THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Old Europe

You wont get any meaningful response because by definition torture is what the bad guys do, and again by definition Americans and Brits are not the bad guys therefore they don't do torture.

Probably. I'd just like to hear something like, "Darn, I didn't know we were doing that! Well, that should be stopped immediately!"

Or something like that. Imagine it had been the other way round. But McG choose to ignore the idea.

Might repeat the concept, anyway:

Imagine, a completely innocent US citizen had been abducted by the German Secret Service, been brought to Nigeria, been held prison and abused, and after five months been thrown out on a street in Mexico.

How would you react, McGentrix?

0 Replies

They wear white hats with nothing underneath it.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "I assume that goes both ways, right? You hate what the soldiers have done, so you must hate the soldiers too. After all, according to you, I support the current administration and that means I support torture, right?"

Yes, I hate what our soldiers have done that are considered torture as defined by the Geneva Convention. That does not mean I hate all soldiers, you ignoramus. Get with the program. Quit making ridiculous assumptions and screwed up logic.

Well, I am glad to see you apologize for making ridiculous assumptions and using screwed up logic. At least you realize you were doing it. Good for you! I wouldn't call you an ignoramous for doing that though. Merely misguded.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
And exactly what would you have, in the way of proof, anything at all really, to counter that, Tico?

I suspect it is nothing whatsoever.

How exactly are you going to sit here and tell me that what I believe isn't what I believe? And that you know what I believe better than I do?

You foolish war hawks fall back on the same message every time your argument is shown to be a sham; anyone who disagrees with you, with what the Administration is doing, with our troop abuses, must hate America! Surely you can see how hollow this is... (or maybe not)

Cycloptichorn

Did I say I had proof to "counter that"? Did I suggest I was attempting to find proof to "counter that"? The point I was making was to show how quick you were to jump to the belief of a news story that intimated what you perceived to be a negative connotation towards America. I fully understand you need no proof to believe the United States had performed some action you feel to be distasteful. I'm merely pointing out your propensity in that regard ... which I've done before, and will likely do again. Why do you constantly need an explanation from me regarding this?

There's no need to reduce this to a trite level. Walter and OE have supplied credible evidence that this was not an isolated incident, was one of 150 or so, and quality of reporting is not in doubt. Can we move on please.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Old Europe

You wont get any meaningful response because by definition torture is what the bad guys do, and again by definition Americans and Brits are not the bad guys therefore they don't do torture.

Probably. I'd just like to hear something like, "Darn, I didn't know we were doing that! Well, that should be stopped immediately!"

Or something like that. Imagine it had been the other way round. But McG choose to ignore the idea.

Might repeat the concept, anyway:

Imagine, a completely innocent US citizen had been abducted by the German Secret Service, been brought to Nigeria, been held prison and abused, and after five months been thrown out on a street in Mexico.

How would you react, McGentrix?

I'd have the same exact doubt that I have now.

0 Replies

Quote:

Did I say I had proof to "counter that"? Did I suggest I was attempting to find proof to "counter that"? The point I was making was to show how quick you were to jump to the belief of a news story that intimated what you perceived to be a negative connotation towards America. I fully understand you need no proof to believe the United States had performed some action you feel to be distasteful. I'm merely pointing out your propensity in that regard ... which I've done before, and will likely do again. Why do you constantly need an explanation from me regarding this?

Jeez, you're being dense today.

I stated that once you and your ilk realize that we don't hate America, that we hate the Administration, then we would have a much more productive conversation.

You responded by saying 'keep telling yourself that, Cyclo'; implying that I do, in fact, hate America itself, and not the Administration.

I respond back to that by asking you what proof you have to counter my claim that my ilk and I hate America itself, and not the Administration running it. The answer is that you have no proof whatsoever, it is merely a convienent attack for your ilk to fall back upon when you have no other salient point to make.

You state that 'The point I was making was to show how quick you were to jump to the belief of a news story that intimated what you perceived to be a negative connotation towards America.' What news story are you referring to? The german abductee one? I haven't commented on that story once, though honestly it doesn't surprise me given the extraordinary rendition which has been practiced by the US. Which story are you talking about, Tico?

This whole conversation is stupid.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

That's quite laudable. Even though not very telling. From your answer I'd assume you would say:

"Well, if he had been abducted by the Germans, he must have done something wrong."

Because that's how I would read your earlier posts.

0 Replies

McG,

Quote:

Well, I am glad to see you apologize for making ridiculous assumptions and using screwed up logic. At least you realize you were doing it. Good for you! I wouldn't call you an ignoramous for doing that though. Merely misguded.

You have completely dropped all the points raised against you. If this were a debate, you would have lost...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OE hoped he might elicit the reponse

"Darn, I didn't know we were doing that! Well, that should be stopped immediately!"

No their logic doesnt work like that at all. The Americans don't do torture because Americans don't torture. And the flip side is that if someone is so brutalised that they die, then they obviously deserved it. Its all quite simple really.

0 Replies

McG and Tico have taken over Ican's mantle this evening, of being deliberately naive and disingenuous because they have no substantive counter to make.

0 Replies

Soon they will fall back on repeating the same post over and over and over again, and the parallels will be complete, McTag.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Counter for what McTag?

Counter for a suspicious story made by a suspicious character?

Counter for arguments that should have been over a year ago?

Counter for idiotic statements?

0 Replies

Quote:

Counter for a suspicious story made by a suspicious character?

Which story would that be?

Quote:

Counter for arguments that should have been over a year ago?

Which arguments would that be?

Quote:

Counter for idiotic statements?

Which post of yours would that be?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You present facts, as good as possible, and all you get is "Well, I still doubt it".

Doubting is not per se negative. Nevertheless, it should be applied to your own belief system as well, every now and then.

I'd like to see that with McG and Tico just one time, really.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Counter for what McTag?

Counter for a suspicious story made by a suspicious character?

Counter for arguments that should have been over a year ago?

Counter for idiotic statements?

Counter for the findings of the German authorities, McG.

0 Replies

Quote:

... Scientists at the Bavarian archive for geology in Munich are currently using a method called isotope analysis, which can search for trace elements such as sulphur, to roughly determine where in the world el-Masri has been in recent months. Munich's Ludwig-Maximilians University is world famous for the procedure -- in fact, isotope analysis has helped solve many difficult crimes in the past.

According to initial results, el-Masri's story is, in fact, true. Fearing far-reaching global diplomatic consequences, the German government, however, wants to see the case treated rather discretely. After all, el-Masri's allegations are not directed at some random rogue state but at the most powerful nation in the world...

I'm really just getting so worked up about this because it's completely obvious. el-Masri was perfectly innocent. He was abducted by the f*cking CIA. Your f*cking president had signed all this into law.

Benefit of doubt? Anytime. In this case? No.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Securing that increment of imported oil - the equivalent of total current oil consumption by China and India combined - has driven an integrated US oil-military strategy ever since [the May 2001 National Energy Plan of Vice President Dick Cheney]. There is, however, a fundamental weakness in this policy. Most countries targeted as a source of increased oil supplies to the US are riven by deep internal conflicts, strong anti-Americanism, or both. Iraq is only the first example of the cost - both in cash and in soldiers' lives - of facing down resistance or fighting resource wars in key oil-producing regions, a cost that even the US may find unsustainable. The conclusion is clear: if we do not immediately plan to make the switch to renewable energy - faster, and backed by far greater investment than currently envisaged - then civilisation faces the sharpest and perhaps most violent dislocation in recent history."
Michael Meacher

(Dr) Michael Meacher is a former cabinet member in Blair's govt.

This is a point that Steve frequently makes. He and others have also suggested darkly that elements of a plan to invade Iraq evolved in the U.S. government during the Bush Administration, but BEFORE 9/11. Horror!

The U.S. was considering retaliatory military action against Iraq in 1982 (or was it 1983) following the attack on the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf by an Iraqi Mirage, armed with a French air-to-surface missile. At the time OPEC's inability to control the price of oil was not fully evident and there were two motives for our strategic interest: (1) Creating a path towards modernization for an Islamic country and breaking the pattern of either autocratic rule or the then emerging theocratic tyrannies, both of which were evidently hostile to the West; (2) Securing the supply of oil to the West. We watched events in the Iraq Iran war carefully and worked hard to see to it that neither side won a decisive victory. Consideration of further action against any winner that might emerge was openly discussed in strategic circles even then. Those discussions continued through the 1990s and to 2001. There is nothing either new or surprising in these allegations. It would be inconceivable that we did not seriously consider, and even plan for intervention options throughout that period.

Quote:

George said:

"The fact is there were many factors in the arguments put before both the American people and the Congress for our intervention: WMD was but one of several."

But the emphasis was different here. Tony Blair said his govt. would adhere to national and international law, and unlike the US we are signatories to the ICC. The finding and disarmament of Iraqi WMD formed the sole legal basis for Britain going to war. The Attorney General asked Blair to be "unequivocal" in stating his belief that Iraq possessed wmd, which Blair duly did, and the AG pronounced the war "legal". We all know what happened next. The fact is either Blair was himself deceived by the intelligence reports, in which case we went to war on the basis of a misunderstanding, or Blair knew all the caveats relating to wmd intelligence and deliberately left them out and we went to war on the basis, as McTag says, of a lie.

It is Britain's misfortune that it has bought into the various legalisms that it now sees as preventing it from acting in its own vital interest in this matter. The U.S. had the good sense to reject the ICC and the other like notions that would grossly expand "international law" far past its historical (and current) bounds. If this has given PM Blair a 'special' problem, it is not our fault.

On a related matter, that of the reliability of intelligence reports, it is important to understand that in dealing with strategic issues involving states whose interests and intentions have been deemed to be hostile, one considers the capability the potential enemy might have, as opposed to what has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he does have. While in retrospect one may wish to apply the reasonable doubt standard, it would be folly to do so in prospect.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It is Britain's misfortune that it has bought into the various legalisms that it now sees as preventing it from acting in its own vital interest in this matter. The U.S. had the good sense to reject the ICC and the other like notions that would grossly expand "international law" far past its historical (and current) bounds. If this has given PM Blair a 'special' problem, it is not our fault.

I've no clue at all, what the ICC had to do with Blair's "special problem".

Could you please give a hint?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The U.S. had the good sense to reject the ICC and the other like notions that would grossly expand "international law" far past its historical (and current) bounds.

Another splendid example.

The United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998.

The Court is now a reality, but the U.S. choose to stand in line with pariah states of the international criminal justice system (for example, Libya).

It makes sense, of course, if you consider abductions and torture an essential part of your policy.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I've no clue at all, what the ICC had to do with Blair's "special problem".

Could you please give a hint?

It's a long thread. Another poster made reference to Blair/Britain's potential liabilities under that treaty. I was also referring to the other imaginary amplifications of international law that are widespread among some (not all) nations, but neither enforced nor enforcable. Don't quibble.

old Europe,

Is your list of non-signatories complete? I doubt it. However, it doesn't matter much. We don't buy it and it is our right as a sovereign nation to do so. We have good reason to doubt the justice of this court and no obligation whatever to submit to it.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know