I'll be the first to admit that many Americans are ignorant and naive. We are however not all stupid and are entitled to our separate opinions. However, I am so very happy that you have to surround yourself with people who share your opinion and not having to think outside your micro-society. That sort of intellectual support must make you feel oh so fuzzy for not having to think much for yourself. Becareful when exiting the treehouse.Kelshara wrote:Then you and a majority of Americans are ignorant and naive. Thankfully, the people I surround myself with aren't as blind to Bush's BS.I and a majority of Americans do feel safer after removing Saddam from power.
I'm glad that others worry about this stuff because American gov't is based on checks and balances and everyone knows that humans are not perfect. However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist. Why? Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens. Before you get your panties all in a bind, I am not saying that a U.S. citizen is better than your average human being. If you are assuming this, you need to do some research on the perks of U.S. citizenship in America.I do dislike the discarding of "innocent until proven guilty" not just for Iraq/Saddam, but also in other areas. The Cuba prisoners disturb me, as do the use of the clause for holding "material witnesses" here in the US. I read too much about the Patriot Acts I and II plus the Homeland Security Act not to worry about them.
Off topic but military background means jack unless you are talking weapons training. I've seen marines get their butts handed to them because they have the *I am a superman marine* mentality overseas, or worse, when they are fresh out of boot.vn_Tanc wrote:six foot 5 and errr 210 pounds but I don't have the military background and am out of shape
Tho perhaps not being American has something to do with it. I've only suffered the anti-American slander on this forum. But then here I'm seen as a radical liberal whereas my opinions are pretty moderate by non-US standards I reckon.
Anyhoo I didn't mean much by it. It just struck me as amusing (especially in the "with us or against us" atmosphere that prevails here) that two people from "opposite sides" can have their views represented by such similar sentences.
Funny ole world
Just to clarify what you are trying to say...However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist. Why? Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens.
I think the human right violations were enough proof for most people.miir wrote:Just to clarify what you are trying to say...However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist. Why? Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens.
It is ok for the US to attack and/or invade other countries based on suspicion alone?
Are you really that ignorant of international law and the multitudes of international treaties and conventions that are place so that a country that goes around invading/attacking other countries without sufficient reason will not go unpunished?
Look what happened to Iraq when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait.
Should the USA be waived of the burden of proof when making allegations against other countries simply because the other country is not america and therefore should not have any rights that are extended to american citizens?
I'm just trying to figure out if you're truly as fucked in the head as your comments indicate.
miir wrote:Just to clarify what you are trying to say...However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist. Why? Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens.
It is ok for the US to attack and/or invade other countries based on suspicion alone?
Are you really that ignorant of international law and the multitudes of international treaties and conventions that are place so that a country that goes around invading/attacking other countries without sufficient reason will not go unpunished?
Look what happened to Iraq when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait.
Should the USA be waived of the burden of proof when making allegations against other countries simply because the other country is not america and therefore should not have any rights that are extended to american citizens?
I'm just trying to figure out if you're truly as fucked in the head as your comments indicate.
That is funny. #1 Reading is a good thing, I'm sorry you didn't learn it before but I hear hooked on phonics works for people. #2 when you learn how to read get a dictionary. #3 re-read my post, just my quote even, it's subject was about bestowing U.S. Constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens. In accordance with interantional law, suspected human rights violations are not sufficient grounds for military invasion.I think the human right violations were enough proof for most people.
You're pretty close minded., it's subject was about bestowing U.S. Constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens.
Have to? No. Happy that I don't have Cartalas or Metanis in my group of friends? Definitely.However, I am so very happy that you have to surround yourself with people who share your opinion and not having to think outside your micro-society.
Glad you brought that up. May I suggest you take a look at the Homeland Security Act and how it removes checks and balances?I'm glad that others worry about this stuff because American gov't is based on checks and balances and everyone knows that humans are not perfect.
To not sound like a hypocrit the US has to follow the international laws they complain about other peopel breaking. In several cases, they haven't. And yes there are international laws and treaties.However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist.
Actually, non-US citizens are entitled to the same legal rights in the US as an American. Hence I, as a non-US citizen living in the US, have the same legal rights as you do (except for voting etc.. which Bush should be glad for!).Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens. Before you get your panties all in a bind, I am not saying that a U.S. citizen is better than your average human being. If you are assuming this, you need to do some research on the perks of U.S. citizenship in America.
How about the human rights violations performed by USA?I think the human right violations were enough proof for most people.
.Well Mr. Hypocrite, I actually agree with certain points on both sides. Gonna call me a poopy head now, or perhaps fuck-face?miir wrote:You are totally fucking boned up on this international law thing. Start citing some actual laws or links. Since you can't read (proof from your last post) why should I even bother reading anything you have to write? You argue like a 3 year old girl.In accordance with interantional law, suspected human rights violations are not sufficient grounds for military invasion.
You're pretty close minded.
Have to? No. Happy that I don't have Cartalas or Metanis in my group of friends? Definitely.
Glad you brought that up. May I suggest you take a look at the Homeland Security Act and how it removes checks and balances?
To not sound like a hypocrit the US has to follow the international laws they complain about other peopel breaking. In several cases, they haven't. And yes there are international laws and treaties.
How about you post the ones that the U.S. and U.K. were breaking? Cause just in the international arena there were 13+ separate UN resolutions that Iraq has broken for 12 years! Oh wait you knew that didn't you?Actually, non-US citizens are entitled to the same legal rights in the US as an American. Hence I, as a non-US citizen living in the US, have the same legal rights as you do (except for voting etc.. which Bush should be glad for!).
How about the human rights violations performed by USA?
Your argument lost any validity with that comment, and you have been moved onto my mental "Complete waste of time" list. I have no doubt that you will pat yourself on the back and claim you won the argument. Feel free to, since I am sure you could need the ego boost.If that para-nazi Ashcroft has you down, or Bush is just being such a nerdy-face that you can't stand it, gtfo of my country and go somewhere that you would be happy.
I retract that statement. I don't consider that I 'won' this argument, I'm just waiting for someone to present a well thought out statement that I can say 'good point' and not have to read the rest of the drivel here. I'm still waiting for your reply. Where's my link to the Kelshara International Law Library of International Righteousness and Justice? Where is my list of the Human Rights Violations filed by the International community against the US?Kelshara wrote:Your argument lost any validity with that comment, and you have been moved onto my mental "Complete waste of time" list. I have no doubt that you will pat yourself on the back and claim you won the argument. Feel free to, since I am sure you could need the ego boost.If that para-nazi Ashcroft has you down, or Bush is just being such a nerdy-face that you can't stand it, gtfo of my country and go somewhere that you would be happy.
At least Brotha has a brain to argue with heh.
If you want to know what interantional treaties/agreements/laws the US and UK broke in invading Iraq start at the top and read the fucking UN Charter then head on down the list.How about you post the ones that the U.S. and U.K. were breaking?
So the US is going to have charges brought upon it based on the charter? I'll be hearing about embargos and resolutions passed against the US by the UN? Great, I'll be looking for that stuff in the paper but won't hold my breath.vn_Tanc wrote:If you want to know what interantional treaties/agreements/laws the US and UK broke in invading Iraq start at the top and read the fucking UN Charter then head on down the list.
The US is still the only country to be charged and "convicted" of International Terrorism by the World Court.
Go type "Nicaragua" into google and follow the links you're so keen on seeing.
Then just fuck off because the last thing this board needs is another mentally stunted "with us or against us", "love her or leave her" asswipe spewing reactionary bullshit here. We have half a dozen all ready posting the exact same shit day in and day out.
Translation: these are just client states and not for you to worry about, Slave! The nations that show the proper respect and pay their tribute to Rome shall have our protection and be spared the hobnails of our Legions treading upon the flower of their manhood and the elimination of their culture! Now back to work: we need a new aqueduct, to supply our gladiators' baths with water!However the Afghanistan and Iraq issues are foreign and not domestic. None of them should be afforded a U.S. citizen's plethora of rights as a enemy combatant or terrorist. Why? Because they are not U.S. citizens, they should be treated like human beings but certainly not like U.S. citizens.
