<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 2 2005, 01:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 2 2005, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually thanks to Cagey the whole geneva convention is thrown out on its arse right there.
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I wrote before, just because the circumstances change, you cannot simply ignore a treaty you singed. Creating a gray zone by inventing the term "illegal combatant" is just an easy way to avoid these restrictions, like building a detention camp on foreing ground to deliver prisoners to the jurisdiction of allies that do not hesitate to practice questionable interrogation tactics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Japan declared that they were no longer subject to a treaty outright; the US says that the treaty doesn't apply to the a specific situation--there is a big difference.
In fact, Donald Rumsfeld has stated that the US does consider itself still under the treaty and has also said that members of both the US milirary and the Iraqi regular army should be and have been under the protection of the convention--there was major backlash on March 23, 2003 when Rumsfeld used this point of view to demand that Iraq uphold the treaty by not broadcasting images of US POWs.
I've already stated a few posts back that I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way the US government is handling suspected terrorists. I'll go a step further here and say that I believe that it's immoral to hold someone without trial unless they are a POW, so I agree that the current adminstration has constructed a grey area that is arguably in violation of human rights.
I don't believe, however, that the application of Geneva Conventions is appropriate here--it suggests that the US should consider terrorist suspects to be members of a militia or standing army; as I've already noted, the suspects are from all over the world and aren't acting with (explicit at least) government sanction. The <a href='http://www.genevaconventions.org/' target='_blank'>Third Geneva Convention of 1949</a> (on the treatment of POWs) says this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Qaeda and other extremist groups aren't foreign powers, didn't sign the convention, and labeling the anti-terrorist attacks the "war on terror" doesn't put them under the header of a war against a militia. They don't fit (6) when US troops invade because they aren't respecting the laws of war--since they don't match a category above (feel free to argue for a specific one if you disagree), the Third Geneva Convention doesn't classify them as POWs and therefore the entire text does not apply. That is what Bush et. al. have been saying.
If people would stop trying to slam a square peg in a round hole and hold the US accountable on principles of human rights for their own sake rather than attempting to hold them to the Geneva Conventions, they might be making more progress with the administration (which, incidentally, says that it still feels morally obligated to uphold human rights even through Geneva doesn't apply).
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 2 2005, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 2 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Royal Family of Saud wanted US forces to stay.... not the political opposition and their leaders. Nobody asked the people as what they thought about this.They were told the US would leave after the war. World politics does have nothing to do with this.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course the only rational response to give the country that doesn’t remove the military bases used to save your home country from imminent invasion by a maniacal, power hungry dictator is to kill thousands of that countries innocent civilians and wish death upon the rest.
Look at the government of Saudi Arabia, it’s not like that was the only thing they were told that wasn't true. Heck Bush told us we would have a "Collation of the Willing" in Iraq, but you don't see any American terrorists groups blowing up buildings in Italy because their pulling their troops.
Ether way the entire Middle East is doomed when we discover a viable alternative energy or their oil runs out. Probably the latter. You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy; it's the only way they can even hope to survive in a post-oil Middle East.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ether way the entire Middle East is doomed when we discover a viable alternative energy or their oil runs out. Probably the latter. You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy; it's the only way they can even hope to survive in a post-oil Middle East.
BADAAA! Canditate wins the prize! You hit the top of the nail
But do you realize that there are Arab nations that actually develope alternative industries with great success, despite being monarchies and and still value muslim traditions? Most of the Emirates like Dubai do invest heavily on High tech, tourism and trade, partly because they were never rich in oil in the first place or thus did not become interesting enough to intervene in their politics. Saudia Arabia does nothing that way, more precisely, is unable to do so because their economy is struggling with their debts, which they cannot pay of because they cannot raise the oil prize.
So again, back to the question. Why is that so? The political opposition of ALL branches in Saudi Arabia is pledging the government to reform the country. The people are getting upset because they are granted less money from oil revenues, while the <i>sevral thousand</i> memebrs of the <a href='http://www.datarabia.com/royals/familytree.asp' target='_blank'>Royal Familiy of Saudi Arabia</a> burn money like a forest fire. I was once on vacations in London and wanted to spent an evening in the casino. As I was walking up to the entrance, a bus stopped and all of a sudden, the place was overun by dozens of Saudi Prinzesses with rolls of banknotes about the size of Toilet paper in their hands. I am not exaggerating. Once on the Oktoberfest in my hometown Munich, (I guess that event is familiar to you?) I was out with the colleagues on previously ordered places in the sideloges of one of the halls. Then, 3 Sheiks went in with 30 Bodyguards and the translator told everybody that there is the xx.th Crown-Prince of the house of Saud and everybody should leave the box. As compensation he offered everybody 3000 Dollar. You should have seen his reaction as 100 drunken people stood up and the first mug of beer flew into his Highnesses direction. Now just count it up: he was willing to pay 300000 Dollar for one evening of private entertainment. 300000 Dollar for 3 men. 300000 Dollar of money that belongs to his people, not him. Now, you still have not answered my question.
I propose another one to you. What would you do if someone would use the US as a cheap source of ressources which are brought to the world market in order to keep the prizes for those ressources low.
I tell you what you would do: <a href='http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/USA/TeaParty.html' target='_blank'>http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChr...A/TeaParty.html</a>
------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course the only rational response to give the country that doesn’t remove the military bases used to save your home country from imminent invasion by a maniacal, power hungry dictator is to kill thousands of that countries innocent civilians and wish death upon the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just could not resist: "He may be a son of a b***, but he is <i>our</i> son of a b***"
Sounds familiar? He was <i>your</i> powerhungry dictator and when he sloughtered innocent civilians your governemnt sat by idly and looked the other way. Now deal with the consequences instead of wondering why 9/11 occured. You beat the dog when he barks and then you wonder when he bites back. Just like Pearl Harbor... "Ohhh heaven! Evil Japos attacked us! What a surprise! Why would they? We just tried to cut them of from all vital supplies and sanction their trade. Shame on them ..." Start accepting your responsibility and understand the origin of the conflict, then maybe you have a chance to solve it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would they, if all that relations with our democracies brought them is wars, instability and political and economical dependance? They do not have so much good experience with foreingners, you know? Iraq, for example has turned from bad to worse since the US began to mess with their politics. First the US built up Saddam and made a minority rule the country by violent force, in order to push him against Iran. Then they denied their support for this leader as he developed ambitions on his own in search of compensations for the costly and unsuccessful war with Iran. When Saudi Arabia expressed their concerns, the US government decided that they were the more important ally. Then after the war they put it under embargo. The result of all this is that this country is economically dead, the population is torn apart and fighting each other. Iraq is currently one of the <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>poorest nations in the middle east</a> , including those without large oil reserves.
Iraqs people live below that line that is classifying third world countrys. The industry lies in waste, worn down by war, sabotage and decay. The security situation is so dire that it is simply impossible to rebuild any of it anytime soon. Not to mention that there is no money there to pay the reconstruction efford, because of Iraqi <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a46n15b01.htm' target='_blank'>debts</a> mounting up since the 80s. Who's going to pay for that reasa? Do you want to pay taxes for this? But worst of all, foreign intervention has created another hotspot and future civil war zone. Great job! Mission accomplished.
Also, why would they understand the military intervention in one of the holiest places besides Jerusalem and Mekka by foreign troops as anything other than invasion, when the leader of the Free World refers to the war against terror as "crusade?" Are you aware that the word "crusade" is, even after centuries passed, still embedded in the Muslim conciousness in a similar way as the word "Holocaust" is to the jews? Are you aware that there are fears connected to the US troops on Arabic soil, be it Saudi Arabia, Quatar or Iraq? Fears on which men like Bin Laden build their foundation of power upon? Are you not able or not willing to comprehend this?
Besides, China is a good example that you do not need to be democratic in oder to be successful and politically sovereing.
------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If people would stop trying to slam a square peg in a round hole and hold the US accountable on principles of human rights for their own sake rather than attempting to hold them to the Geneva Conventions, they might be making more progress with the administration (which, incidentally, says that it still feels morally obligated to uphold human rights even through Geneva doesn't apply)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 2 2005, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 2 2005, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually thanks to Cagey the whole geneva convention is thrown out on its arse right there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sure it's not Cagey's fault.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just like Pearl Harbor... "Ohhh heaven! Evil Japos attacked us! What a surprise! Why would they? We just tried to cut them of from all vital supplies and sanction their trade. Shame on them ..."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...for retaliating with force against an economic move meant to punish them for invading China and killing Chinese citizens for no reason. I don't see how you can compare this to the situation in the Middle East, unless 1) you think we weren't justified in cutting off trade with Japan, or 2) you think we were justified in setting up dictators in the Middle East.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...for retaliating with force against an economic move meant to punish them for invading China and killing Chinese citizens for no reason. I don't see how you can compare this to the situation in the Middle East, unless 1) you think we weren't justified in cutting off trade with Japan, or 2) you think we were justified in setting up dictators in the Middle East.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Initially, the conflict with japan has its root is Western colonization effords in asian waters. Does the"The Black Fleet" ring tell you anything? That was admiral Perrys fleet that opened Japans harbours to international trade. And triggered the Meji revolution resulting in the overthrow of Japans feudal system. While the revolution was imminent and inevitable anyway, it also had another sideeffect: The Black Fleet became a synonym for foreign domination and was embeded in the japanese mind. The new leadership now undertook massive efford to build up an industrial and military power strong enough to resist the Westerners. They were very successful, as they managed to develope from a feudal argrycultural society to the first non-european colonial power in less than 50 years!
They quickly expanded their sphere of influence by a short war with their neighbor and age old rival China, where they gained Taiwan and some of chinese territory. Later on they annexed the rest of Manchuko and installed a puppet governement. Finally, in 1904, they engaged in competition with with the russian sea power for dominace in the pacific and blockaded the russian pacific fleet in Port Arthur. The Czar then sent out the great atlantic fleet in order to lift the blockade and once and for all destroy the Japanese sea power and with it every chance to stand up again. (that was somewhat the origian tone of the announcement)
The Fleet arrived late and in disarray and was utterly destroyed. The ports were already taken by then, the pacific fleet was annihilated in an attempt to brake the through and reach Vladivostok. The japanese singlehandedly destroyed one of the mightiest sea powers and hammered another nail into the Czars coffin. They were the new dominant force in the pacific. In WW1, they seized German colonial territory and were granted the mandates by the treaty of Versaille.
The stage was set. Freeing the world from Japanese tyranny had nothing to do with the reasons for the pacific war.
Also, if you take a closer look at the US history you will see astonishing similarities to Japans development. The expnsion to the west including a little bit of genozide here and there, the annexiation of Texas, the brief sea war with the British to ensure free trade ... I really don't want to offend you, but the methods of creating a great nation are the same everywhere. War. And then great nations clash to contest who will be the superior one. After WW1 there were exactly 2 important nations that emerged stronger from the war instead of beeing weakened or barely holding status quo. Those two nations were Japan and the US. Japan was confident in their ability to repeat Admiral Togos victory over Russia with the US and the US feared exactly this to happen. The conflct was a matter of time. Not a matter of moral standards.
------ edit:
To more precisely answer your question Sky: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how you can compare this to the situation in the Middle East, unless<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both conflicts are a result of political influence from outside. Both situations resemble policies that hampered the soverenity of the affected people. Both occurences form oppinions and reactions in the people. In case of Japans, the affected party was an expasionistic nation that was dependent on trade. In case of the terrorist threat, the resistance is coming from the opposition of the affected nations. It is more similar to the communist revolutions in the last century. Oppositional leaders form guerrilia organisations to overthrow their leadership, which they deem corrupt and the enemy of their people. The targets are the political leaders, the security forces and, most notably, the supporters of those corrupt leaderships. The difference lies in their military options. While Japan was able to mount a full scale Military campain, the terrorists have to resort to terrorism.
And yes, there was no real justification in cutting Japan of from trade.
---- Please excuse me but I'm short on time right now and can't spellcheck. Well, I guess my spelling is horrible anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: some clarifications. Now I'm late and off, hope you can decifer this ...
Legat, this is getting ridiculous. If you look back long enough, you'll always find members of any given ethnicity responsible for events that were in a way connected to a given later one. By that logic, you'll be busy pointing fingers till you reach Adam and Eve. No man can be responsible for things done by people who were born after his death.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 3 2005, 09:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 3 2005, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Legat, this is getting ridiculous. If you look back long enough, you'll always find members of any given ethnicity responsible for events that were in a way connected to a given later one. By that logic, you'll be busy pointing fingers till you reach Adam and Eve. No man can be responsible for things done by people who were born after his death. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It will always be this way, Nemesis. The past will always be held over the heads of those who had no part of it.
Some individuals can not comprehend that people can not change the past, only learn from it and strive to fix the present. Fixing a problem that has been festering for decades is not a simple matter it's rather like a badly ingrown toenail...takes pain to relieve the pain. <span style='color:white'>Erm... Yeah. Check that point about being judgemental in the rules again, will you?</span> <span style='color:red'> Heh,I did, again. Got caught up in the moment. Too much emotion-building downtime inbetween classroom electronics malfunctions. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> To Legat, I apologize. It wasn't very civil. </span>
People have to stop kicking each other when someone finally decides on a possible solution and tries to follow through with it.
Especially when the alternates involve sitting back and waiting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Behavior is controlled by the individual.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply wrong. There is no such thing as individual behavior in our society anymore. Not on a scope as it would matter on the great picture.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but he's right and unleyy you are referring to something I'm not getting here, you are making no sense.
I, for example, play a great deal of video games. Most of them are quite violent but I conciously make the decision not to kill real people because I feel it is very wrong to do so unless in self-defense.
My "not killing people" is the behavior of this individual. And by the way, it does matter to society whether or not I, or anyone else, go on a rampage since if I remove another individual that is one less individual that does something however small for society.
We are all connected... one death, one word not spoken, one picture, one blink can have such a huge impact on society over time due to the way people socialize that it is rediculous to believe that individual behaviour has no bearing on society.
Whether I take a crap now, or wait until my lunch break effects how much work I accomplish. That effect how many classes at Auburn University are complete and unhindered, which effects how well versed the students are with their subjects and how the teachers feel when grading later on that day. Which effects how well the students will perform in the next set of classes and the quality of their employment, which effects that business and all the people they effect.
Eventually some kid in BFN cuts his foot on a Coca Cola top, curses and since Coke is an American product, joins the Jihad.
The point made there was that in the age of 'mass'-everything and states numbering billions of people, a 'normal' individual's decisions is going to get drowned out in the vast average that we call 'the public'. Sure, you can start with the chaos theory, as you did, but you'll admit that the statistical chances of <i>your</i> wing-beat summoning a thunderstorm is not monumental.
Though I've got to say that I disagree with the notion myself since there are few issues every part of society has an established opinion on. Therefore, a relatively small vocal group of people has every chance of influencing the great mass simply by supplying the notions that are then tackled generally during the societal discussion of the issue.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 3 2005, 09:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 3 2005, 09:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Legat, this is getting ridiculous. If you look back long enough, you'll always find members of any given ethnicity responsible for events that were in a way connected to a given later one. By that logic, you'll be busy pointing fingers till you reach Adam and Eve. No man can be responsible for things done by people who were born after his death. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry Nem, it was not my intention to draw a line between WW2 and the current crisis. If it looks that way I did not make my point clear enough. I was a bit in a hurry and could not check the content properly. My synopsis about japanese history was just meant as an example and I was obviously rambling off a bit. Sorry about that.
I merely wanted to display a pattern. Not nessesarily a pattern only to apply on the US. You can go back to any point in history and you will find similar behavior and repetetive course of action. Take ancient Rome as an example. Take the Gaulic Wars. Most people who read an Asterix comic know that Gaius Julius Cesar conquered the gaulic Celts. Some might be aware of the great last battle of Alesia, where the last great alliance of gaulic tribes under the leadership of Vercingetorix was defeated by Cesars legions. and the wars came finally to an end.
However, few people know that Vercingetorix, the first and only celtic chief that <i> ever </i> succeeded to defeat Cesar in the battle and managed to unite the tribes, was once one of Cesars trusted allies. Cesar was a cunning politician and he used the traditional struggles between the celtic nobles to his advantage. Only after the first massacres on non combatants had occured and the first towns were burned, Vercingetorix became Romes enemy and united the tribes.
I hope I have made my point more precisely this time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some individuals can not comprehend that people can not change the past, only learn from it and strive to fix the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm ... yea. Basically what I tried to tell you was that about every single US President since 50 years is repeating his precursors mistakes and made things worse in the middle east instead of better. So ... well. Yes, learn from the past and go fix stuff. Best way to do is drop some more bombs I guess ... Iraq is a perfet example as of how that "fixing the present" can ruin a nation outright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry, but he's right and unleyy you are referring to something I'm not getting here, you are making no sens<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nem already answered this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though I've got to say that I disagree with the notion myself since there are few issues every part of society has an established opinion on. Therefore, a relatively small vocal group of people has every chance of influencing the great mass simply by supplying the notions that are then tackled generally during the societal discussion of the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement is only partly viable. If I understand you correctly, you mean by those small groups entities like, lets say, the femimist movement, or an anti-war movement. In general, an activist group that wants to achieve a particular goal.
Those small vocal groups are not able to transport their message on their own. They are depending on so called opinion makers to transport their message to the mass. Those opinion makers are people of public interest and they do this not out of generosity. So, in the end, wheter or not you will be able to ignite a discussion large enough to affect society is in the hand of a third party. This third party decides whether your intentions are worth to be heared or not and their descision is based upon wheter they benefit from supporting the group or not.
The Teri Shivao dispute is a perfect example for this. In general however, the individual influence on society as a whole is next to nill, and unless you do not have a spectacular case to offer, no one will help you to get enough notice to affect peoples way of thinking. If your child is dying of cancer and a nucler plant is next to your house, all you need is a good lawyer, the press and a politician trying to profile himself as a familyman. If you want to improove governmental efficiency by reducing bureocratic burdens in order to create more jobs, no one gives a ****.
But thats going off Topic again. But feel free to open another thread about this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Only after the first massacres on non combatants had occured and the first towns were burned, Vercingetorix became Romes enemy and united the tribes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, I can't imagine why.
Exactly how much leeway should we have given Saddam? He was our ally against Iran; yes we put him in power because it was in our best interest at the time.
He made a decision to invade Kuwait and he made a horrible mistake in thinking we would ignore it. I fail to see how this is our fault. I think you’re giving far too much credit to how much we liked, trusted, or had control over Saddam. Sure he was our "ally" but not in the sense of the British, more like a really weak version of Russia during WWII.
You speak of the anti-American sentiment of the Saudi people as if it were some organized, rational, well-informed movement. Many of these people have been raised from childhood to hate America, we are insinuated with Satan from the time they are little children. For many I doubt the issue of our military bases on their soil is even a known or integral part of their anger. We could pull all our troops from the region this day and the same number of people would still hate us. In fact it would most likely be seen as a sign of weakness and inspire further attacks.
The official report says that in 2 1/2 years there have been 5 confirmed and 4 unconfirmed cases of mistreatment of the book, and 15 cases of detainees descecrating their own copies. Some of the detainee offenses, like using the Quran as a pillow, probably shouldn't be chalked up the to the guards at all, but for the sake of argument it may be best to take the worst case using the numbers supplied and blame the guards for all of them.
Conservatively, then, we have 24 recorded instances in which the Quran has been mistreated at Guantanamo Bay in a little over two years. As I stated early in the thread, I'm not shocked to see individual cases of abuse in a camp like Guantanamo, and a track record of one less than one abuse of the Quran a month doesn't suggest an endorsed pattern of abuse--it suggests that individual people were acting like idiots.
That's the worst view of the numbers. If you remove the supposed detainee abuses, it becomes one case approximately every three months. If you look only at confirmed cases, it's about one per every six months.
Some may question the authenticity of the report's numbers, but I'd argue that Brig. Gen. Hood would have more to lose if he lied in the report than by admitting additional abuses now--there are many whistleblowing opportunities available to other soldiers finishing their duties at Guantanamo Bay, and although it hasn't been brought up yet in this thread, there have been <a href='http://www.amafandvac.org/article.php' target='_blank'>Muslim US soldiers</a> at Guantanamo, too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the worst view of the numbers. If you remove the supposed detainee abuses, it becomes one case approximately every three months. If you look only at confirmed cases, it's about one per every six months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sad thing is the damadge is already done. Like you said before, the US forces should see it as a top priority to prevent such bad PR, since every incident like this translates directly into more dead people ...
-----
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fail to see how this is our fault<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have answered this by yourself already:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was our ally against Iran; yes we put him in power because it was in our best interest at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was chosen purposefully because he was a Sunnite leader and bound to subdue the Shiite majority in Iraq. The goal was to prevent a coalition between the Shiite powers in Iran and Iraq. This ignited the Iran/Iraq war which lead to debts and economical regression in Iraq. Saddam sought for compensation. The invasion of Kuwait was tolerated by the US administration until the Saudis expressed their concearns. The outcome after 2 Wars and the embargo is <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> The irony is, that Mr Bush is creating exatly the scenario which should be prevented back then. With the new Shiite domination in Iraq, the Shiites are on the way to become the major power in the middle east. Quite short sighted imho.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You speak of the anti-American sentiment of the Saudi people as if it were some organized, rational, well-informed movement<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not all political expressions in the middle eastern society are dominated by burning flags and riots <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> There are several oppositional groups, including more moderate religious conservatives and progressive reformers. In Saudi Arabia, for example there are open discussions about limiting the influence of the religion police and the younger Saudis are to a large part more open to western society than one might think. There is a large political opposition that demands restrictions for the wasteful monarchy etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For many I doubt the issue of our military bases on their soil is even a known or integral part of their anger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is an integral part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We could pull all our troops from the region this day and the same number of people would still hate us. In fact it would most likely be seen as a sign of weakness and inspire further attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Doubtless. It is too late for a peaceful solution.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Jun 5 2005, 03:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jun 5 2005, 03:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the worst view of the numbers. If you remove the supposed detainee abuses, it becomes one case approximately every three months. If you look only at confirmed cases, it's about one per every six months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sad thing is the damadge is already done. Like you said before, the US forces should see it as a top priority to prevent such bad PR, since every incident like this translates directly into more dead people ... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It should be the US force's top priority, maybe, but it's not every individual soldier's top priority, of that you can be sure.
That might have something to do with the lack of a brainwashing program upon entering the military in this country. Unless you think that'd be a good idea, controlling sporadic emotional outbursts by our troops in stressful conditions is going to be impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->how can you defend a act on a book of some hedens? (spl?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Eh, what? 1) It's heathens, 2) You think it would be alright to desecrate the Kuran, or any other holy book, or is that just poor grammar obscuring your comment?
I am utterly amazed at Metalcat's reply. They're still people, they have a right to religion, they are to be treated in a humane way. Religion-wise, no religion is more right ore more false than another, and nobody has any authority on any religion. You shouldn't be able to banish a religion, prevent freedom of religion, or discriminate for religion. Can't you even look at history and see what religion hate has caused?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cereal KillR+Jun 5 2005, 05:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cereal KillR @ Jun 5 2005, 05:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can't you even look at history and see what religion hate has caused? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought of a theory a few years ago in which the only two powers in the universe that affect human lives are Religious Intolerance and Religious Fanaticism.
Together throughout human history they perform a deadly duet fuelled by a yin-yang process of human death.
That was right around the time I stopped doing acid. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I just have to wonder how much of this is real, and how much is made up...
In any case here's what I have to say
Yes... the US of A requires RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE. -yet it's against the law to teach/practice religion in school (least around here it is... get caught reading a bible during school... hello 3 days ISS )
The US of A was founded by WHITE CAUCASIAN MALES based unpon CHRISTIAN BELIEFES -yet in the US of A, White, Christian males is a MINORITY... >_> ouch
The US of A demands religious equality. -Yet we have hate groups like the KKK slandering, desicrating, and killing others of other religions... because it's there religion. How do we react to that?
<!--QuoteBegin-BulletHead+Jun 5 2005, 10:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BulletHead @ Jun 5 2005, 10:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The US of A was founded by WHITE CAUCASIAN MALES based unpon CHRISTIAN BELIEFES -yet in the US of A, White, Christian males is a MINORITY... >_> ouch <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> come again...?
The issue is, of course, walking the fine line between religious tolerance and <a href='http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/11821558.htm' target='_blank'>omgwthbbq</a>
Melatonin - ~50% of the USA's population is male. Which means that, unless 100% of males are Christians, the group "Christian male" is a minority. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Actually, it's less than 50%. It ain't a one-for-one deal. Just tends to work out somewhere near there. IIRC, at the last census it was closer to a 57/43% split of females to males.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 06:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 06:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The issue is, of course, walking the fine line between religious tolerance and <a href='http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/11821558.htm' target='_blank'>omgwthbbq</a>
You know the United States was NOT founded on christian beliefs because we have what is called 'seperation of church and state'.
Not only did the founding fathers not want to include religion with the government but they also did not use any bibilical source for their laws.
It was simply rights that all people should have reguardless of religion/creed/race/sex/etc.
If you believe this country was founded on christian beliefs you need to go back and re-read a history book, and then read the bible. Specifically one of the older translations, you will see how much they did NOT base it on that book.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Jun 6 2005, 07:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 6 2005, 07:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You know the United States was NOT founded on christian beliefs because we have what is called 'seperation of church and state'.
Not only did the founding fathers not want to include religion with the government but they also did not use any bibilical source for their laws.
It was simply rights that all people should have reguardless of religion/creed/race/sex/etc.
If you believe this country was founded on christian beliefs you need to go back and re-read a history book, and then read the bible. Specifically one of the older translations, you will see how much they did NOT base it on that book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> doesnt seem like bush seperates the church from the state
<!--QuoteBegin-Nemesis Zero+Jun 3 2005, 02:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jun 3 2005, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point made there was that in the age of 'mass'-everything and states numbering billions of people, a 'normal' individual's decisions is going to get drowned out in the vast average that we call 'the public'. Sure, you can start with the chaos theory, as you did, but you'll admit that the statistical chances of <i>your</i> wing-beat summoning a thunderstorm is not monumental. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But, but I can make a thunderstorm, watch! *moves arms up and down rapidly*
Thanks for the clarification, but for the sake of my sanity I will maintain that the choices of an individual effect other individuals, thus, society. Otherwise society cannot exist since the idea and will of one or even a few like-minded individuals cannot effect the whole powerfully enough to create one.
Outside of human interaction I'm less than convinced of any "butterfy effect," "chaos theory" or what have you.
Legat, I humbly disagree (though as a bonus I'll not try to make another thunderstorm).
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jun 6 2005, 08:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jun 6 2005, 08:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> doesnt seem like bush seperates the church from the state <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He just doesn't seperate it from his personal life. Which is his constitutional (and God-given) right. Just as it is your right to be snarky about it on an internet forum. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jun 5 2005, 11:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jun 5 2005, 11:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Melatonin - ~50% of the USA's population is male. Which means that, unless 100% of males are Christians, the group "Christian male" is a minority. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> meh.. I fell for that one hook line and sinker.
ok, let me clarify what I meant to point out, technically white christian males are a minority, but they are still 'holding all the keys' when it comes to government.
President Bush came into office, without any real national political experience, and made lots of mistakes. Claiming his decisions were based on his religion was one of them. I'm sure every president has been influenced by their religion, but you aren't supposed to tell everyone. It just pisses people off, even if they agree with your decisions. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jun 6 2005, 05:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jun 6 2005, 05:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> to all against my post: please, it was a joke?
but look in the bible, its tells them to do it? why shouldnt they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Please quote the passage of the Bible where it says Christians should defile other holy books.
Comments
Since both sides are not playing by the rules, the rules no longer apply. :-)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I wrote before, just because the circumstances change, you cannot simply ignore a treaty you singed. Creating a gray zone by inventing the term "illegal combatant" is just an easy way to avoid these restrictions, like building a detention camp on foreing ground to deliver prisoners to the jurisdiction of allies that do not hesitate to practice questionable interrogation tactics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan declared that they were no longer subject to a treaty outright; the US says that the treaty doesn't apply to the a specific situation--there is a big difference.
In fact, Donald Rumsfeld has stated that the US does consider itself still under the treaty and has also said that members of both the US milirary and the Iraqi regular army should be and have been under the protection of the convention--there was major backlash on March 23, 2003 when Rumsfeld used this point of view to demand that Iraq uphold the treaty by not broadcasting images of US POWs.
I've already stated a few posts back that I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way the US government is handling suspected terrorists. I'll go a step further here and say that I believe that it's immoral to hold someone without trial unless they are a POW, so I agree that the current adminstration has constructed a grey area that is arguably in violation of human rights.
I don't believe, however, that the application of Geneva Conventions is appropriate here--it suggests that the US should consider terrorist suspects to be members of a militia or standing army; as I've already noted, the suspects are from all over the world and aren't acting with (explicit at least) government sanction. The <a href='http://www.genevaconventions.org/' target='_blank'>Third Geneva Convention of 1949</a> (on the treatment of POWs) says this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; © that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Al Qaeda and other extremist groups aren't foreign powers, didn't sign the convention, and labeling the anti-terrorist attacks the "war on terror" doesn't put them under the header of a war against a militia. They don't fit (6) when US troops invade because they aren't respecting the laws of war--since they don't match a category above (feel free to argue for a specific one if you disagree), the Third Geneva Convention doesn't classify them as POWs and therefore the entire text does not apply. That is what Bush et. al. have been saying.
If people would stop trying to slam a square peg in a round hole and hold the US accountable on principles of human rights for their own sake rather than attempting to hold them to the Geneva Conventions, they might be making more progress with the administration (which, incidentally, says that it still feels morally obligated to uphold human rights even through Geneva doesn't apply).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course the only rational response to give the country that doesn’t remove the military bases used to save your home country from imminent invasion by a maniacal, power hungry dictator is to kill thousands of that countries innocent civilians and wish death upon the rest.
Look at the government of Saudi Arabia, it’s not like that was the only thing they were told that wasn't true.
Heck Bush told us we would have a "Collation of the Willing" in Iraq, but you don't see any American terrorists groups blowing up buildings in Italy because their pulling their troops.
Ether way the entire Middle East is doomed when we discover a viable alternative energy or their oil runs out. Probably the latter.
You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy; it's the only way they can even hope to survive in a post-oil Middle East.
Ether way the entire Middle East is doomed when we discover a viable alternative energy or their oil runs out. Probably the latter.
You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy; it's the only way they can even hope to survive in a post-oil Middle East.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BADAAA! Canditate wins the prize! You hit the top of the nail
But do you realize that there are Arab nations that actually develope alternative industries with great success, despite being monarchies and and still value muslim traditions? Most of the Emirates like Dubai do invest heavily on High tech, tourism and trade, partly because they were never rich in oil in the first place or thus did not become interesting enough to intervene in their politics. Saudia Arabia does nothing that way, more precisely, is unable to do so because their economy is struggling with their debts, which they cannot pay of because they cannot raise the oil prize.
So again, back to the question. Why is that so? The political opposition of ALL branches in Saudi Arabia is pledging the government to reform the country. The people are getting upset because they are granted less money from oil revenues, while the <i>sevral thousand</i> memebrs of the <a href='http://www.datarabia.com/royals/familytree.asp' target='_blank'>Royal Familiy of Saudi Arabia</a> burn money like a forest fire.
I was once on vacations in London and wanted to spent an evening in the casino. As I was walking up to the entrance, a bus stopped and all of a sudden, the place was overun by dozens of Saudi Prinzesses with rolls of banknotes about the size of Toilet paper in their hands. I am not exaggerating.
Once on the Oktoberfest in my hometown Munich, (I guess that event is familiar to you?) I was out with the colleagues on previously ordered places in the sideloges of one of the halls.
Then, 3 Sheiks went in with 30 Bodyguards and the translator told everybody that there is the xx.th Crown-Prince of the house of Saud and everybody should leave the box. As compensation he offered everybody 3000 Dollar. You should have seen his reaction as 100 drunken people stood up and the first mug of beer flew into his Highnesses direction. Now just count it up: he was willing to pay 300000 Dollar for
one evening of private entertainment. 300000 Dollar for 3 men. 300000 Dollar of money that belongs to his people, not him.
Now, you still have not answered my question.
I propose another one to you. What would you do if someone would use the US as a cheap source of ressources which are brought to the world market in order to keep the prizes for those ressources low.
I tell you what you would do:
<a href='http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/USA/TeaParty.html' target='_blank'>http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChr...A/TeaParty.html</a>
------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course the only rational response to give the country that doesn’t remove the military bases used to save your home country from imminent invasion by a maniacal, power hungry dictator is to kill thousands of that countries innocent civilians and wish death upon the rest.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just could not resist:
"He may be a son of a b***, but he is <i>our</i> son of a b***"
Sounds familiar? He was <i>your</i> powerhungry dictator and when he sloughtered innocent civilians your governemnt sat by idly and looked the other way. Now deal with the consequences instead of wondering why 9/11 occured. You beat the dog when he barks and then you wonder when he bites back.
Just like Pearl Harbor... "Ohhh heaven! Evil Japos attacked us! What a surprise! Why would they? We just tried to cut them of from all vital supplies and sanction their trade. Shame on them ..."
Start accepting your responsibility and understand the origin of the conflict, then maybe you have a chance to solve it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You would think the Arab people would realize this and make a real push for democracy<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would they, if all that relations with our democracies brought them is wars, instability and political and economical dependance? They do not have so much good experience with foreingners, you know?
Iraq, for example has turned from bad to worse since the US began to mess with their politics. First the US built up Saddam and made a minority rule the country by violent force, in order to push him against Iran. Then they denied their support for this leader as he developed ambitions on his own in search of compensations for the costly and unsuccessful war with Iran. When Saudi Arabia expressed their concerns, the US government decided that they were the more important ally.
Then after the war they put it under embargo.
The result of all this is that this country is economically dead, the population is torn apart and fighting each other. Iraq is currently one of the <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>poorest nations in the middle east</a> , including those without large oil reserves.
Iraqs people live below that line that is classifying third world countrys. The industry lies in waste, worn down by war, sabotage and decay.
The security situation is so dire that it is simply impossible to rebuild any of it anytime soon. Not to mention that there is no money there to pay the reconstruction efford, because of Iraqi <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a46n15b01.htm' target='_blank'>debts</a>
mounting up since the 80s. Who's going to pay for that reasa? Do you want to pay taxes for this?
But worst of all, foreign intervention has created another hotspot and future civil war zone. Great job! Mission accomplished.
Also, why would they understand the military intervention in one of the holiest places besides Jerusalem and Mekka by foreign troops as anything other than invasion, when the leader of the Free World refers to the war against terror as "crusade?"
Are you aware that the word "crusade" is, even after centuries passed, still embedded in the Muslim conciousness in a similar way as the word "Holocaust" is to the jews?
Are you aware that there are fears connected to the US troops on Arabic soil, be it Saudi Arabia, Quatar or Iraq? Fears on which men like Bin Laden build their foundation of power upon? Are you not able or not willing to comprehend this?
Besides, China is a good example that you do not need to be democratic in oder to be successful and politically sovereing.
------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If people would stop trying to slam a square peg in a round hole and hold the US accountable on principles of human rights for their own sake rather than attempting to hold them to the Geneva Conventions, they might be making more progress with the administration (which, incidentally, says that it still feels morally obligated to uphold human rights even through Geneva doesn't apply)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most probably right.
I'm sure it's not Cagey's fault.
...for retaliating with force against an economic move meant to punish them for invading China and killing Chinese citizens for no reason. I don't see how you can compare this to the situation in the Middle East, unless 1) you think we weren't justified in cutting off trade with Japan, or 2) you think we were justified in setting up dictators in the Middle East.
Initially, the conflict with japan has its root is Western colonization effords in asian waters. Does the"The Black Fleet" ring tell you anything?
That was admiral Perrys fleet that opened Japans harbours to international trade.
And triggered the Meji revolution resulting in the overthrow of Japans feudal system.
While the revolution was imminent and inevitable anyway, it also had another sideeffect:
The Black Fleet became a synonym for foreign domination and was embeded in the japanese mind. The new leadership now undertook massive efford to build up an industrial and military power strong enough to resist the Westerners. They were very successful, as they managed to develope from a feudal argrycultural society to the first non-european colonial power in less than 50 years!
They quickly expanded their sphere of influence by a short war with their neighbor and age old rival China, where they gained Taiwan and some of chinese territory. Later on they annexed the rest of Manchuko and installed a puppet governement.
Finally, in 1904, they engaged in competition with with the russian sea power for dominace in the pacific and blockaded the russian pacific fleet in Port Arthur.
The Czar then sent out the great atlantic fleet in order to lift the blockade and once and for all destroy the Japanese sea power and with it every chance to stand up again. (that was somewhat the origian tone of the announcement)
The Fleet arrived late and in disarray and was utterly destroyed. The ports were already taken by then, the pacific fleet was annihilated in an attempt to brake the through and reach Vladivostok.
The japanese singlehandedly destroyed one of the mightiest sea powers and hammered another nail into the Czars coffin.
They were the new dominant force in the pacific. In WW1, they seized German colonial territory and were granted the mandates by the treaty of Versaille.
The stage was set. Freeing the world from Japanese tyranny had nothing to do with the reasons for the pacific war.
Also, if you take a closer look at the US history you will see astonishing similarities to Japans development. The expnsion to the west including a little bit of genozide here and there, the annexiation of Texas, the brief sea war with the British to ensure free trade ...
I really don't want to offend you, but the methods of creating a great nation are the same everywhere. War. And then great nations clash to contest who will be the superior one.
After WW1 there were exactly 2 important nations that emerged stronger from the war instead of beeing weakened or barely holding status quo.
Those two nations were Japan and the US.
Japan was confident in their ability to repeat Admiral Togos victory over Russia with the US and the US feared exactly this to happen.
The conflct was a matter of time. Not a matter of moral standards.
------
edit:
To more precisely answer your question Sky:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how you can compare this to the situation in the Middle East, unless<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both conflicts are a result of political influence from outside. Both situations resemble policies that hampered the soverenity of the affected people. Both occurences form oppinions and reactions in the people. In case of Japans, the affected party was an expasionistic nation that was dependent on trade. In case of the terrorist threat, the resistance is coming from the opposition of the affected nations. It is more similar to the communist revolutions in the last century. Oppositional leaders form guerrilia organisations to overthrow their leadership, which they deem corrupt and the enemy of their people. The targets are the political leaders, the security forces and, most notably, the supporters of those corrupt leaderships.
The difference lies in their military options. While Japan was able to mount a full scale Military campain, the terrorists have to resort to terrorism.
And yes, there was no real justification in cutting Japan of from trade.
----
Please excuse me but I'm short on time right now and can't spellcheck. Well, I guess my spelling is horrible anyway <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
edit: some clarifications. Now I'm late and off, hope you can decifer this ...
It will always be this way, Nemesis. The past will always be held over the heads of those who had no part of it.
Some individuals can not comprehend that people can not change the past, only learn from it and strive to fix the present. Fixing a problem that has been festering for decades is not a simple matter it's rather like a badly ingrown toenail...takes pain to relieve the pain. <span style='color:white'>Erm... Yeah. Check that point about being judgemental in the rules again, will you?</span> <span style='color:red'> Heh,I did, again. Got caught up in the moment. Too much emotion-building downtime inbetween classroom electronics malfunctions. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> To Legat, I apologize. It wasn't very civil. </span>
People have to stop kicking each other when someone finally decides on a possible solution and tries to follow through with it.
Especially when the alternates involve sitting back and waiting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Behavior is controlled by the individual..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is simply wrong. There is no such thing as individual behavior in our society anymore. Not on a scope as it would matter on the great picture.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, but he's right and unleyy you are referring to something I'm not getting here, you are making no sense.
I, for example, play a great deal of video games. Most of them are quite violent but I conciously make the decision not to kill real people because I feel it is very wrong to do so unless in self-defense.
My "not killing people" is the behavior of this individual. And by the way, it does matter to society whether or not I, or anyone else, go on a rampage since if I remove another individual that is one less individual that does something however small for society.
We are all connected... one death, one word not spoken, one picture, one blink can have such a huge impact on society over time due to the way people socialize that it is rediculous to believe that individual behaviour has no bearing on society.
Whether I take a crap now, or wait until my lunch break effects how much work I accomplish. That effect how many classes at Auburn University are complete and unhindered, which effects how well versed the students are with their subjects and how the teachers feel when grading later on that day. Which effects how well the students will perform in the next set of classes and the quality of their employment, which effects that business and all the people they effect.
Eventually some kid in BFN cuts his foot on a Coca Cola top, curses and since Coke is an American product, joins the Jihad.
Though I've got to say that I disagree with the notion myself since there are few issues every part of society has an established opinion on. Therefore, a relatively small vocal group of people has every chance of influencing the great mass simply by supplying the notions that are then tackled generally during the societal discussion of the issue.
Sorry Nem, it was not my intention to draw a line between WW2 and the current crisis. If it looks that way I did not make my point clear enough. I was a bit in a hurry and could not check the content properly.
My synopsis about japanese history was just meant as an example and I was obviously rambling off a bit. Sorry about that.
I merely wanted to display a pattern. Not nessesarily a pattern only to apply on the US. You can go back to any point in history and you will find similar behavior and repetetive course of action.
Take ancient Rome as an example. Take the Gaulic Wars. Most people who read an Asterix comic know that Gaius Julius Cesar conquered the gaulic Celts.
Some might be aware of the great last battle of Alesia, where the last great alliance of gaulic tribes under the leadership of Vercingetorix was defeated by Cesars legions. and the wars came finally to an end.
However, few people know that Vercingetorix, the first and only celtic chief that <i> ever </i> succeeded to defeat Cesar in the battle and managed to unite the tribes, was once one of Cesars trusted allies.
Cesar was a cunning politician and he used the traditional struggles between the celtic nobles to his advantage. Only after the first massacres on non combatants had occured and the first towns were burned, Vercingetorix became Romes enemy and united the tribes.
I hope I have made my point more precisely this time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some individuals can not comprehend that people can not change the past, only learn from it and strive to fix the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm ... yea. Basically what I tried to tell you was that about every single US President since 50 years is repeating his precursors mistakes and made things worse in the middle east instead of better.
So ... well. Yes, learn from the past and go fix stuff. Best way to do is drop some more bombs I guess ...
Iraq is a perfet example as of how that "fixing the present" can ruin a nation outright.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry, but he's right and unleyy you are referring to something I'm not getting here, you are making no sens<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nem already answered this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Though I've got to say that I disagree with the notion myself since there are few issues every part of society has an established opinion on. Therefore, a relatively small vocal group of people has every chance of influencing the great mass simply by supplying the notions that are then tackled generally during the societal discussion of the issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That statement is only partly viable. If I understand you correctly, you mean by those small groups entities like, lets say, the femimist movement, or an anti-war movement. In general, an activist group that wants to achieve a particular goal.
Those small vocal groups are not able to transport their message on their own. They are depending on so called opinion makers to transport their message to the mass. Those opinion makers are people of public interest and they do this not out of generosity.
So, in the end, wheter or not you will be able to ignite a discussion large enough to affect society is in the hand of a third party.
This third party decides whether your intentions are worth to be heared or not and their descision is based upon wheter they benefit from supporting the group or not.
The Teri Shivao dispute is a perfect example for this. In general however, the individual influence on society as a whole is next to nill, and unless you do not have a spectacular case to offer, no one will help you to get enough notice to affect peoples way of thinking.
If your child is dying of cancer and a nucler plant is next to your house, all you need is a good lawyer, the press and a politician trying to profile himself as a familyman. If you want to improove governmental efficiency by reducing bureocratic burdens in order to create more jobs, no one gives a ****.
But thats going off Topic again. But feel free to open another thread about this.
Hmm, I can't imagine why.
Exactly how much leeway should we have given Saddam? He was our ally against Iran; yes we put him in power because it was in our best interest at the time.
He made a decision to invade Kuwait and he made a horrible mistake in thinking we would ignore it. I fail to see how this is our fault. I think you’re giving far too much credit to how much we liked, trusted, or had control over Saddam. Sure he was our "ally" but not in the sense of the British, more like a really weak version of Russia during WWII.
You speak of the anti-American sentiment of the Saudi people as if it were some organized, rational, well-informed movement. Many of these people have been raised from childhood to hate America, we are insinuated with Satan from the time they are little children. For many I doubt the issue of our military bases on their soil is even a known or integral part of their anger. We could pull all our troops from the region this day and the same number of people would still hate us.
In fact it would most likely be seen as a sign of weakness and inspire further attacks.
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8090656/</a>
The official report says that in 2 1/2 years there have been 5 confirmed and 4 unconfirmed cases of mistreatment of the book, and 15 cases of detainees descecrating their own copies. Some of the detainee offenses, like using the Quran as a pillow, probably shouldn't be chalked up the to the guards at all, but for the sake of argument it may be best to take the worst case using the numbers supplied and blame the guards for all of them.
Conservatively, then, we have 24 recorded instances in which the Quran has been mistreated at Guantanamo Bay in a little over two years. As I stated early in the thread, I'm not shocked to see individual cases of abuse in a camp like Guantanamo, and a track record of one less than one abuse of the Quran a month doesn't suggest an endorsed pattern of abuse--it suggests that individual people were acting like idiots.
That's the worst view of the numbers. If you remove the supposed detainee abuses, it becomes one case approximately every three months. If you look only at confirmed cases, it's about one per every six months.
Some may question the authenticity of the report's numbers, but I'd argue that Brig. Gen. Hood would have more to lose if he lied in the report than by admitting additional abuses now--there are many whistleblowing opportunities available to other soldiers finishing their duties at Guantanamo Bay, and although it hasn't been brought up yet in this thread, there have been <a href='http://www.amafandvac.org/article.php' target='_blank'>Muslim US soldiers</a> at Guantanamo, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sad thing is the damadge is already done. Like you said before, the US forces should see it as a top priority to prevent such bad PR, since every incident like this translates directly into more dead people ...
-----
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I fail to see how this is our fault<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have answered this by yourself already:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was our ally against Iran; yes we put him in power because it was in our best interest at the time. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was chosen purposefully because he was a Sunnite leader and bound to subdue the Shiite majority in Iraq. The goal was to prevent a coalition between the Shiite powers in Iran and Iraq. This ignited the Iran/Iraq war which lead to debts and economical regression in Iraq. Saddam sought for compensation. The invasion of Kuwait was tolerated by the US administration until the Saudis expressed their concearns. The outcome after 2 Wars and the embargo is <a href='http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/finance/iraq/a45n40b01.htm' target='_blank'>this</a>
The irony is, that Mr Bush is creating exatly the scenario which should be prevented back then.
With the new Shiite domination in Iraq, the Shiites are on the way to become the major power in the middle east. Quite short sighted imho.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You speak of the anti-American sentiment of the Saudi people as if it were some organized, rational, well-informed movement<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, not all political expressions in the middle eastern society are dominated by burning flags and riots <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
There are several oppositional groups, including more moderate religious conservatives and progressive reformers.
In Saudi Arabia, for example there are open discussions about limiting the influence of the religion police and the younger Saudis are to a large part more open to western society than one might think. There is a large political opposition that demands restrictions for the wasteful monarchy etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For many I doubt the issue of our military bases on their soil is even a known or integral part of their anger. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is an integral part.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We could pull all our troops from the region this day and the same number of people would still hate us.
In fact it would most likely be seen as a sign of weakness and inspire further attacks.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Doubtless. It is too late for a peaceful solution.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sad thing is the damadge is already done. Like you said before, the US forces should see it as a top priority to prevent such bad PR, since every incident like this translates directly into more dead people ... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It should be the US force's top priority, maybe, but it's not every individual soldier's top priority, of that you can be sure.
That might have something to do with the lack of a brainwashing program upon entering the military in this country. Unless you think that'd be a good idea, controlling sporadic emotional outbursts by our troops in stressful conditions is going to be impossible.
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->how can you defend a act on a book of some hedens? (spl?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, what? 1) It's heathens, 2) You think it would be alright to desecrate the Kuran, or any other holy book, or is that just poor grammar obscuring your comment?
I thought of a theory a few years ago in which the only two powers in the universe that affect human lives are Religious Intolerance and Religious Fanaticism.
Together throughout human history they perform a deadly duet fuelled by a yin-yang process of human death.
That was right around the time I stopped doing acid. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In any case here's what I have to say
Yes... the US of A requires RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE.
-yet it's against the law to teach/practice religion in school (least around here it is... get caught reading a bible during school... hello 3 days ISS )
The US of A was founded by WHITE CAUCASIAN MALES based unpon CHRISTIAN BELIEFES
-yet in the US of A, White, Christian males is a MINORITY... >_> ouch
The US of A demands religious equality.
-Yet we have hate groups like the KKK slandering, desicrating, and killing others of other religions... because it's there religion. How do we react to that?
Yeah... we got issues in this country...
-yet in the US of A, White, Christian males is a MINORITY... >_> ouch <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
come again...?
Melatonin - ~50% of the USA's population is male. Which means that, unless 100% of males are Christians, the group "Christian male" is a minority. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. Lets talk about fundamentalism. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
but look in the bible, its tells them to do it? why shouldnt they?
Not only did the founding fathers not want to include religion with the government but they also did not use any bibilical source for their laws.
It was simply rights that all people should have reguardless of religion/creed/race/sex/etc.
If you believe this country was founded on christian beliefs you need to go back and re-read a history book, and then read the bible. Specifically one of the older translations, you will see how much they did NOT base it on that book.
Not only did the founding fathers not want to include religion with the government but they also did not use any bibilical source for their laws.
It was simply rights that all people should have reguardless of religion/creed/race/sex/etc.
If you believe this country was founded on christian beliefs you need to go back and re-read a history book, and then read the bible. Specifically one of the older translations, you will see how much they did NOT base it on that book. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
doesnt seem like bush seperates the church from the state
But, but I can make a thunderstorm, watch! *moves arms up and down rapidly*
Thanks for the clarification, but for the sake of my sanity I will maintain that the choices of an individual effect other individuals, thus, society. Otherwise society cannot exist since the idea and will of one or even a few like-minded individuals cannot effect the whole powerfully enough to create one.
Outside of human interaction I'm less than convinced of any "butterfy effect," "chaos theory" or what have you.
Legat, I humbly disagree (though as a bonus I'll not try to make another thunderstorm).
He just doesn't seperate it from his personal life. Which is his constitutional (and God-given) right. Just as it is your right to be snarky about it on an internet forum. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
meh.. I fell for that one hook line and sinker.
ok, let me clarify what I meant to point out, technically white christian males are a minority, but they are still 'holding all the keys' when it comes to government.
but look in the bible, its tells them to do it? why shouldnt they? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please quote the passage of the Bible where it says Christians should defile other holy books.