georgeob1 wrote:dlowan wrote:Lol - prisoner abuse has a context which makes it ok?
I didn't say that. Look above.
So - tell me what your ignoring context thing meant?
Quote:This means that abuse of American prisoners is ok if another country considers the circumstances warrant it?
georgeob1 wrote:Well, it has occurred in Japan during WWII; during and after the Korean war; at the hands of Saddam's government in Iraq; and most certainly at the hands of the terrorists and insurgents we are fighting there today. Indeed there seems to be no meaningful compatison to be made between our treatment of imprisioned insurgents and their's of our people who have been captured by them. However you don't even notice that fact. But this is typical of your approach. That's why you are not taken seriously.
You assume much in intense ignorance George - what evidence have you that I do not take atrocities against helpless prisoners by other than Americans intensely seriously? You are allowing your emotions to cloud your reading. You are assuming that any criticism of America (on a thread INVITING comparisons) means one is unable to see other country's faults.
I grew up with folk brutally tortured by the Japanese in WWII. It is one reason why I take it very seriously - whoever does it. I work with people tortured in various countries.
If you wish to continue to rant and insult, do it alone. If you wish to debate seriously, I will debate you.
THIS was a thread comparing US to the UN - I wasn't aware that, in order to be "taken seriously" I had to also condemn every wrong ever committed by anyone in each and every thread.
PS: BTW, if I am factually incorrect on the speed with which the UN responded to the Congo abuses, I am very happy to be corrected. I based my view on the time between when the abuses first, to my knowledge, hit the media (I think I opened a thread about them, I was certainly on one - nah, I didn't open one until 2004 - but I know it was discussed earlier) and when this recent report came out - I was also aware of bureaucrats and soldiers being sent home some time ago - and new guidelines being enacted). That seemed reasonably fast for a bureaucratic response in the circumstances - given that there was quite a thorough investigation.
As I understand it reports of major problems at Abu Ghraib began surfacing long before publicity forced an investigation. (I might add that an Australian official was complicit in the cover-up at Abu Ghraib)
