Where's the outrage!

Ticomaya wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Tico, when's the last time you thought to yourself "Thank God for the United Nations" ...or, "Whew, if not for the UN, we'd REALLY be in trouble".

Ive been thinking and thinking about this and I can't remember...well, not even one time that I've thought that. Just drawing a complete blank.

Anyone?

There was this one time, while I was just a wee lad, when I thought the United Nations was really important. I think it was because of the Batman and Robin movie -- you know, the one from the '70s where the members of the U.N. were turned into dust by the Joker, Riddler, Penguin, et al. They portrayed them to be the most important people on the planet, and the key to world peace.

It wasn't until later, after I realized Batman and Robin were not going to come and save the day, that I realized the impotence and corruption of that organization.

Yeah

If it goes toes up, though, we might have to change the lyrics of Summertime Blues :wink:

Sometime I wonder
What I'm gonnna do
There ain't no cure
For the summertime blues

Gonna save two weeks
Gonna have a fine vacation
Gonna take my problem
To the U-nited Nations

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Lol- actually, the UN seems to feel, and deal with, the outrage itself.

Unlike you.

Hmmmmmmm?

US soldiers have been court martialed and put in prision. How does the US not take care of the mess SOME soldiers made.

Just as a side note, I still don't think it was torture.

Ah - but the UN appears to have investigated fully, and punished quickly, and come up with a lot of ideas to try to prevent it happening again. Without the "oh, it never happened. you just hate us" and the "oh, it isn't important" and the "it was just a few rogues" and the "oh, but they deserved it" stuff.

Punished quickly? Surely you jest.

The allegations of misconduct reach back for, literally, years.

Even the UN can't ignore internal corruption forever.

As for the thinly veiled comparison to the American experience in Iraq, you seem to suggest that official UN statements on the topic should be matched up against certain segments of popular US reaction. When did any American official come out with the "stuff" you have cited?

Do you mean to seriously suggest that there was never any naysaying, dismissal or dodging within UN ranks or UN supporters?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Nah - I have had it for ages.

Along with your anti-US bias.

Lol - it is all relative.

Most folk think me an 'orrible US apologist.

Got into a real row the other day for saying that I thought the US had behaved very well after Sept 11th re abuse of Islamic people.

I accept I look anti-US from YOUR position on the scale.

But - it all changes as a mist as you change point of view....

Well those folks have it right, you are a horrible US apologist.

0 Replies

Lol - I think you are horrible US apologist, too, sweetheart.

Oh - dammit - you never recognize it does anything to apologise for.

I thought we might have a thing going there, for a bit.

Shoot.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Lol- actually, the UN seems to feel, and deal with, the outrage itself.

Unlike you.

Hmmmmmmm?

US soldiers have been court martialed and put in prision. How does the US not take care of the mess SOME soldiers made.

Just as a side note, I still don't think it was torture.

Ah - but the UN appears to have investigated fully, and punished quickly, and come up with a lot of ideas to try to prevent it happening again. Without the "oh, it never happened. you just hate us" and the "oh, it isn't important" and the "it was just a few rogues" and the "oh, but they deserved it" stuff.

Punished quickly? Surely you jest.

The allegations of misconduct reach back for, literally, years.

Even the UN can't ignore internal corruption forever.

As for the thinly veiled comparison to the American experience in Iraq, you seem to suggest that official UN statements on the topic should be matched up against certain segments of popular US reaction. When did any American official come out with the "stuff" you have cited?

Do you mean to seriously suggest that there was never any naysaying, dismissal or dodging within UN ranks or UN supporters?

Ah well, Finn, I am happy, as I said earlier, to be corrected on facts.

If there is a long history of abuse allegations made years before, and the UN did not act, then that alters my belief that they had acted fast.

As I said, my belief was based on their having, in my view, acted pretty fast re the Congo.

I shall go and search re the other places you mention - and whether there was failure to act.

Their culpability is increased, in my eyes, if that is so. Thank you for the information.

I maintain my view that the US has institutionalised prisoner ause - and very likely torture - and I still maintain institutionalising abuse is worse than abuse that happens due to poor controls, ethically speaking (eg, I would have little but sadness re the US behaviour in Abu Ghraib if I truly believed it was just an isolated event - **** happens)

But I accept that foot dragging on abuse by UN soldiers is very culpable.

0 Replies

Now you are a UN apologist.

0 Replies

Lol!!!!

Have a happy easter, McG dearest.

Get a chocolate Bunny and bite its head off - it will be fun for you.

Oh - and some more information not to look at - this is just from a close ally, after all:

The UK parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee released its annual report on human rights Friday, accusing the US of committing "grave violations of human rights" against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The committee has recommended that the British government "make it clear to the United States administration, both in public and private, that such treatment of detainees is unacceptable."

The report also calls on UK officials to clear up whether it uses intelligence passed on by other countries that may have been gathered by torturing suspects, saying that "to operate a general policy of use of information extracted under torture would be to condone and even to encourage torture by repressive states."

The committee's report is not yet available online.

Quote:
UK Lawmakers Accuse U.S. of Grave Rights Violations

Mar 24, 7:24 PM (ET)

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States has committed "grave violations of human rights" against prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Foreign Affairs Committee of Britain's parliament said in a report on Friday.

The report also called on the British government to make clear whether it uses intelligence passed on by other countries that may have been gathered by torturing suspects.

"We conclude that United States personnel appear to have committed grave violations of human rights of persons held in detention in various facilities in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan," the committee wrote in its influential annual report on human rights.

"We recommend that the government make it clear to the United States administration, both in public and private, that such treatment of detainees is unacceptable."

The committee said it was "surprising and unsettling" that the government had twice failed to answer whether London receives information extracted under torture by a third country.

"The arguments for evaluating information which purports to give details of, for example, an impending terrorist attack, whatever its provenance, are compelling," the committee said.

"We further conclude, however, that to operate a general policy of use of information extracted under torture would be to condone and even to encourage torture by repressive states."

The treatment of prisoners at the U.S. military camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the rising threat from terrorism has sparked a heated debate in Britain about torture.

Human rights groups have criticized conditions at the camp and interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation or subjecting detainees to extreme temperatures, some of which they say are akin to torture.

The committee also called for better training of British troops on the treatment of prisoners to prevent further abuses of inmates like those seen in Iraq since the conflict.

Four British soldiers were convicted of abuse last month and other cases are ongoing, although there has been no suggestion that Britain authorized the sort of aggressive interrogations used by the Americans.

Lawmakers also waded into the row over China's arms embargo, opposing the lifting of the European Union's ban on arms sales.

"The raising of the EU arms embargo on China would send the wrong signal at this time, in the absence of strong undertakings from the Chinese government to address human rights issues," the report said.

The EU, keen to boost trade and diplomatic ties with China, agreed last year to aim to lift the ban by the end of June. It was imposed after the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protests.

But China's passing of a law last week granting itself the right to use force to curtail independence moves by Taiwan has made countries including Britain more wary of the move, which Washington fears would give China access to advanced weaponry.

SOURCE

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Lol - I think you are horrible US apologist, too, sweetheart.

Oh - dammit - you never recognize it does anything to apologise for.

I thought we might have a thing going there, for a bit.

Shoot.

That bit in Italy where one of our jets cut a cable car cable: Deserved an apology.

That bit where one of our bombs landed on the Chinese embassy in Serbia: Deserved an apology.

Without question, there are several other such examples.

Now let's run through through the list of acts or actions where another country might have owed an apology to the US, but felt constrained...

The point is that diplomatic apologies are as meaningless as all other varieties of diplomatic expressions.

Now, as to the substantive sins of America:

Jim Crow Laws surpassed slavery in purposeful sin.

Systematic extermination of American Indians.

Uhhh...that's it. Yes, I know that I am inclined towards adoration of America, but I remain hard pressed to find other sins that rise above the expected actions of nation states.

I'm sure you, a much more objective voice, can educate me.

But while we're at it, let's check out the sins of the rest of the world.

No, two wrongs don't make a right.

Despite The Christ's sacrifice, Man remains a sinful creature. Generally, it is more on point to focus on exceptional virtues than common sins, but one is certain that you will continue to laugh out loud (lol) dlowan and fight the good fight to take the damned Yanks down a peg or two. So much more satisfying than confronting the truly evil forces in the world.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Lol- actually, the UN seems to feel, and deal with, the outrage itself.

Unlike you.

Hmmmmmmm?

US soldiers have been court martialed and put in prision. How does the US not take care of the mess SOME soldiers made.

Just as a side note, I still don't think it was torture.

Ah - but the UN appears to have investigated fully, and punished quickly, and come up with a lot of ideas to try to prevent it happening again. Without the "oh, it never happened. you just hate us" and the "oh, it isn't important" and the "it was just a few rogues" and the "oh, but they deserved it" stuff.

Punished quickly? Surely you jest.

The allegations of misconduct reach back for, literally, years.

Even the UN can't ignore internal corruption forever.

As for the thinly veiled comparison to the American experience in Iraq, you seem to suggest that official UN statements on the topic should be matched up against certain segments of popular US reaction. When did any American official come out with the "stuff" you have cited?

Do you mean to seriously suggest that there was never any naysaying, dismissal or dodging within UN ranks or UN supporters?

Ah well, Finn, I am happy, as I said earlier, to be corrected on facts.

If there is a long history of abuse allegations made years before, and the UN did not act, then that alters my belief that they had acted fast.

As I said, my belief was based on their having, in my view, acted pretty fast re the Congo.

I shall go and search re the other places you mention - and whether there was failure to act.

Their culpability is increased, in my eyes, if that is so. Thank you for the information.

I maintain my view that the US has institutionalized prisoner abuse - and very likely torture - and I still maintain institutionalising abuse is worse than abuse that happens due to poor controls, ethically speaking (eg, I would have little but sadness re the US behaviour in Abu Ghraib if I truly believed it was just an isolated event - **** happens)

But I accept that foot dragging on abuse by UN soldiers is very culpable.

We can argue, until the cows come home, whether the abuse at Abu Ghraib rose to torture. Cutting of a prisoner's genitals is torture, breaking a prisoner's bones is torture, raping a prisoner's daughter in his presence is torture, lowering a prisoner into a plastic shredder is torture, throwing a prisoner to starving dogs is torture, dripping acid into a prisoner's eyes is torture, and tying a prisoners intestines to a spinning wheel is torture. Perhaps you can provide evidence of American application of these techniques, and I will acknowledge the cows have come home.

Prisoner abuse is universally institutionalized. Why is that Tokyo is virtually crime free? Because the Japanese are so much more honest than the rest of mankind?

Is your issue that America follows the rule and is not the exception?

I have observed that the most strident Anti-Americanism flows from America Worship.

Ironically, you expect so much of America and consistently find it wanting, and I am able to view my country within the context of history and find it exceptional...not infallible, but exceptional to the point of historical supremacy.

Are you, as an individual human being, able to live up to the sort of absolute standards you have set for US?

Without a doubt, the exceptional America, cannot become complacent and blithely dismiss its errors. Thankfully, there will never be a shortage of dlowan's to remind the USA of it's infallibility.

My question to you is this: Why do you feel morally compelled to criticize the US well beyond any other nation?

0 Replies

Changing subject again, Finn?

I had thought this thread about the actions of the US re prisoners etc, and the UN - not the sins of the world.

I am very pleased and surprised that you acknowledge America not to be universally saintly. Conservatives in my country appear to have far more difficulty in acknowledging the sins of Australia's past (and present.) I was not speaking of diplomatic apologies, by the way, but of your own apparent disinclination to see anything the US does as anything but good. (I may, of course, be wrong on this - I have not read lots of your posts - my image of you may be as ridiculously wrong as yours of me.)

Thing is, you guys construct a fantasy about people who critique America's actions.

You imagine - whether via projection, or fantasy, or sheer nationalistic defensiveness, some sort of weird Manichean analysis in such as I.

It appears to consist of:

If she ever criticises US policy, she must hate us.

If she hates us, she must think everything we do is bad.

If she thinks everything we do is bad, she must think everything that people we don't like do is good.

Er - I trust you can see the logical problems with this?

Oh - and it is untrue too.

As I both believe, and say, the world is a scary place - with lots of horrible actions occurring in it every day.

I by no means (despite your beliefs) think that the US is an especially ill behaved country.

I admire (as I have said in many places here - but of course you folk never read these things) your country in many, many ways. I have visited it, and hope to visit agian, and often - money allowing - which it sadly does not.)

I admire your openness, your willingness to self-examine, your art and intellectual life, your wonder multi-culturalism and so on. I count many Americans as dear friends. I could go on - but have actually said these things in a number of places. There are also many things I do not admire about your country's political world and actions. Hello - this is pretty normal, eh - to like and admire stuff about a country (including one's own) and not others?) This is an American board - with a lot of folk posting about very specific and divisive political issues - I have a strong view on some of these divisive policies. This is what you see - just as I see a very one-dimensional view of you. Anyhoo, whatever.

However, when I see nonsensical adulation of, and unwillingness to confront the realities of, some appalling American actions, I will sometimes speak out - and forcefully.

Likewise, when I see stupid Australian nationalism and refusal to confront the appalling genocide which occurred here, and ongoing disgusting Oz policies (see my thread on East Timor, for instance) I will also not be silent.

Rest assured, if someone opens a thread trumpeting the virtues of Stalin, or Idi Amin, or some other egregiously mass-murdering regime, I will be there saying how wrong its adherents are, too.

But of course, where you see me is on threads where people are saying how wonderful the US is re Iraq - (because the US seems to be your main interest) and I think, when, as I have said ad nauseum, you guys have institutionalised prisoner abuse and likely torture (VERY likely, I think) you need to be called on it.

Oddly enough, I do not have such a simplistic mind as to need to believe that, if you do any wrong, then all you do is wrong - and that nothing anybody else does is wrong. I am sorry if some of you appear unable to comprehend that.

Here is something I wrote on another thread - in relation to torture:

"Perhaps Wikipedia may help this discussion not go off track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.

Torture is an extreme violation of human rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention agree not to commit torture under certain circumstances in wartime, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree to not commit certain specific forms of torture. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it is estimated by organisations such as Amnesty International that around 2/3 of countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties. Realistically, torture or similar techniques have been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states they remain so (when expedient and desired, and often unofficially) today."

There is a great deal more on that site.

However, perhaps we might agree that, just as it was irrelevant to a discussion of how brutal Hussein was, that Hitler tormented and murdered many more people - it is also irrelevant to a discussion of possible US infliction of torture, that Hussein was a frightful individual who murdered and tormented many of his citizens?

Can we just take that as read? That we all accept that the world is filled with frightfulness, that many countries have treated their own, and other, unfortunate people very badly? That the US is a fine country whose current level of power and world domination make its behaviour important? That we KNOW Hussein was terrible, Stalin worse? That terrible things are happening in the Congo, Somalia, Darfur - every damned where? Looking at America does not negate any of thisd.

Might we still be able to discuss this matter despite this?"

Here is a response I made earlier in this thread to yet another attack based on what someone fantasises to be my stance, as opposed to debating any of the evidence presented:

"I was unaware this thread was about France. I thought it a rather trolly attempt by Brandon to foment dispute about what he sees (or claims to see) - as hypocricy re the UN of those who criticise the US. We can doubtless go through the world together and spend a long time condemning past and present behaviours of each country - and the UN - and the League of Nations - etc and find many abuses. I was attempting to answer the specific accusation made by Brandon."

I really cannot say it any plainer.

I know you won't listen - but there it is.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Lol- actually, the UN seems to feel, and deal with, the outrage itself.

Unlike you.

Hmmmmmmm?

US soldiers have been court martialed and put in prision. How does the US not take care of the mess SOME soldiers made.

Just as a side note, I still don't think it was torture.

Ah - but the UN appears to have investigated fully, and punished quickly, and come up with a lot of ideas to try to prevent it happening again. Without the "oh, it never happened. you just hate us" and the "oh, it isn't important" and the "it was just a few rogues" and the "oh, but they deserved it" stuff.

Punished quickly? Surely you jest.

The allegations of misconduct reach back for, literally, years.

Even the UN can't ignore internal corruption forever.

As for the thinly veiled comparison to the American experience in Iraq, you seem to suggest that official UN statements on the topic should be matched up against certain segments of popular US reaction. When did any American official come out with the "stuff" you have cited?

Do you mean to seriously suggest that there was never any naysaying, dismissal or dodging within UN ranks or UN supporters?

Ah well, Finn, I am happy, as I said earlier, to be corrected on facts.

If there is a long history of abuse allegations made years before, and the UN did not act, then that alters my belief that they had acted fast.

As I said, my belief was based on their having, in my view, acted pretty fast re the Congo.

I shall go and search re the other places you mention - and whether there was failure to act.

Their culpability is increased, in my eyes, if that is so. Thank you for the information.

I maintain my view that the US has institutionalized prisoner abuse - and very likely torture - and I still maintain institutionalising abuse is worse than abuse that happens due to poor controls, ethically speaking (eg, I would have little but sadness re the US behaviour in Abu Ghraib if I truly believed it was just an isolated event - **** happens)

But I accept that foot dragging on abuse by UN soldiers is very culpable.

We can argue, until the cows come home, whether the abuse at Abu Ghraib rose to torture. Cutting of a prisoner's genitals is torture, breaking a prisoner's bones is torture, raping a prisoner's daughter in his presence is torture, lowering a prisoner into a plastic shredder is torture, throwing a prisoner to starving dogs is torture, dripping acid into a prisoner's eyes is torture, and tying a prisoners intestines to a spinning wheel is torture. Perhaps you can provide evidence of American application of these techniques, and I will acknowledge the cows have come home.

Prisoner abuse is universally institutionalized. Why is that Tokyo is virtually crime free? Because the Japanese are so much more honest than the rest of mankind?

Is your issue that America follows the rule and is not the exception?

I have observed that the most strident Anti-Americanism flows from America Worship.

Ironically, you expect so much of America and consistently find it wanting, and I am able to view my country within the context of history and find it exceptional...not infallible, but exceptional to the point of historical supremacy.

Are you, as an individual human being, able to live up to the sort of absolute standards you have set for US?

Without a doubt, the exceptional America, cannot become complacent and blithely dismiss its errors. Thankfully, there will never be a shortage of dlowan's to remind the USA of it's infallibility.

My question to you is this: Why do you feel morally compelled to criticize the US well beyond any other nation?

We cross posted - so I will briefly comment.

I think the mistreatment of pisoners - which you will discover if you read a few of the ongoing news stories coming out of the other prisons - has gone well beyong Abu Ghraib - and many sources are now calling it institutionalised.

I DO think a lot of that is torture - but it is the outsourcing of torture to other countries, which I believe to be happening, (but do not assert is DEFINITELY happening) that I am specifically talking about.

I find lots of countries wanting - moost especially my own.

I do not expect better behaviour of the US - I only hope for it - cos you folk are so powerful.

I AM irked by the great tendency of the US to deem itself as so wonderful. I wouldn't give a brass razoo about this if you guys were not so powerful. (Most countries harbour stupid delusions of special virtue) I find the lack of self-analysis and critique of your country, combined with the apparent holy mission beliefs of your current president, spooky.

I appear to attack America a lot because there is a lot of the "we are the greatest" stuff that goes on about issues that are hot button to me on this forum.

If someone posts such crap about Oz, I attack it too. Mainly people post about the US here. And, as I say, you guys are gonna be a topic of hot debate - you are so bloody POWERFUL.

People worry about you.

That being said, I think you behave pretty well as an imperial power.

But the hypocrisy is very irking - just as it was when the bloody Brits were in charge of the world. They just aren't, now - so there is less to say about them.

I will have a go at the Romans, too - and the Austro-Hungarians, if you like.

Man, those Athenians were buggers, too - think of that poor little island where they massacred th emen, and enslaved the women, just for being stroppy - anf they call themselves Democrats! Where was the women's vote, eh? And as for the slaves!!!

Edit:

Oh - and another reason why you think me so dumbly anti-American, just as I think you so dumbly pro-American - cos I dumbly let myself get sucked into threads like these, where I stupidly keep arguing, hoping to get my point across, like all the other sad bastids who persist in politics!

AND allow myself to get irked by the manner and content of a few posters, just as they get irked by mine. Pathetic, eh? We do get locked into endless conflict - but I do learn a lot - sigh.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Changing subject again, Finn?

I had thought this thread about the actions of the US re prisoners etc, and the UN - not the sins of the world.

I am very pleased and surprised that you acknowledge America not to be universally saintly. Conservatives in my country appear to have far more difficulty in acknowledging the sins of Australia's past (and present.) I was not speaking of diplomatic apologies, by the way, but of your own apparent disinclination to see anything the US does as anything but good. (I may, of course, be wrong on this - I have not read lots of your posts - my image of you may be as ridiculously wrong as yours of me.)

Thing is, you guys construct a fantasy about people who critique America's actions.

You imagine - whether via projection, or fantasy, or sheer nationalistic defensiveness, some sort of weird Manichean analysis in such as I.

It appears to consist of:

If she ever criticises US policy, she must hate us.

If she hates us, she must think everything we do is bad.

If she thinks everything we do is bad, she must think everything that people we don't like do is good.

Er - I trust you can see the logical problems with this?

Oh - and it is untrue too.

As I both believe, and say, the world is a scary place - with lots of horrible actions occurring in it every day.

I by no means (despite your beliefs) think that the US is an especially ill behaved country.

I admire (as I have said in many places here - but of course you folk never read these things) your country in many, many ways. I have visited it, and hope to visit agian, and often - money allowing - which it sadly does not.)

I admire your openness, your willingness to self-examine, your art and intellectual life, your wonder multi-culturalism and so on. I count many Americans as dear friends. I could go on - but have actually said these things in a number of places. There are also many things I do not admire about your country's political world and actions. Hello - this is pretty normal, eh - to like and admire stuff about a country (including one's own, and not others?) This is an American board - with a lot of folk posting about very specific and divisive political issues - I have a strong view on some of these divisive policies. This is what you see - jusy as I see a very one-dimensional view of you. Anyhoo, whatever.

However, when I see nonsensical adulation of, and unwillingness to confront the realities of, some appalling American actions, I will sometimes speak out - and forcefully.

Likewise, when I see stupid Australian nationalism and refusal to confront the appalling genocide which occurred here, and ongoing disgusting Oz policies (see my thread on East Timor, for instance) I will also not be silent.

Rest assured, if someone opens a thread trumpeting the virtues of Stalin, or Idi Amin, or some egregiously mass-murdering regime, I will be there saying how wrong its adherents are, too.

But of course, where you see me is on threads where people are saying how wonderful the US is re Iraq - (because the US seems to be your main interest) and I think, when, as I have said ad nauseum, you guys have institutionalised prisoner abuse and likely torture (VERY likely, I think) you need to be called on it.

Oddly enough, I do not have such a simplistic mind as to need to believe that, if you do any wrong, then all you do is wrong - and that nothing anybody else does is wrong. I am sorry if some of you appear unable to comprehend that.

Here is something I wrote on another thread - in relation to torture:

"Perhaps Wikipedia may help this discussion not go off track:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological pain as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterent or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions. Sometimes torture is practiced even when it appears to have little or no functional purpose beyond the gratification of the torturer or because it has become the norm within the context.

Torture is an extreme violation of human rights. Signatories of the Third Geneva Convention agree not to commit torture under certain circumstances in wartime, and signatories of the UN Convention Against Torture agree to not commit certain specific forms of torture. These conventions and agreements notwithstanding, it is estimated by organisations such as Amnesty International that around 2/3 of countries do not consistently abide by the spirit of such treaties. Realistically, torture or similar techniques have been a tool of many states throughout history and for many states they remain so (when expedient and desired, and often unofficially) today."

There is a great deal more on that site.

However, perhaps we might agree that, just as it was irrelevant to a discussion of how brutal Hussein was, that Hitler tormented and murdered many more people - it is also irrelevant to a discussion of possible US infliction of torture, that Hussein was a frightful individual who murdered and tormented many of his citizens?

Can we just take that as read? That we all accept that the world is filled with frightfulness, that many countries have treated their own, and other, unfortunate people very badly? That the US is a fine country whose current level of power and world domination make its behaviour important? That we KNOW Hussein was terrible, Stalin worse? That terrible things are happening in the Congo, Somalia, Darfur - every damned where? Looking at America does not negate any of thisd.

Might we still be able to discuss this matter despite this?"

Here is a response I made earlier in this thread to yet another attack based on what someone fantasises to be my stance, as opposed to debating any of the evidence presented:

"I was unaware this thread was about France. I thought it a rather trolly attempt by Brandon to foment dispute about what he sees (or claims to see) - as hypocricy re the UN of those who criticise the US. We can doubtless go through the world together and spend a long time condemning past and present behaviours of each country - and the UN - and the League of Nations - etc and find many abuses. I was attempting to answer the specific accusation made by Brandon."

I really cannot say it any plainer.

I know you won't listen - but there it is.

You know I won't listen? Do you really need to resort to this sort of juvenile rhetoric?

Actually, the original posting had nothing to do with US actions. However, since it was focused on UN actions, it was inevitable that someone would introduce US actions as some sort of counter-point. Am I prohibited from responding to the tangential assertions of folks like you?

I don't doubt that in the normal course of events, dlowan is a a relatively rational individual who looks at both sides of the equation, and yet the dlowan on A2K is a personae that consistently criticizes the US (with all of her affected LOL's) over any other nation on the face of the Earth. Perhaps this amounts to a badge of sophistication in Australia (It certainly does here in the US of A), but it holds no water for me (or any other rational poster).

The bottom line is this: No matter what your regard for America might be, it is the focus of your criticism in this forum. Deny it if you will, but it remains the case.

My only problem with criticism of the US is when it is reflexive, and irrespective of context: dlowan.

But, keep it up...the last thing the world needs is an unrestrained America, just don't expect me to take it, specifically, serious.

0 Replies

Well,Finn - re the juvenile rhetoric, generally nobody on this thread has done aught to debate a single item of evidence etc I have posted - they have just resorted to personal abuse.

I guess I have become a little weary of expecting any evidence of anything except that - but you are right, it is unfair to generalise that to you, and I apologise.

I think you disingenuous re the alleged unjustified bringing of the US into the argument thing - what did YOU think Brandon was comparing the perceived - (as I said - there HAVE been threads on the Congo stuff, but in International News, where US nationalists seldom go - except to argue about Bush in a different place) - lack of outrage about UN troops' abuse of young women with - Iceland and Japan's decision to extend whale hunting? I think my assumption that it was to be compared with outrage about US abuse of prisoners in "the war against terror" to be quite well founded.

And Finn, I will laugh when I am greeted with torrents of personal abuse instead of any attempt to engage the argument. It is laughable. Easily done in politics, I know - and I sometimes do it myself - and then I am laughable too.

Look at you - you are engaging not on the subject matter of the thread, but on slightly more sophisticated than the norm personal abuse too.

Yes - on a US forum I will appear to attack the US - because there is so much nonsensical puffery about it.

Anyhoo - it's been great fun.

Perhaps we might meet on a thread where we don't fight one day.

hey - you guys stop posting one-eyed pro-US stuff, and I will never have to say anything bad about your policies again!

0 Replies

finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

I don't know what phrases might be used to identify French Canadian resentment of English Canada, or English Canadian resentment of French Canadian resentment, but I have personally seen and heard the expression of both sentiments. I also know that there is a belief in Canada, that most Americans feel superior to their neighbors to the north. Whether or not they call such an attitude anti-Canadian is unknown to me, but I do know that they are not fond of it.

When Romans ruled the world, there was anti-Roman sentiment, when Britannia ruled the waves there was anti-British sentiment, and now that the US is the single most powerful nation on earth, there is anti-American sentiment. Do you mean to suggest that this is not the case?

If it were not, why would so many American Liberals be gnashing their teeth over the loss in prestige they believe to be the responsibility of the Bush Administration, and why would John Kerry have made it a major issue in his election bid?

In the run up to the Iraq war, cyber-Liberals (in this and other forums) gleefully reported the news of massive anti-War and anti-American demonstrations throughout the world. Now you would have us believe that anti-Americanism is merely a paranoid delusion?

I am not of the mind that anti-American sentiment equates to attacks or even threats. Clearly one must assume that those who have actually threatened or attacked America must be anti-American, but they are, overwhelmingly, the exceptions and not the rule.

Anti-American sentiment is, to an American such as me, insulting and annoying. I make no apologies for taking some offense to it. I am not about to engage in or endorse a violent (or even particularly energetic) response, but will call it when I see it. If this offends your sensibilities (as it must) you can call me on it (as you have).

Let's remember that the original premise for this thread was the conduct of the UN, not the US. US conduct was brought in with what I consider to be a fairly gratuitous gesture of anti-American sentiment. Even so, the primary thrust of my response was that comparisons between the prolonged UN sex scandal and incidents at Abu Ghraib are not reasonably drawn.

Considering that we are so powerful, I guess it would be a bit disturbing to think that we might be seeing enemies behind every tree. Of course that isn't the case, but the belief that it is, is another expression of anti-American sentiment.

Barking at the Big Dog is helpful when the Big Dog cares how the rest of the pack feels about it. It's a good way to help keep a Big Dog who does care, mindful of the impact of its actions.

Criticism of American policy and actions is not necessarily anti-Americanism. Ones friends should always be welcome to offer one constructive criticism, but one doesn't expect smug carping from one's friends.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

And yet you Blatham have dedcated numerous posts on these boards describing what you regard as a dark underside to Anerican politics, society, and religious beliefs. Dlowan has done the equivalent. I have not seen any comparable criticsm of Canada, Australia or any other country by the American posters here (except perhaps for a few of my better anti European essays.). Most of their criticisms are directed at their own country. That too is a curiosity.

0 Replies

Try looking at my threads dearie.

There would be many more on the dark side of Oz, but I am very much restrained because nobody much ever goes near them - Americans, broadly speaking, care only about America - some usual suspects turning, if they turn up at all, many international threads into weary repetitions of domestic American hatreds.

We Ozzians tend to have resigned ourselves to discussing the awfulness of current, and past, Australian events on a couple of Msolga's threads. A few non-Ozzians join us - and the odd ultra-conservative attempts a bit of trolling. We greatly welcome the genuine contributors.

If you cared to notice, you would also have marked that I find pathetic Australian uber-nationalism even more irritating than I find the more frequently to be seen here American form.

I am not at all sure that Canada HAS a dark side! Lol.

Here are a few - mostly abortive, but somewhat relevant - threads that may surprise you a little. Or not. Shrugs.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7472&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25281&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25697&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=25848&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29197&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4993&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27570&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=19866&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33910&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=35502&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36292&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37650&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34829&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38501&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=37695&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40584&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41753&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=38727&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26122&start=0

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48065&highlight=

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=48268&highlight=

.

Any surprises? Of course, I have many posts very condemnatory of Oz political actions that are not included here.

Anyhoo - how about we turn the persistent personalising and avoidance of the issues around- let us from now on focus on how American hyper-nationalists are unable to rationally examine any criticism of American policy - but instead turn it to a nonsensical game "Oooooh - you just hate us! You're just jealous!! You're mean!"

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

And yet you Blatham have dedcated numerous posts on these boards describing what you regard as a dark underside to Anerican politics, society, and religious beliefs. Dlowan has done the equivalent. I have not seen any comparable criticsm of Canada, Australia or any other country by the American posters here (except perhaps for a few of my better anti European essays.). Most of their criticisms are directed at their own country. That too is a curiosity.

As deb suggests and her links demonstrate, any full-throated discussion of either Canada or Australia would not gain much in the way of participation for the simple reason that Americans do not really know much at all about either country and do not for the most part really care, except as regards some shallow notions regarding whether we might be insufficiently aligned with present US interests.

For example, you wrote a post some weeks ago claiming that US/canada relations had been peachy only during the period where Reagan and Brian Mulroney held office. That is not the case. Pearson and Johnson got on fine, other than some clear and open disagreements on Viet Nam. Trudeau and Carter/Ford likewise, and lifelong friendships evolved with all three. Cretien and Clinton the same again. There was no great animosity between Bush Sr and Cretien. Without a trip to google, could you tell me who preceded Pearson and what his relationship was with the US? Or tell me of the two PMs since Mulroney whose names I have not included and how their relationships with the US might be described? The two points of real friction came with Trudeau/Nixon and Cretien/Bush Jr. The Reagan/Mulroney period you point to marked a period where two conservatives were in office, along Thatcher...which appears to be why you thought it the singular peachy period.

Or, could you tell me how many active parties we have in Canada? Where they are strong/weak? The role of our Senate? etc.

That you, and almost everyone else here, knows so little about Canada does not bother me at all. I know very little about most countries after all.

But the country that the populations of the world do attempt to understand is the US. You know why that is. It is not just to model what you get right, but also to mitigate against all you get wrong - because the rest of us get fukked if you get it too wrong.

And a big part of what you get wrong, george, is to be so goddamn blind as to how wrong you can get. You take, as does finn, criticism of American presence in the world as a personal insult. Talk bad about America, you are talkin bad about me, chum. It is instantaneous, it is kneejerk, it allows almost no reflection.

What I said before is true...by American nationalist axiom, if America is involved, nothing really bad can be going on because America is involved. My son would not have murdered all those people, but if he did, they deserved it. It is blindness. The Greeks knew that would get you, but they knew also that you would not be wise enough to listen, because of that axiom.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:
finn

Check with deb and folks from other countries on whether they have any comparable phrase/notion to ANTI-AMERICAN. I am 57 and have never even once heard anyone in Canada use the expression anti-canadianism. You ever heard anti-australianism?

It is a curiosity. What is it with you folks down there and this hard-done-by, threatened-from-every-side, we-are-under-ATTACK! mindset?

I don't know what phrases might be used to identify French Canadian resentment of English Canada, or English Canadian resentment of French Canadian resentment, but I have personally seen and heard the expression of both sentiments. I also know that there is a belief in Canada, that most Americans feel superior to their neighbors to the north. Whether or not they call such an attitude anti-Canadian is unknown to me, but I do know that they are not fond of it.
That is a quite different phenomena from what I am speaking of. Internal discord between differening language/culture groups is the rule of things. Evidence New York City history, for one example of many I could choose. So you are left with the need for some accounting as to why anti-americanism is a class of expression/notion not found in Canada, Australia, Belgium, etc etc.

When Romans ruled the world, there was anti-Roman sentiment, when Britannia ruled the waves there was anti-British sentiment, and now that the US is the single most powerful nation on earth, there is anti-American sentiment. Do you mean to suggest that this is not the case?
Better. This is certainly part of the story. Where a nation involves itself in the affairs of other states it may (justifiably) come under criticism where such involvement has negative consequences for the populations of the lesser states. Obviously, such critical sentiment will be more severe where certain conditions prevail: serious deleterious consequences for those states, arbitrary and selfish policies in place, cronyism wth a few locals winning and 99% of population losing, etc. Much of the disfavor the US is held in by many in the world has been gained in these traditional ways. You might (some do) maintain that the negative considerations are actually born merely from envy. America is welcome to this insulated and comfortable mindset but I would suggest that you increase your air and seaport security, further concretize entries to all foreign diplomat residences, and drop down from the status of world #1 arms trader because those armaments are likely to be pointed right back at you.

But you avoid the other component here. Namely the common use of the term anti-American to refer to a significant portion of your own citizenry. Again, that is not a usage to be found in Canada, and likely not in Australia, Belgium, etc. (check with deb and nimh). Where does one find such precedent usage? In extreme nationalisms. In Israel, in pre-world war two germany, in the USSR, etc. It is a dangerous game to play.

If it were not, why would so many American Liberals be gnashing their teeth over the loss in prestige they believe to be the responsibility of the Bush Administration, and why would John Kerry have made it a major issue in his election bid?
Are you bragging about US power? A few decades back, Hollywood made an under-acclaimed movie based on the Popeye cartoon. Olive Oil, in talking to a girlfriend about her burgeoning romance with Bluto, was put in the position of explaining what she saw in the fellow. The only positive she could come up with was...he is large. In twenty years, certainly not much more, China will likely be more powerful than the US. That tells us what about value to the world?

As to loss of prestige, it is simply factually false to suggest that this is a complaint which arises only from liberals or democrats. This is a pragmatic matter. Ignoring it seems more than a little childish. I recommend a review of the Randy Newman song Political Science.

In the run up to the Iraq war, cyber-Liberals (in this and other forums) gleefully reported the news of massive anti-War and anti-American demonstrations throughout the world. Now you would have us believe that anti-Americanism is merely a paranoid delusion?
The usage of the term long pre-dates this war, so the point has no particular merit or explanatory power. And you make a dangerously foolish identification between America and a specific administration together with its policies. There were aspects of German culture and history and self-regard which allowed Bismark and Hitler to gain power and play out certain policies and to do so with fairly broad citizen support. Likewise, there are aspects of American history and culture which have permitted the Bush administration to introduce certain policies with fairly broad citizen support. Neither case tells us anything like the whole story of either Germany or America, but both tell us something important. There is anti-American sentiment in the world, as I have said and as is too obvious for words. Whether it is rational and whether is is morally well-founded sentiment is the question. But it is the question you and george cannot address because it violates (almost always) your primary presumption of American innocence and goodness.

I am not of the mind that anti-American sentiment equates to attacks or even threats. Clearly one must assume that those who have actually threatened or attacked America must be anti-American, but they are, overwhelmingly, the exceptions and not the rule.

Anti-American sentiment is, to an American such as me, insulting and annoying. I make no apologies for taking some offense to it. I am not about to engage in or endorse a violent (or even particularly energetic) response, but will call it when I see it. If this offends your sensibilities (as it must) you can call me on it (as you have).
The point is...why find yourself insulted or annoyed at all? I can understand annoyance when someone speaks who doesnt have the foggiest what he speaks of (eg an earlier thread here where JW and Foxfyre began speaking about Canada) but that is an intellectual matter...why bother talking with people who have so few facts to hand? If someone derides Canada (or my home town, or my old swimming hole, or my school basketball team) why on earth should I feel some insult to myself? If someone pisses on the flag of Canada, so what? Someone just pissed on a piece of rayon and a symbol. The harm is what? Is Canada so fragile an organization that a half cup of urine will quite undo it? Is the US so fragile that it risks coming apart at such slight provocations? At criticism? At internal division?

Let's remember that the original premise for this thread was the conduct of the UN, not the US. US conduct was brought in with what I consider to be a fairly gratuitous gesture of anti-American sentiment. Even so, the primary thrust of my response was that comparisons between the prolonged UN sex scandal and incidents at Abu Ghraib are not reasonably drawn.
I actually didnt read the original post (nor much subsequent postings ) as I have zero respect for its author. So I cannot really comment here.

Considering that we are so powerful, I guess it would be a bit disturbing to think that we might be seeing enemies behind every tree. Of course that isn't the case, but the belief that it is, is another expression of anti-American sentiment.
But note what you do here. Any/all criticism must be an instance of anti-Americanism. In one sense of course, criticism is always anti-something. But the term anti-Americanism suggests inappropriate criticism. That is really the way you use it. So no criticism of the valid sort is allowable under this formula.

Barking at the Big Dog is helpful when the Big Dog cares how the rest of the pack feels about it. It's a good way to help keep a Big Dog who does care, mindful of the impact of its actions.
This administration is particularly uncaring and quite pleased to declare (and demonstrate) that is uncaring. That has not always been so, the US being a founding force behind the UN for example. Imperial hubris can have advantages, but the disadvantages will attend as well. Those of us who think America has the potential for great good and the potential for equally great harm would wish America to better comprehend its own failings, because they are not small failings. How could that not be so? Why would the US be unique in goodness?

Criticism of American policy and actions is not necessarily anti-Americanism. Ones friends should always be welcome to offer one constructive criticism, but one doesn't expect smug carping from one's friends.
America, like any individual or group puffed up with a sense of self-righteousness and superior goodness doesnt really need a lot of backslapping or asskissing. That part of the equation is already in place. The carping thing arises where ears are untuned to hearing anything but the happy smack of the asskiss.[/[/color]quote]

0 Replies

Blatham,

I did NOT say the ONLY period of good U,S./Canadian relations was during the Mulroney era. Rather, that was the last such period. I don't happen to think Jimmy Carter is particularly representative of either this country or (certainly) my own views, and I would not regard his recommendations or affections as indicating anything beneficial. I believe you grossly exaggerate the quality of U.S. Canadian relations during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years, and well before that as well.

I'll confess that I know a bit more about California than Canada. However, in view of the facts that California's population and economy are larger than Canada's and growing faster, perhaps that is not as inappropriate as you suggest.

The United States is very far from perfect. We have our own versions of most of the defects that afflict countries around the world and have operated throughout modern history. For good or ill our decisions, during the past century, to join in two basically European Wars, each of which spread across the globe, has left us, mostly by default, as the leading nation in the Western World. In that role we have come through a grave challenge from Soviet totalitarianism, and won it - without a major conflagration. In view of the history of the world since the 16th century, that is a remarkable achievement. We are still in that position of primacy, but history teaches us that all that is quite transient. The challenges continue, the most important of which arise from the earlier follies of European powers. We are trying to deal with them too: not perfectly, by any means, but so far rather effectively.

It is the fate of any leader in any enterprise to be the object of petty criticism, often motivated by envy, anger, or self-aggrandisement. Such criticism, even when based on fact, can be either beneficial or destructive depending on its relation to the primary challenges or struggles at hand. All too often the criticism is mere carping over insignificant detail and peripheral matters, and positively destructive to the resolution of the truly serious challenges faced by all. I have repeatedly experienced this in microcosim on Navy ships at sea, and I know the phenomenon, and its typical actors, quite well. (I recommend to you my good friend Herman Wouk's wonderful novel about this phenominon, "The Caine Mutiny")

I believe that most of the niggling furor over the WMD matter in Iraq, the treatment of prisoners, and all the rest fits well into that category. It misses the main point and the very serious struggle in which we are engaged, focusing instead on peripheral and relatively inconsequential matters, all destructive to the main effort. Moreover most of it, coming from both "friendly" governments or "sage observers" appears to be motivated by the all-too-familiar set of self-serving factors.

I recognize the merits in the point, made here rather well by dlowan, that it is the relative power and potential of the U.S. that gives importance to our errors and justifies the interest and criticism of others. However on closer analysis one cannot escape the observation that the potential power of our European critics alone is nearly the equal of ours. The fact that they lack the reality of it is solely the result of their own choices and their inward-looking greed and timidity. They largely got a free ride during the Cold War and they have come to expect it as a more or less permanent thing. This is what is behind the disinterest of the U.S. government in their points of view. Why should we listen to you if you won't get in the game? The fact is we pay a good deal of attention to Howard's government in Australia, while generally ignoring the Canadians - both for good reason.

An interesting illustration of all this can be found in the rather shrill, almost hysterical, criticism of Canadians beacuse we have banned the import of live cattle from them as a result of the undeniable fact that they have exported animals infected with BSE to us. Nowhere mentioned in all this furor is that, as a direct result of this action by Canada, American cattle and processed beef products can no longer be exported to Japan and a few other countries - and there is no proximate prospect of those restrictions being lifted, and most certainly not if we resume imports from Canada. In dollar terms U.S. producers have been injured far more than Canadians. However one wouldn't know that fact if all one listened to was the self-serving crap we get from our "friends" to the north. They want us to remove the sting from them, never mind the consequences on us. The word for this is HYPOCRISY.

0 Replies

Where's the outrage!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know