already know about them is going to be "catastrophic."

Please pm me any time for a reading list...or maybe email Chris Hitchins

 

[Skandar Akbar]

+1 Rhubarb. A f**king star!

I think the most important thing to come out of this is the very point you make....that it will become impossible for Politicians and "public" servants in general to think they have pulled the wool over the public's eyes. Hopefully that might encourage one or two of them to act more responsibly....and if not, then they will inevitably face the consequences.

And yes it is a righteous cause anyone who has watched the film shot from the apache helicopter in Iraq should be disgusted....anyone who has read about the incidents at falujah likewise...or about US policy at Gauntanamo....

Attacking or attempting to discredit the mouthpiece is a ridiculous red herring, aided in part by certain elements in the media who are keen to protect their "friends" and their own interests.

Frankly, the only scandalous thing about the diplomatic slagging emails is that any diplomat, who as part of their job will read intercepted emails from other countries, is stupid enough to explicitly bad mouth someone, without expecting that it might get back to them. I call that natural selection

I hope he (assage) gets to relax soon.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

So Barrus in conclusion....you think that killing of journalists in a war zone is justified...and should not be recognised as a regrettable mistake even?....torture isn't to bad, understandable in some cases even....and it is ok to not hold those responsible to account even if they have given the order to fire on a non permissable target? I think I see where you and I differ on this.

I am glad you support WL though....and of course JA should attend interviews as a "witness" as has been requested....so why don't we wait and see if he officially becomes a suspect or is charged....and honestly if he is...what real relevance does it have to WL's role?

His role at WL, though, might have some relevance as to why he is being pursued....

TWO bad the reporters were in a WAR ZONE...............dawg.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

justified? alligned? huh? in some cases should not be seen as a regrettable mistake?....seriously???? Barrus the ground between us, I fear, is never likely to be smooth, even, or anything other than extremely distant.

beware embedded journalists everywhere....your number is up! And then thank god we can just hear it from our side.

before getting bent out of shape for reasonably minor violations of the US....wow...Vietnam, Panama, Cuba, El Salvador...and now Iraq, extroadinary rendition, Gauntanamo, Falujah, Abu Grayib, this list can go on and on....clearly minor...inconsequential even

Mush as I like to promote rapprochement and harmony, I honestly fear Barrus, that you and I aren't ever going to see even remotely eye to eye on much in life if this is your honest view.

p.s....please don't think for one second I am English by the way....that will make me really mad!

wow...........................

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch...this honestly pains me to say...honestly....but your use of your avatar and moniker in this forum is utterly ridiculous and frankly insulting to Chris Hitchins, when one actually reads your posts and the clear lack of any real knowledge or understanding of history (or cycling now that we come to mention it) contained within them...may i offer a bit of advice?...quality not quantity.

Calling yourself the "hitch" does not for one second make anyone think that you share any of the same intellectual rigor or insight as your hero.

There is a total lack of opposition to various crimes and abuses not committed by the US?...Where have you been you young sweet naive thing? Did you miss Rwanda?....Apartheid?....The Balkans?....Tibet?...Falun Gong?....Somalia?....Siera Leone?....Saddam's attempted Genocide of the kurds?....North Korea? ....this list goes on and on and on by the way....wow you have some catching up to do, and when do, you might need a lie down. There have been people disgusted by governments' behaviour since governments began. Whether the media...or more specifically the "media" you have been reading (for you I will allow FHM, Heat, "American fiction and HBO straight to TV movies") have been as inclined to cover it in the same way that they are covering US involvement in Iraq and WL is debateable.

Americas bar far biggest crime against Iraq was in the 80s?....dear sweet god hitch....write your post...then read it back to yourself before you press "submit"...it just might...might stop you looking so uninformed....and maybe just a quick once over for typos too We don't expect perfection....but just a bit of care huh?

Kissinger and Nixon....wow...you really do have some catching up to do in your world affairs class if you think further "revelations" of things we already know about them is going to be "catastrophic."

Please pm me any time for a reading list...or maybe email Chris Hitchins

lol this is too easy. Its fun to respond to such a flawed post.

At first i was slightly, though only slightly, upset by your opinion of my cycling knowledge. You say that my posts betray a clear lack of cycling knowledge and understanding. I felt sorry you feel that way. On top of it, you felt so sure of this, that you felt the need to post it on one of the few, non cycling threads on the forum. At this point, i felt inclined to take offence.

But then i remembered the fact that come to think of it, your opinion on cycling is the total opposite of the opinion of most logical posters on these boards.

I will leave it to my fellow forumites to decide if i have been totally wasting my time and that of others with my admittedly excessive posting on these boards over the last few months.

Secondly, my naming myself the Hitch, was obviously not a claim to have a similar intellectual level, but a simple mark of respect and admiration to the man.
And i cant really take seriously anyone who is of the opinion that if you mention someone else in your username, you are making a ego fuelled comparison with their talents. I suppose El pistolero must think he’s faster than Contador then?


And judging by the fact that you twice made the same Spelling mistake in Christopher’s, name, I don’t quite trust that you know much about the man whos name you claim i am insulting.

Your ignorance of Christopher Hitchens becomes even more apparent when you say this.

Americas bar far biggest crime against Iraq was in the 80s?....dear sweet god hitch....write your post...then read it back to yourself before you press "submit"...it just might...might stop you looking so uninformed....and maybe just a quick once over for typos too We don't expect perfection....but just a bit of care huh?

Normally that wouldn’t be a problem, if you weren’t telling me that I am insulting Christopher in presenting this argument.

For you see, that is also Christopher’s argument. A bit of a fail on your part no?

You use a cheap attempt at a put down by listing the media i must get my knowledge from, then finish your post with a very conceited claim that your knowledge is so vastly superior to mine, that i should contact you for reading material.


SO it is somewhat ironic that it is actually you, who are in need of reading material on the subject of America in Iraq in the 1970's and 80's. Your post clearly indicates you are not familiar with this story, which in turn significantly hurts your claim to be an authority on the subject.

So in summary, most of your post pretty much contradicts itself, all reveals total ignorance of what you are talking about. An absolute fail on ALL counts. You wrote my rebuttal for me.

 

[The Hitch]

And as i read your post a second time its even funnier.

You accuse ME of comparing my intellectual level to Hitchens, then compare yourself directly to him by suggesting that i should contact either you or him for reading material.

Are you for real????

 

[straydog]

lol this is too easy. Its fun to respond to such a flawed post.

At first i was slightly, though only slightly, upset by your opinion of my cycling knowledge. You say that my posts betray a clear lack of cycling knowledge and understanding. I felt sorry you feel that way. On top of it, you felt so sure of this, that you felt the need to post it on one of the few, non cycling threads on the forum. At this point, i felt inclined to take offence.

But then i remembered the fact that come to think of it, your opinion on cycling is the total opposite of the opinion of most logical posters on these boards.

I will leave it to my fellow forumites to decide if i have been totally wasting my time and that of others with my admittedly excessive posting on these boards over the last few months.

Secondly, my naming myself the Hitch, was obviously not a claim to have a similar intellectual level, but a simple mark of respect and admiration to the man.
And i cant really take seriously anyone who is of the opinion that if you mention someone else in your username, you are making a ego fuelled comparison with their talents. I suppose El pistolero must think he’s faster than Contador then?

And judging by the fact that you twice made the same Spelling mistake in Christopher’s, name, I don’t quite trust that you know much about the man whos name you claim i am insulting.

Your ignorance of Christopher Hitchens becomes even more apparent when you say this.



Normally that wouldn’t be a problem, if you weren’t telling me that I am insulting Christopher in presenting this argument.

For you see, that is also Christopher’s argument. A bit of a fail on your part no?

You finish your post with a cheap attempt at a put down, acting as if your knowledge is so vastly superior to mine, that i should contact you for reading material.

SO it is somewhat ironic that it is actually you, who are in need of reading material on the subject of America in Iraq in the 1970's and 80's. Your post clearly indicates you are not familiar with this story, which in turn significantly hurts your claim to be an authority on the subject.

So in summary, most of your post pretty much contradicts itself, all reveals total ignorance of what you are talking about. An absolute fail on ALL counts. You wrote my rebuttal for me.

Hitch...most entertaining post of the week without doubt...I will be laughing for hours thinking about this.

So in essence you are attempting to regurgitate Christopher HitchEns argument and pass it off as your own? Or do you only believe what you think he says? Incapable of forming your own opinion?

My opinion of "cycling" I am pretty sure concurs with most logical thinkers on this forum. I am pretty sure we all agree that it involves a bicycle and pedalling. My opinion on doping with regards to the treatment of one particular cyclist may differ. But hey, I don't mind being a contrarian, in fact in "letters to a young contrarian" your hero encouraged us all to be that.

What I honestly found most entertaining about your rebuttal was how many actually points it addressed. Your use of references to back up your claims was particularly informative and entertaining.

Can't wait for your book on Kissinger though

 

[straydog]

And as i read your post a second time its even funnier.

You accuse ME of comparing my intellectual level to Hitchens, then compare yourself directly to him by suggesting that i should contact either you or him for reading material.

Are you for real????

You read it twice?...awwww...sweet.

hitch, this is a reference by the way....a reference

 

[Spare Tyre]

If any country holds itself up as a bastion of democracy engaged in a deadly war against "terror", if it considers itself the world's police force, if it tries to co-opt other countries into being it's lieutenants in it's "righteous" crusade against an axis of evil, then it better make damn sure it behaves in a way that indicates they have at least one toe on the higher ground, otherwise, they are going to seem no better than the enemies they are so selflessly "defending" the rest of us from.

Hear, hear. And if my country is going to act like an overly affectionate lapdog of the US and do their bidding in countless ways (such as going to war for them), my country and its citizens are complicit in its acts too.

Barrus, I'm also surprised by your stance. Cynicism is one thing, acceptance of human rights abuse or other misuses of power is another. Torture is ok? Really? I'd have thought it's a major violation of human rights. And how hypocritical of the US. If the US are going to hold themselves up as some kind of beacon of light (vomit) that they seem to think entitles them to invade other countries and in other ways meddle and destabilize, then they should be called very loudly on any and all abuses of power. The invasion of Iraq itself was conducted on spurious grounds, and was illegal and immoral.

Might does not make right; in fact it very often makes wrong. If we erode our ideals by brushing violations off with "Oh well, ya gotta expect it", we will surely lose the ideals altogether sometime down the track.

To draw on a famous poem, "They came to torture, and I didn't speak up because every country tortures; They came for journalists, and I didn't speak up because being in a war zone is asking for trouble ... "

There's plenty of evidence which suggests that journalists in Iraq (particularly Iraqi journalists or those associated with Al Jazeera) have been targeted by the US deliberately. In this particular instance it looks more like gross negligence, which is not acceptable either, in my view.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't mind being a contrarian, in fact in "letters to a young contrarian" your hero encouraged us all to be that.

No he didnt. Hitchens has said many times that both this title and "God is not great" were titles which the publisher reccomended to sell more books, and Hitchens has said that he doesnt like the word Contrarian at all.

Hitch...most entertaining post of the week without doubt...I will be laughing for hours thinking about this.

So in essence you are attempting to regurgitate Christopher HitchEns argument and pass it off as your own? Or do you only believe what you think he says? Incapable of forming your own opinion?

This is a pretty weak argument that ive come across before. With nothing else to say, merely accuse me of being incapable of holding my own opinion because someone else holds it to.

What you just said can be passed of as trolling.

Btw, since you ignore this in your post, do you stick by your claim that i am comparing myself to Hitchens because i use part of his name in my username, or do you admit that was a very stupid thing to say?

 

[The Hitch]

Ok stray dog.

Seeing as you do generally seem bewildered by my claim that Americas crimes in the 70's and 80's in Iraq were far worse, i will address this issue for you.

First lets look at you glorious take on the subject, filled with insults to my intelligence.

Americas bar far biggest crime against Iraq was in the 80s?....dear sweet god hitch....write your post...then read it back to yourself before you press "submit"...it just might...might stop you looking so uninformed....and maybe just a quick once over for typos too We don't expect perfection....but just a bit of care huh?

While reading this i hoped for your sake that you would stop, but you just kept on digging a bigger and bigger grave for yourself.

Yes americas biggest crimes in Iraq were in the 1970's and 80's and your post demonstrates that your own knowledge of history is severely limited.

So my comment is so stupid that it was probably not proof read, and makes me look "so uninformed". You then mock my typos, despite the fact that you make several yourself.

Here are Americas crimes in Iraq in 1970's and 80's

1 Spending millions of dollars backing a Kurdish rebbellion in 1972, which they secretly hoped, and made sure would fail, in order to totaly destabalise Iraq, totaly, hence ruining the lives of millions of people. To top if off, leave the Kurds in the rebbellion to get their punishment.

2 Supporting and backing Saddam Hussein as he brought on a reign of terror unparalleled anywhere. Creating a society so dire and poor, that recovery is almost impossible.

3 Being entirely responsible for the Iran Iraq war, in which approximately 1.5 million Iraqis died. Ill repeat that number. 1.5 million. ANother 1.5 million young Iranians. In top of the deaths, further destabilisation of both countries.

Do you seriously think anything America has done in Iraq in the last 7 years is even remotely comparable to these 3 actions.

It was these and not the 2003 invasion which are responsible for the dire situation IRaq has found itself in, because in the 70's and 80's America, for other political gains, totaly destroyed the country and killed millions of people and destined millions more for lives of suffering.


Maybe after reading this now regret the lenghts to which you went to mock that comment?

At the very least i hope, you stop passing yourself of as some great mind, while continuing to make the most stupid assumptions ( the userme comment) and betraying your own ignorance.

 

[The Hitch]

Barrus, I'm also surprised by your stance. Cynicism is one thing, acceptance of human rights abuse or other misuses of power is another. Torture is ok? Really? I'd have thought it's a major violation of human rights. And how hypocritical of the US. If the US are going to hold themselves up as some kind of beacon of light (vomit) that they seem to think entitles them to invade other countries and in other ways meddle and destabilize, then they should be called very loudly on any and all abuses of power. The invasion of Iraq itself was conducted on spurious grounds, and was illegal and immoral.

Barrus is a realist. Now other than accepting that Gesink will never win a gt, this particular stance in international relations totaly throws out the ideas of illegal and legal, or moral and immoral in world affairs.
My signature actually, from Thucydides, is the line on which realism is based.

"Right as the world goes exists only between equals in power".

For Barrus and realists, the international system is like it was in the time of the greeks, anarchical. Man doesnt change. Anarchy rules, man is inherently selfish. There is no such thing as a legal or illegal war. There is no such thing as morality or immorality. Power is all that matters.

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer as they must"

Strong states will always take weak states. They have to actually. If they dont do so, they lose in the balance of power and themselves become weak states. Hence not only does the wish for power make strong states oppress weak states, their survival instincts FORCE them to invade weak states. In such a world there is no legal or illegal. Its a case of if the lion doesnt kill his prey, he himself will die.

So what im saying is you cant argue with these people (realists ) , though all 3 of their major inspirations - Machiaveli, Sun Tzu and the great one thucydidies, are on my list of top historical intellectuals.


BTW, love the poem. Very very good, Im a sucker for most anti war poems especially Owen. Who wrote this particular one?

 

[cartman]

The Hitch

I'm struggling to get the point of your posts. Why does it matter that the US has done worse things in the past? Why should people be more interested in new information about Nixon, who was president over a generation ago than about recent information from WikiLeaks. Information that enables people to do something about it today rather than finding out they were duped 30 years later? Information that reveals corruption and lies given to us from the governments people voted for, and might vote for again. Obviously the most recent drop from WikiLeaks aren't the biggest of news, but you got to see it a whole, there have been past drops and there will be future drops.

If the benchmark for if anything is OK is that worse s**t has happened in the past, we have pretty f**king low bar.

I applaud anyone who participate in getting the truth out to the people, so that corrupt politicians and liars can be held accountable. Although if such a thing was to happen in the US, chances are they are only going to be replaced by more knobjockeys that take it in the *** from corporate America while they swim in their newfound wealth.

Barrus

I'm quite certain that you need to positively identify an enemy target before you can engage it. It's not enough to say that a guy might be carrying an RPG therefore they are right to engage him. I haven't seen the video though so they might have falsely identified them, although that doesn't make it right. The rest of the shooting, I really don't have words for.

 

[The Hitch]

The Hitch

I'm struggling to get the point of your posts. Why does it matter that the US has done worse things in the past? Why should people be more interested in new information about Nixon, who was president over a generation ago than about recent information from WikiLeaks. Information that enables people to do something about it today rather than finding out they were duped 30 years later? Information that reveals corruption and lies given to us from the governments people voted for, and might vote for again. Obviously the most recent drop from WikiLeaks aren't the biggest of news, but you got to see it a whole, there have been past drops and there will be future drops.

If the benchmark for if anything is OK is that worse s**t has happened in the past, we have pretty f**king low bar.

I applaud anyone who participate in getting the truth out to the people, so that corrupt politicians and liars can be held accountable. Although if such a thing was to happen in the US, chances are they are only going to be replaced by more knobjockeys that take it in the *** from corporate America while they swim in their newfound wealth.

I never said that people should be more interested in the past than the present. I said that i do not see the current leaks as catastrophic, because I have seen far worse things in the past.

I stand by my claim that none of the leaks have been catastrophic, and that they will be forgoten as new stories come in.

I also make the point that the leaks only consist of information gained at a certain clearence level, and the stuff that would be catastrophic is known by far fewer people and kept very secret.

As for the rest of my posts about the past, you will find that this straydog character, went to great lenghts to mock my alleged lack of knowledge of the past, so you can hardly expect me to sit idly by and not respond.

Also this is the general politics thread so digressions like this are part of the thread.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Barrus is a realist. Now other than accepting that Gesink will never win a gt, this particular stance in international relations totaly throws out the ideas of illegal and legal, or moral and immoral in world affairs.
My signature actually, from Thucydides, is the line on which realism is based.

"Right as the world goes exists only between equals in power".

For Barrus and realists, the international system is like it was in the time of the greeks, anarchical. Man doesnt change. Anarchy rules, man is inherently selfish. There is no such thing as a legal or illegal war. There is no such thing as morality or immorality. Power is all that matters.

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer as they must"

Strong states will always take weak states. They have to actually. If they dont do so, they lose in the balance of power and themselves become weak states. Hence not only does the wish for power make strong states oppress weak states, their survival instincts FORCE them to invade weak states. In such a world there is no legal or illegal. Its a case of if the lion doesnt kill his prey, he himself will die.

So what im saying is you cant argue with these people (realists ) , though all 3 of their major inspirations - Machiaveli, Sun Tzu and the great one thucydidies, are on my list of top historical intellectuals.


BTW, love the poem. Very very good, Im a sucker for most anti war poems especially Owen. Who wrote this particular one?

IMO there is a place for cynics, realists and idealists. I suspect many, if not most, of us are all of these things at different times. I know I am.

The dismissal of ideals is a dangerous slippery slope.

IMO the poem I referenced is not "anti-war" so much as it is about the immorality and dangers of not challenging abuses of power.

***

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

--- attributed to Martin Niemöller, 1946

 

[Cobblestones]

Wikileaks is absolutely revealing. Considering there's not more than 1/3 of one percent published so far, it's the greatest s**tstorm I've seen in a long, long time, and the first, truly global one.

UK trying to circumvent the treaty on clusterbombs.
Spanish court heavily influenced by US.
The whole situation in Yemen where US finances the civil war against the Houthis.
The utter mismanagement of the situation in Georgia.
Circumvention of export control in favor of Blackwater.
Sanctioned spying of high UN personnel.
Incompetent fumbling of the situation in ****stan. (F**k CN's filter, it's Pa-kistan)
Bribing foreign states to accept Guantanamo prisoners.

These are just a few of the things we learned about. I could easily double this list and still leave out all the cables which contain mostly situational reports (and snide comments). You know, the stuff everybody says is normal for such communications.

No, the list I made is about things where the US has or has tried to circumvent (foreign) national and international law or at least has influenced foreign powers to do so. That's actually stuff for which people could and should go to jail. Stuff where human lives are actually in danger.

And remember, that's from 1/3 of one percent of all the leaked cables. Unless it's cherry picked, the whole shebang will be about 300 times as bad as what we've learned so far.

Now, what I found the scariest part of it was the reaction in the US with respect to Wikileaks. Assange is typically referred to as 'rapist', 'enemy combatant', 'terrorist' or similar; and not only from the right, where we're used to such incendiary propaganda, but from the left as well. The actual leaks have been practically absent from any media outlet, left or right. The story is the person Assange, except that he has seized to be a person in the public eye. He's become a monster, a terrorist, which has to be hunted and 'put down'. It's an entirely sad affair for a people which apparently values their 'freedoms' so much. We should not forget:

'Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden'
Rosa Luxemburg

But then, in our fascistoid kleptocracy they already came for the communists and trade unionist, so there's not many left who can speak up.

 

[Barrus]

There is a total lack of opposition to various crimes and abuses not committed by the US?...Where have you been you young sweet naive thing? Did you miss Rwanda?....Apartheid?....The Balkans?....Tibet?...Falun Gong?....Somalia?....Siera Leone?....Saddam's attempted Genocide of the kurds?....North Korea? ....this list goes on and on and on by the way....wow you have some catching up to do, and when do, you might need a lie down. There have been people disgusted by governments' behaviour since governments began. Whether the media...or more specifically the "media" you have been reading (for you I will allow FHM, Heat, "American fiction and HBO straight to TV movies") have been as inclined to cover it in the same way that they are covering US involvement in Iraq and WL is debateable.

Something was pointing and targeted towards the helicopter, no clear indication what it was, but it was clear that the group had weapons, at that point they were a legitimate target. I will not discuss any further, because i don't think I will change your mind

Not against all abuses not by the US, but a lot of abuses by other states are ignored. Why is there no outcry against the ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda and Congo. Why wasn't there a whole lot of outcry against the summary execution of IRA members, where was the outcry of Georgian warcrimes during the war 2 years ago, where was the outcry for the situation in Sri Lanka, which lasted up untill this year, where is the outcry against Senegal for legally supporting the abuse of gay people, where is the outcry for the situation in Bhurma, where is the outcry for the situation in Thailand, where is the outcry over Indonesia and it's religious intolerance, where is the outcry for the situation in Burundi, and I could go on and on.

People jump far too quickly on the US without recognizing what their own state does and what is condones or even implicitly or explicitly support. Why don't people first try to change their own states' government and critize that? But most people jump on the chance to critize the US, which is what I have a general issue with.
But really I don't think I am a realist, more of a pragmatist, but I believe that people should first target their own state and the far greater rights abuses, those abuses which they can influence either by buying habits or by placing pressure on their governments. I do agre that things like Guantanamo should not happen, HOWEVER far too many people use it solely to bash the US. But if push comes to shove if it doesn't happen in the US or is a popular cause they will not care, they won't do anything about nothing and far greater rights abuses than guantanamo remain in place and are reinforced

 

[Spare Tyre]

The Hitch

I'm quite certain that you need to positively identify an enemy target before you can engage it. It's not enough to say that a guy might be carrying an RPG therefore they are right to engage him. I haven't seen the video though so they might have falsely identified them, although that doesn't make it right. The rest of the shooting, I really don't have words for.

Something was pointing and targeted towards the helicopter, no clear indication what it was, but it was clear that the group had weapons, at that point they were a legitimate target. I will not discuss any further, because i don't think I will change your mind

I watched the video the other night. All I saw was a group of people, a couple of whom had long-lensed cameras slung over their shoulders. I didn't see the "weapons" aimed at anything, which might indeed be the reason the cameras were mis-identified as weapons.

Edited to add: Bradley Manning, who leaked the footage to Wikileaks, is apparently a former intelligence analyst. Apparently he thought it was important the world saw this footage.

 

[Barrus]

I watched the video the other night. All I saw was a group of people, a couple of whom had long-lensed cameras slung over their shoulders. I didn't see the "weapons" aimed at anything, which might indeed be the reason the cameras were mis-identified as weapons.

Edited to add: Bradley Manning, who leaked the footage to Wikileaks, is apparently a former intelligence analyst. I can't imagine he'd risk a lifetime of freedom (or his life?) for something which was legitimate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

If you look at 3:38 the persons in the middle can clearly be seen as holding something that is easily mistaken for, or identified as an AK-47

at the 4 minute mark what he is holding could easily be seen as an rpg in the process of being targeted at the helicopter.

Now again, the entire action was not legitimate, the targeting of the van picking up the wounded would not even be legitimate if this van would have been of enemy combatants

 

[rhubroma]

Something was pointing and targeted towards the helicopter, no clear indication what it was, but it was clear that the group had weapons, at that point they were a legitimate target. I will not discuss any further, because i don't think I will change your mind

Not against all abuses not by the US, but a lot of abuses by other states are ignored. Why is there no outcry against the ethnic cleansing that went on in Rwanda and Congo. Why wasn't there a whole lot of outcry against the summary execution of IRA members, where was the outcry of Georgian warcrimes during the war 2 years ago, where was the outcry for the situation in Sri Lanka, which lasted up untill this year, where is the outcry against Senegal for legally supporting the abuse of gay people, where is the outcry for the situation in Bhurma, where is the outcry for the situation in Thailand, where is the outcry over Indonesia and it's religious intolerance, where is the outcry for the situation in Burundi, and I could go on and on.

People jump far too quickly on the US without recognizing what their own state does and what is condones or even implicitly or explicitly support. Why don't people first try to change their own states' government and critize that? But most people jump on the chance to critize the US, which is what I have a general issue with.
But really I don't think I am a realist, more of a pragmatist, but I believe that people should first target their own state and the far greater rights abuses, those abuses which they can influence either by buying habits or by placing pressure on their governments. I do agre that things like Guantanamo should not happen, HOWEVER far too many people use it solely to bash the US. But if push comes to shove if it doesn't happen in the US or is a popular cause they will not care, they won't do anything about nothing and far greater rights abuses than guantanamo remain in place and are reinforced

Barus your arguments are typically those put forward by somebody trying to justify the unjustifiable. In this my father was right: two wrongs don't make a right.

There is never any justification for torture. Ones abuses never justify those of another. These concepts, so basic and simple to understand, are the fundamental units upon which any civilized society is built. When they are violated, then civility itself is undermined and we behave much more like a pack of stray dogs than humans who claim to be something more evolved collectively as a society in the 21st century.

If there is anything to defend by us in the Western World, especially if America goes around the globe claiming the high moral ground in every way, then it is all those violations of human rights which you mention above. Of course one is a liberty to do so, but only on one condition: namely that you have not violated them yourself. This has been America's colossal shortcoming, and hypocrisy, which has made it morally bankrupt for quite some time.

Instead of having invaded Iraq (and after all the cynical crimes commited in the region in the 70's and 80's by the US as Hitch so sucinctly expressed above), why doesn't America send its military apparatus into Africa to liberate the people from the bloody dictatorships that reign over them? The answer is as simple as it is obvious: economic expediency. In many cases they are puppet dictatorships which are more convenient to our multi-nationals whom our government looks after, for doing business on the continent. So never mind about what they are doing, as much as what's America doing to help a rightous cause. Nada.

Why after 9-11 didn't America make the Saudi Royal family fall, given that just about every terrorist involved came from the Arabian peninsula, but not one from Iraq?

Why has America continued to support the worst forms of oppression in Central and South America, while even playing a hand in the rise and endurance of one of the worst 20th century dictators, August Pinochet of Chile, creating thereby a series of Banana Republics so convenient to our oil and agricultural establishments?

Why does America continue to do business with China and buy many of its useless things to flood the various Wall Mart's of the Homeland, things which have been produced under the worst labor conditions that hark back to the abuses of XIX century industrial capitalism?

And this is just the short list. All of which can be responded to with one answer: the economy.

The point is Barus America has no moral purchase around the globe today, yet continues to self claim that its wars, masacres and torturing are justified simply because, and there really is no other reason than this, it is America that is doing it. As if the economic interests of one nation and national history of a single State could transform what is objectively criminal behavior into a common virtue, in point of fact justify the unjustifiable. That the terrorists and criminals it fights are simply the enemies of all. According to who? If you ask many people around the globe, and a surprisingly number of people within the so called "coalition of the willing," they would be in complete disagreement.

Its time to denounce that which simply is condemnable, without pitiful excuses or fear to justify one's claims to the contrary. And its time for, and this is what is really missing, objectivity. America has the largest, along with Russia, nuclear arsenal on the planet. How can it then go around trying to be the enforcers of nuclear weapons non-proliferation? Without seeming completely hypocritical?

I know what you are thinking, the world doesn't work that way, this is naive, reale politik demands otherwise, etc. But these are mere excuses in not trying to resolve the rebus of international affairs, and in not demanding from our government and military consistancy between what they preach and their actions. And in the end such crimes and criminal behavior only works unremitingly against America's interests, and the world's, when the greatest power behaves in the most horrible of ways. Just as in the grotesque example that it sets for everyone else. One who claims moral superiority must lead by example. This is simply not the case.

The world must change, which means starting with individual people. All wars must end. Especially preventative ones based upon a most spurious reasoning. This is why I have tried to convince you of the errors of your judgement, though I'm not presumptous enough to believe that it will have any effect.

PS: The latest: Assange has let us know of the illegal spying of UN diplomats by the US State Department. We know that this has always taken place, though is another praxis that explains why everything is so chaotic, why there is so much distrust, disrespect and, ultimately, loathing among the nations. This too must change.

 

[Barrus]

One who claims moral superiority must lead by example. This is simply not the case.

The problem with this part of your argument is that those who critize the US also claim moral superiority, so they too must lead by example, this is in their case also simply not the case.

I do not agree with the policy of the US, as I thought I had made clear. However I do have a problem with those that critize the US while not being disgusted by other atrocities, far worse than what the US does AT THE MOMENT. People who feel safe to critize yet take no action, action which they could be taking. People who critize the US but do not put in the effort to first change the policy within their own state, to stop their own state from violating human rights and condoning and aiding in human rights abuses by other states with their developmental aid.

I do not think you understand my point. I have issues with the policy of the US, I do have problems, especially with their track record. Yet I see that their are far more pressing matters at hand, pressing matters in which I myself can provide a contribution, if not by my own hand, at least through my own government. But for many people the US is the equivalent of a boogeyman, whatever they do is magnified and is turned against, yet what happens in smaller countries is overlooked. People in other states than the US needs to look at their own states first before pointing their finger to blame others. If they do not do so they also claim moral superiority without leading by example