| (Non US citizens only please) The USA: |
| Good |
|
50% |
[ 5 ] |
| Good, but bad leader. |
|
30% |
[ 3 ] |
| Undecided |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Bad |
|
20% |
[ 2 ] |
| "Evil" |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:43 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: |
If America is wanting to help people to be nice why aren't they doing anything in Sudan now then? Britain might be, but doesn't really have enough troops to as they are all elsewhere. If it's just human rights they care about it doesn't seem that way to me. I wasn't against the Iraqi war, but it's getting a bit suspect now. |
We ARE putting pressure on them. Last time I checked we DID have economic sanctions against them. We can't be everywhere at once though. Perhaps if some other European, or Asian countries would stop being some of Sudans major trading partners, then we could put even more pressure. As for humanitarian aid we send.....let's just say that it is a decent amount.
| Quote: | | You obviously haven't listened to some of the detainees. And there are many different forms of torture, psychological being one of them. |
If RM's posts have any basis at all, you haven't listened to some of the detainees either.  Perhaps both of yall are missing certain sides of the story.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:03 pm |
|
[quote="Republican Man]Terrorists don't necessarily deserve trials, and they aren't US citizens, so they don't have the same rights as US citizens. And there are few there that aren't guilty. Plus, why would they be caught in the midst of battle anyways?[/quote]
I'm left a bit puzzled here. How do you know they are terrorists if they haven't had a trial to prove they are? Everyone should have a trial, even if they are a terrorist to prove it. They aren't US citizens? Ok, so does that mean that if some British soldiers find some American prisioners in Iraq, and some Militants fought back then the Americans were fighting with them and we can place them in a prison without a trial for 2 years and not give the rights because they aren't British? That's what's happening here. Sure, some of them are terrorists, but prove they are in court, in a fair means rather than keeping them in there without a trial. And yes, if American didn't have the evidence needed in court but knew they were invloed in a planned attack then they might keep them for a bit, and most people would be fine with it. It's just the 2 YEARS that annoys me. Think what you have done in the last two years. Imagine if none of that happened because you were in jail for crimes you hadn't commited and you hadn't even had a trial in a country that claims to be the land of the free? Would you be happy?
Em, what information are they wanting that will still be relevant after 2 years? Planned Terrorist attacks? Somehow I think they might have changed the plans or cancelled the attack. A lot of the time the media will pick stuff up, but they might have been banned from showing something they had picked up, as the government can do that. Or they might have been kept far away from certain areas. I'm not saying it is like this, but you cannot believe everything the media says or doesn't say.
| Republican Man wrote: | | They showed most of it. And the reporter would have been able to tell SOMETHING. And I do NOT believe everything the media says or doesn't say. But in this case I believe it. And I SAW the footage! |
You may have seen the footage, but are you saying the government won't regulate stuff? They would not have let anything out of there that showed anything bad happening. You say the reporter would have said something? Well, what happened if he was banned from reporting about not being allowed in a certain area. Would he have said anything about it? Yes, until he might be told that his family would be killed if he did. I'm not saying this has happened, but it could have. It's not just America that woudl block the media like this, most countries in the world would as well.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | No, our reason for going to the Iraq War was primarily to protect our country but also for humanitarian means and counterterrorism means. Plus, we would not be ABLE to go in Sudan now unless we had great reason too. |
How wouldn't you? There is a humanitarian need there. The Janjaweed are killing lots of innocent people. Does this make it right? It is just as bad a situation as Iraq but why don't they go in?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:11 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | [quote="Republican Man]Terrorists don't necessarily deserve trials, and they aren't US citizens, so they don't have the same rights as US citizens. And there are few there that aren't guilty. Plus, why would they be caught in the midst of battle anyways? |
I'm left a bit puzzled here. How do you know they are terrorists if they haven't had a trial to prove they are? Everyone should have a trial, even if they are a terrorist to prove it. They aren't US citizens? Ok, so does that mean that if some British soldiers find some American prisioners in Iraq, and some Militants fought back then the Americans were fighting with them and we can place them in a prison without a trial for 2 years and not give the rights because they aren't British? That's what's happening here. Sure, some of them are terrorists, but prove they are in court, in a fair means rather than keeping them in there without a trial. And yes, if American didn't have the evidence needed in court but knew they were invloed in a planned attack then they might keep them for a bit, and most people would be fine with it. It's just the 2 YEARS that annoys me. Think what you have done in the last two years. Imagine if none of that happened because you were in jail for crimes you hadn't commited and you hadn't even had a trial in a country that claims to be the land of the free? Would you be happy?
You raise an interesting point that I pretty much agree with, actually, because I see what you're saying.
Em, what information are they wanting that will still be relevant after 2 years? Planned Terrorist attacks? Somehow I think they might have changed the plans or cancelled the attack. A lot of the time the media will pick stuff up, but they might have been banned from showing something they had picked up, as the government can do that. Or they might have been kept far away from certain areas. I'm not saying it is like this, but you cannot believe everything the media says or doesn't say.
| Republican Man wrote: | | They showed most of it. And the reporter would have been able to tell SOMETHING. And I do NOT believe everything the media says or doesn't say. But in this case I believe it. And I SAW the footage! |
You may have seen the footage, but are you saying the government won't regulate stuff? They would not have let anything out of there that showed anything bad happening. You say the reporter would have said something? Well, what happened if he was banned from reporting about not being allowed in a certain area. Would he have said anything about it? Yes, until he might be told that his family would be killed if he did. I'm not saying this has happened, but it could have. It's not just America that woudl block the media like this, most countries in the world would as well.
First off, the Reporter was a she. Second off, the US government would NOT say that they would kill their family if they didn't comply. And I give in that they would regulate stuff, but still. I believe that not much was regulated. They even took her through the cell blocks.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | No, our reason for going to the Iraq War was primarily to protect our country but also for humanitarian means and counterterrorism means. Plus, we would not be ABLE to go in Sudan now unless we had great reason too. |
How wouldn't you? There is a humanitarian need there. The Janjaweed are killing lots of innocent people. Does this make it right? It is just as bad a situation as Iraq but why don't they go in?[/quote]
It was PRIMARILY FOR THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY! If we went and said, "We have to go to Iraq because Saddam is a bad man," then we wouldn't have gone to war. But our main reason was for the DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:45 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | You raise an interesting point that I pretty much agree with, actually, because I see what you're saying. |
I'm glad you agree with me on this point.
| Republican Man wrote: | | First off, the Reporter was a she. Second off, the US government would NOT say that they would kill their family if they didn't comply. And I give in that they would regulate stuff, but still. I believe that not much was regulated. They even took her through the cell blocks. |
The government might actually. It is a very fine line on these types of things. A lot of governments have ordered people and their families killed/ threatened to protect information. This includes the US government. Again i state it probably didn't happen, but you can never rule out something like that.
| Republican_Man wrote: |
It was PRIMARILY FOR THE DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY! If we went and said, "We have to go to Iraq because Saddam is a bad man," then we wouldn't have gone to war. But our main reason was for the DEFENSE OF OUR COUNTRY. |
One of the main reasons was the humanitarian view though, although it seems to be used more now than before, as the WMD haven't been found. There was an unofficial report that three nuclear weapons were found, but this hasn't been confirmed.
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:09 pm |
|
| Quote: | | What I disagree with you is that this is not Vietnam all over again. Well, I guess that in a sense it is--we go into war for our own interests--for DEFENSE and it's wrong, but when we go to help France or a country like that out, it's good. |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right?
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:50 pm |
|
Yes, we was needed over there. Was you there and are you a soldier that knows what went on there? Media always spin things and lie.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Jul 23, 2004 4:43 am |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Quote: | | What I disagree with you is that this is not Vietnam all over again. Well, I guess that in a sense it is--we go into war for our own interests--for DEFENSE and it's wrong, but when we go to help France or a country like that out, it's good. |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right? |
If it was to help the Iraqi people, then why aren't you helping the Sudanese people who are suffering far worse at the moment at the hands of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:23 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Quote: | | What I disagree with you is that this is not Vietnam all over again. Well, I guess that in a sense it is--we go into war for our own interests--for DEFENSE and it's wrong, but when we go to help France or a country like that out, it's good. |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right? |
It's okay--and I see what you're saying there.
| kmma wrote: | | Yes, we was needed over there. Was you there and are you a soldier that knows what went on there? Media always spin things and lie. |
It would be helpful if you could use proper grammar sometimes. 
But yes, we are now, at this point, there to help them and stop the terrorists.
| Jeremy wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Quote: | | What I disagree with you is that this is not Vietnam all over again. Well, I guess that in a sense it is--we go into war for our own interests--for DEFENSE and it's wrong, but when we go to help France or a country like that out, it's good. |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right? |
If it was to help the Iraqi people, then why aren't you helping the Sudanese people who are suffering far worse at the moment at the hands of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government? |
How many times do I have to tell you. We went in there mainly for our defense, but partially for an humanitaryan effort. But at this point we are in Iraq to HELP OUT THE IRAQIS GET BACK ON THERE FEET as well as capture terrorists. Plus, we wouldn't be at war if it was sold on humanitaryan efforts. And right now we need to FINISH the job in Iraq, not go to another country that doesn't pose a threat.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:28 pm |
|
Republicanman wrote
| Quote: | | It would be helpful if you could use proper grammar sometimes |
You know RM People are different and do I critize you about how you write?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:54 pm |
|
| kmma wrote: | Republicanman wrote
| Quote: | | It would be helpful if you could use proper grammar sometimes |
You know RM People are different and do I critize you about how you write? |
I know that people are different, and I was joking around. Did you read the " "?
And you may criticize me for my writing, if there's anything to criticize about it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:10 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | | Seven of Nine wrote: | | Extreme terrorists that have spent time in Taliban prisons? If they were charged originally, my views would be different, but over 2 years of torture, no access to legal advice, no idea why they've been held? They have less rights than the Iraqis had under Saddam! |
Torture?? Many released detainees have said that life in Guantanamo was the best life they've ever had (in comparison to living under the Taliban.)
They're treated well. Not every prison is Abu Ghraib. |
You obviously haven't listened to some of the detainees. And there are many different forms of torture, psychological being one of them. |
For every extreme detainee you've heard say it was terrible, I've heard one more rational, more tolerant, more understanding detainee say they were ALL treated well.
Yes they were detained, don't you think some of them (especially those favoring the taliban, or those who hold strong anti-western beleifs) would lie about it to make the U.S. look bad.
Most media outlets only tell their side though, since they wish the U.S. failure. Some media though, the ones that actually have Journalistic Integrity, has told the better sides of the story, that you wouldn't hear on the BBC, on CNN, or in most major Newspapers...
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:30 am |
|
| Founder wrote: |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right? |
| Jeremy wrote: | | If it was to help the Iraqi people, then why aren't you helping the Sudanese people who are suffering far worse at the moment at the hands of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government? |
[quote="Republican_Man]How many times do I have to tell you. We went in there mainly for our defense, but partially for an humanitaryan effort. But at this point we are in Iraq to HELP OUT THE IRAQIS GET BACK ON THERE FEET as well as capture terrorists. Plus, we wouldn't be at war if it was sold on humanitaryan efforts. And right now we need to FINISH the job in Iraq, not go to another country that doesn't pose a threat.[/quote]
I was replying to the post that Founder had made, as he/she was arguing on the point of humanitarian needs. They never said anything about self defence and so on. You could easily finish the job in Iraq and help Sudan at the same time. America is a superpower, your military is huge. Britain has got at "small" military (in comparision) yet we might be sending in people but will also be staying on in Iraq.
| LighteningBoy wrote: | For every extreme detainee you've heard say it was terrible, I've heard one more rational, more tolerant, more understanding detainee say they were ALL treated well.
Yes they were detained, don't you think some of them (especially those favoring the taliban, or those who hold strong anti-western beleifs) would lie about it to make the U.S. look bad.
Most media outlets only tell their side though, since they wish the U.S. failure. Some media though, the ones that actually have Journalistic Integrity, has told the better sides of the story, that you wouldn't hear on the BBC, on CNN, or in most major Newspapers... |
Would you be pleased though if you had been innocent and have been locked up without a trial for 2 years, so that you couldn't prove you were innocent? I personally wouldn't be, yet some of them have been. Also I would be interested to know some of the media that were reporting what good was going on. And in case you didn't know, they aren't reporting against America, but they are against the war the America and the coalition is fighting. I know a lot of good has been done. There is more people with water, electricity and so on than under Saddam, it's just some of the reasons that it was fought for.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jul 24, 2004 12:53 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: | | Founder wrote: |
Sorry about the confusion. I didn't mean that Vietnam was an exact parallel to this war. I meant that people were protesting about "going where we don't belong." I guess the alternative is to leave the Iraqi's that are suffering to die right? |
| Jeremy wrote: | | If it was to help the Iraqi people, then why aren't you helping the Sudanese people who are suffering far worse at the moment at the hands of the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government? |
| Republican_Man wrote: | | How many times do I have to tell you. We went in there mainly for our defense, but partially for an humanitaryan effort. But at this point we are in Iraq to HELP OUT THE IRAQIS GET BACK ON THERE FEET as well as capture terrorists. Plus, we wouldn't be at war if it was sold on humanitaryan efforts. And right now we need to FINISH the job in Iraq, not go to another country that doesn't pose a threat. |
I was replying to the post that Founder had made, as he/she was arguing on the point of humanitarian needs. They never said anything about self defence and so on. You could easily finish the job in Iraq and help Sudan at the same time. America is a superpower, your military is huge. Britain has got at "small" military (in comparision) yet we might be sending in people but will also be staying on in Iraq.
Okay, well you are in Britain, so you don't understand the constraints of the US military. It is large--yes--but we have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq and yet are constrained at home. Our troops are constrained enough, and so yet again unless there's a grave threat against us from a country, we won't take action. Plus, protests against the war in Sudan would be worse, the Congress wouldn't vote for war, and we primarily go to war for defense--As of now, in this time of terrorism, we can only go to war with countries that pose a grave threat, like Iraq and Afghanistan.
| LighteningBoy wrote: | For every extreme detainee you've heard say it was terrible, I've heard one more rational, more tolerant, more understanding detainee say they were ALL treated well.
Yes they were detained, don't you think some of them (especially those favoring the taliban, or those who hold strong anti-western beleifs) would lie about it to make the U.S. look bad.
Most media outlets only tell their side though, since they wish the U.S. failure. Some media though, the ones that actually have Journalistic Integrity, has told the better sides of the story, that you wouldn't hear on the BBC, on CNN, or in most major Newspapers... |
Would you be pleased though if you had been innocent and have been locked up without a trial for 2 years, so that you couldn't prove you were innocent? I personally wouldn't be, yet some of them have been. Also I would be interested to know some of the media that were reporting what good was going on. And in case you didn't know, they aren't reporting against America, but they are against the war the America and the coalition is fighting. I know a lot of good has been done. There is more people with water, electricity and so on than under Saddam, it's just some of the reasons that it was fought for. |
There are few people that aren't guilty. And that's all there is to it. If they are held and are innocent, then that is the unfortunate price we must pay for our safety.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Jul 24, 2004 1:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | There are few people that aren't guilty. And that's all there is to it. If they are held and are innocent, then that is the unfortunate price we must pay for our safety. |
But they should get a trial. I know you agree with this though, so there's no point in arguing it again! 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:03 pm |
|
| Jeremy wrote: |
Would you be pleased though if you had been innocent and have been locked up without a trial for 2 years, so that you couldn't prove you were innocent? I personally wouldn't be, yet some of them have been. Also I would be interested to know some of the media that were reporting what good was going on. And in case you didn't know, they aren't reporting against America, but they are against the war the America and the coalition is fighting. I know a lot of good has been done. There is more people with water, electricity and so on than under Saddam, it's just some of the reasons that it was fought for. |
No, but that CERTAINLY doesn't classify torture or even abuse. According to the Geneva convention and international law, that's legal, but that's why many of the released detainees are lying about their experience.
As for me, I would rather spend two years at Guantanomo, than spend two years living under the Taliban, and many of them have admitted that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jul 24, 2004 3:46 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | Jeremy wrote: |
Would you be pleased though if you had been innocent and have been locked up without a trial for 2 years, so that you couldn't prove you were innocent? I personally wouldn't be, yet some of them have been. Also I would be interested to know some of the media that were reporting what good was going on. And in case you didn't know, they aren't reporting against America, but they are against the war the America and the coalition is fighting. I know a lot of good has been done. There is more people with water, electricity and so on than under Saddam, it's just some of the reasons that it was fought for. |
No, but that CERTAINLY doesn't classify torture or even abuse. According to the Geneva convention and international law, that's legal, but that's why many of the released detainees are lying about their experience.
As for me, I would rather spend two years at Guantanomo, than spend two years living under the Taliban, and many of them have admitted that. |
I agree, Lightning. With all of that. And actually, the reason that most are AT Guantanomo is because they ARE TERRORISTS, hence the Taliban SUPPORTS them.
| Quote: | | But they should get a trial. I know you agree with this though, so there's no point in arguing it again! |
Actually, I've thought about it and it depends. They don't deserve a trial if they were caught doing terrorist acts, but in some cases they do. Therefore it's case-sensitive.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
