MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Quote from MMMMMM:

[ QUOTE ]
I DO think many things our government has done are wrong. However there is no way to judge such things in a vacuum; hence relative morality must be applied. We live in an imperfect world at best, and the only moral judgements that matter are usually relative ones; unfortunately, the real-world choice usually comes down to: which is LESS BAD, not which is IDEAL

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I DO think many things our government has done are wrong. However there is no way to judge such things in a vacuum; hence relative morality must be applied. We live in an imperfect world at best, and the only moral judgements that matter are usually relative ones; unfortunately, the real-world choice usually comes down to: which is LESS BAD, not which is IDEAL



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what I meant but I would not entirely disageree with it. I don't agree with it fully though.

What I meant was that some things which would be condemnable in a vacuum, or in an ideal utopian world, are considerably less condemnable in the real-world, because complexities and conflicting interests generally make it impossible for countries to always act 100% ethically or morally. It's just a fact of life.

For instance, countering the USSR during the Cold War involved some nasty activities, some of which were condemnable even given the circumstances, but others of which would only have been truly condemnable in a vacuum--not so much so in the real world.

Unfortunately, the pressures and conflicting interests present in the real world often force some moral or ethical concessions in the form of less-than-ideal behaviors or activities. And the grander the scale, the more this is generally so.

Therefore, in matters of grand scale which often involve complex and conflicting interests, I believe that relative comparisons are more meaningful than absolute evaluations.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

The list is long so I will start with only a few things (source: Amnesty International):

[ QUOTE ]

By the end of the year, more than 500 detainees of around 35 nationalities continued to be held without charge or trial at the US naval base in Guantánamo Bay on grounds of possible links to al-Qa’ida or the former Taleban government of Afghanistan

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

However, the released documents showed that the administration had sanctioned interrogation techniques that violated the UN Convention against Torture and that the President had stated in a central policy memorandum dated 7 February 2002 that, although the USA’s values “call for us to treat detainees humanely”, there are some “who are not legally entitled to such treatment”. The documents discussed, among other things, ways in which US agents could avoid the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including by arguing that the President could override international and national laws prohibiting such treatment. These and other documents also indicated that President Bush’s decision not to apply the Geneva Conventions to detainees captured in Afghanistan followed advice from his legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, that this would free up US interrogators in the “war on terror” and make future prosecutions of US agents for war crimes less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

Saudi Arabia:
Five suspected critics of the state were brought to trial in three separate cases. One case involved two university professors, Dr Matrouk al-Falih and Dr Abdullah al-Hamid, and a writer, Ali al-Damayni. The three were among 11 academics and intellectuals arrested in March for calling for political reform and criticizing the government. Eight were released reportedly after signing an undertaking not to repeat such calls and criticisms. The three reportedly refused to sign the undertaking and remained in detention. In a rare departure from the usual practice of secrecy, the three men were allowed access to families and lawyers and in August were brought before a court whose hearings were scheduled to be public. AI planned to send an observer to the trial but its delegate was not granted a visa. The first session of the trial was held in public but was postponed half way through reportedly on the grounds that members of the public were disruptive. Subsequent court sessions were planned to revert to secret hearings. The other two cases involved Dr Said bin Zu’air and his son, Mubarak, both of whom were arrested in 2004. Dr Said bin Zu’air was convicted of vague charges that included disobeying the country’s ruler, and sentenced to five years in prison. In a separate trial his son Mubarak was sentenced to 10 months in prison on similar charges. The legal status of another son, Sa’d, who was arrested in July 2002, remained unclear. Dr Said bin Zu’air had previously been detained without charge or trial for about eight years for being a critic of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?


[ QUOTE ]

Israel:
Ten-year-old Walid Naji Abu Qamar, 11-year-old Mubarak Salim al-Hashash, 13-year-old Mahmoud Tariq Mansour and five others were killed on 19 May in Rafah in the Gaza Strip when the Israeli army opened fire with tank shells and a helicopter-launched missile on a non-violent demonstration. Dozens of other unarmed demonstrators were also wounded in the attack

[/ QUOTE ]
Necessary?

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]


Do you mean by this that there is no way to combat terrorism without using some unacceptable methods, if not US will lose? (I personally think that is the way Donald and many other Bushies think)



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me give you an example of how an ex "Commie fightin' summbitch" kinda guy like me thinks.

First, I believe in strongly in God. I believe in the sanctity of life. Everyone's life. No matter when they are deemed as "alive."

There have been and always will be extremes. Good and bad. Yes, there are times when I would have and still will go in exactly the opposite direction many God-fearing folks would.

Fairly recent example: Colonel in Iraq gets "good intel" that he's on a hit list. He's got someone in custody who knows something. If I'm that Colonel, after I'd fired the round next to his ear, if he still didn't give up his compadres, I put my now re-cocked 9mm real close to his kneecap. I tell him I'm going to put a round in his knee if he doesn't talk. I explain how he won't ever walk normal on that leg again. Ever. He still doesn't talk, I pull the trigger. If that still hasn't gotten me what I want to know I repeat the process. And I answer to God.

And I'm not real proud of what those guys did with those bodies (the burning) but I've given it a lot of thought and I think I just might have done the same. Somebody's shooting at me I'm gonna get real testy about it and do just about whatever's required to stop tha' f***ers. The problem with what they did is they didn't have the good sense to do it off camera.

Life is tough. A lot of decisions are extremely tough. And you really need to be careful when you start condemning folks in nasty conditions and situations where you have no idea what tha' hell you're talkin' about.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Arnfinn, you asked me a question which I answered and I don't have the inclination or time at present to delve into lots of specific instances, some of which would require additional reading and research to form a full opinion.

Is it not sufficient, in your mind, that I state that I agree that some US misdeeds have been indeed "bad", whereas some other US actions have been merely "less than ideal" given the complexity of the situations and the conflicting interests on grand scale? What is your purpose in moving from the general question, which I answered, to an asking for evaluation of many individual instances?

Also, you should realize that you and I cannot always know if something is justified or necessary, or if not, by virtue of the fact that we have less than complete information. Even with full information such questions can sometimes be very difficult to answer satisfactorily.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is it not sufficient, in your mind, that I state that I agree that some US misdeeds have been indeed "bad", whereas some other US actions have been merely "less than ideal" given the complexity of the situations and the conflicting interests on grand scale? What is your purpose in moving from the general question, which I answered, to an asking for evaluation of many individual instances?


[/ QUOTE ]
I posted some examples of abuses as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy which could have been prevented by GWB but he consciously acted otherwise, and I was interested if these are within your "less ideal"-definition or goes into unacceptable?


[ QUOTE ]

Also, you should realize that you and I cannot always know if something is justified or necessary, or if not, by virtue of the fact that we have less than complete information. Even with full information such questions can sometimes be very difficult to answer satisfactorily.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]


That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".



[/ QUOTE ]

There are few "absolutes" in life. Learn to live with it.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted some examples of abuses as a direct or indirect result of US foreign policy which could have been prevented by GWB but he consciously acted otherwise, and I was interested if these are within your "less ideal"-definition or goes into unacceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you or I have complete enough information to make that determination unequivocally.

[ QUOTE ]

That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not only the standards that matter, but the specific details of the incidents and the context in which they took place. Many things of these types are very complex and I would hope you realize this. As an example, just look at the complexity of the discussions we had previously on this forum regarding whether it was necessary or justifiable to use the atomic bomb to end the war with Japan, or whether its usage saved lives in aggregate. Many such things are still being debated today. Things of lesser importance can be very complicated as well.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Ok, fair enough MMMMMMM, I see you are conscious about it, it is the deniers and the ignorants that makes me scared.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am pointing out to you the extreme consequence of not drawing a absolute limit.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am pointing out to you the extreme consequence of not drawing a absolute limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".


[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, learn to live with it! No limits! Full power to the rulers! Accept Hitler's Holocaust since he perceived Jews as a threat to society! Accept Stalin't gulag since it was necessary to preserve communism!

[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am pointing out to you the extreme consequence of not drawing a absolute limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

That's why cultures and societes makes some absolute standards, to not allow the rulers to simply justify their actions with "it was necessary".


[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a butthead, aren't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the kind of argument people usually use when they are out of words, meaning they have no sensible counterarguments. I know I am touching a sensitive spot, but it is a spot that is necessary to touch a lot of times to solve these problems. No real peace in the Middle East and no real coordinated War on Terror is going to come until ordinary Americans and ordinary moslems put pressure on their leaders on these issues.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Arfinn, let's hear your plan for what we should do with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]

No real peace in the Middle East and no real coordinated War on Terror is going to come until ordinary Americans and ordinary moslems put pressure on their leaders on these issues.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lord love a duck! You've finally said something I can agree with.
Totally! Wholeheartedly!

Now, c'mon over heah 'n lemme hug ya! [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

-Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them.

-Stop torture. Wake up, don't become like this you are fighting. Don't flush 300 years of struggle to establish a free, democratic society into the toilet due to a external threat.

-Continue the investigations, but establish juridical processes around it which can stand daylight. Now everything is in a shady light and not many except the American right-wing trust the processes. More open processes could lead to more consciousness about the atrocities some of these groups have comitted/planned and could lead to condemnation from the majority of moslems. In addition, more openness could lead to more information being made available to the investigators.

If these steps were taken, it could be the beginning of making a real functioning anti-terrorism Interpol. Norwegian officers said in a documentary that the communication between different foreign security services operating in Iraq is so bad that they sent their own security officers.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I realize that it is necessary to have some of this guys in custody awaiting investigation.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Hugs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

The problem with most of those who advocate a military response is not that they dont acknowledge that we made mistakes. THe problem is that they are unwilling see to the perspective of the other created by those mistakes and this is compounded by their inability to reason that we can fix some of these mistakes with real foreign policy adjustments.

6M's responses are classic in this direction: sure we made mistakes, those are past, now the mullahs are angry at us so threaten them and blow them apart before they take action. That is lets move in all our chips.

Failing to realize that this a losing proposition for us in the long term (a preflop movein strategy is not the right play for expert players, but is the right strategy for those in the red zone -- as the Islamic world is presently) is the issue. We need to work towards a view that the play of the hand must be taken further than simply a move-in mechanism -- something average poker players dont understand and are not able to cope with.

We need to become better thinkers and doers for the long run as all good poker players do.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

ACPlayer, the problem is far more than that "the mullahs are angry at us." The mullahs also wish to destroy Israel, who has never laid a hand on them; and they intend to rule the entire Middle East with their form of fanatical theocracy, if only they can somehow manage to accomplish it.

We need to tell them to cut the BS, and we need to carry a big stick and be ready to use it. And if they persist in their plans of acquiring nuclear wepons, we need to destroy all their facilities.

The problem ISN'T primarily what we have done in the past. The problem is the mullahs themselves, and their warped beliefs and intentions, and their actions towards implementations of their visions of pan-Middle-Eastern theocracy (to be led by them, of course). The problem is that they hate all infidels. The problem is that they are ideologically living in the 7th century--and that they are trying to forcibly impose 7th century values on the 21st century.

Western influence in the Middle East during the 1900s in some ways may have exacerbated the problems, but it is not the root cause of the problems. The root cause is the fanatics' hatred of non-Muslims, and their utterly totalitarian world views. And sadly it is those very views which have fostered political systems with stagnant economies and little hope of improvement, until they as a society someday begin embracing some Enlightenment type of thinking.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem ISN'T primarily what we have done in the past. The problem is the mullahs themselves, and their warped beliefs and intentions, and their actions towards implementations of their visions of pan-Middle-Eastern theocracy (to be led by them, of course). The problem is that they hate infidels. The problem is that they are ideologically living in the 7th century--and that they are trying to forcibly impose the 7th century values on the 21st century.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. My bad. I thought in some of the other posts you had acknowledged that the bad we had done has contributed to the problem. I was wrong, it seems that in your view our foreign policy mis-steps have not contributed to the middle east problem and the turning of the middle east against the US.

You are wrong about that, and need to re-think it.

[ QUOTE ]
The mullahs also wish to destroy Israel, who has never laid a hand on them; and they intend to rule the entire Middle East with their form of fanatical theocracy if only they can somehow manage to accomplish it.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Two points here. The Mullahs hate Israel and want to destroy it. Agreed. What does that have to do with us? Israel wants to control the lands all the way to the Jordan River. What does that have to do with us?

The Mullahs and OBL want to rule the middle east and perhaps create a caliphate from Pakistan to all of Morrocco. Perhaps. But as off three years ago all the terrorists had was a bit of Afghanistan. They had legitimate grievances against us for supporting the Israeli oppression of Palestinians, for supporting the tyrannical rulers of the House of Saud and the Egyptian despots.

Our failure to deal with these foreign policy directly led to the widespread growth of anti-americanism in these countries and to the 9/11 attacks. These issues also gave OBL a platform and of course the 9/11 recruits.

Now, we have a large (the size differs according to who you talk to) segment of the Iraqi population with a grievance against us and thus the continuing insurgency. And dont think that this is only a Sunni issue. There is plenty of trouble in the Shia south as the British troops there have found out and Muqtada is still as anti-American as we come. So, our foreign policy mis-steps continue.

Now we have anti-American sentiments in the Pak Madrasas, the Afghan warlords and Talibans, and a segment of the Iraqi population and of course all of Arabia and Egypt.

Dropping a nuke on Qum or Tehran will only add that country;s populace (which is still not anti-American) to the list of populations that OBL can count on continue the Jihad and building the Caliphate.

We are helping create the Caliphate by a one-sided support in the middle east conflict and by invading foreign soils.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

I will try to clarify (and simplify) once again.

Western involvement has indeed contributed to some of the problems in the Middle East, but the much deeper problem is Middle Eastern 7th-century-type thinking and the host of resultant problems stemming from it.

We need to stop Iran from getting nukes, first and foremost. That doesn't mean we need to nuke Tehran, but it does mean doing whatever may become necessary.

Even if we did nothing at all in the Middle East, and removed all Westerners from the region, the fanatical mullahs would not slow their march towards spreading theocracy. And the jihadists would not relent in their efforts to re-establish a caliphate and rule the entire Middle East under sharia, and from thence to wage jihad on the bordering infidel populations.

The biggest problem is their thinking, not our actions (although again I'm not saying Western actions have not been contributing factors to some extent).

This is one reason (amongst many) why it is essential to establish democracy in Iraq and to have it catch on and succeed. With a more liberal, empowering political system, Middle Easterners can gain greater proserity and personal freedoms and may be more tempted to shun 7th-century totalitarian ideologies. While there is no guarantee the experiment in Iraq will succeed, democracy is what the Middle East desperately needs.

The jihadists and theocrats know how dangerous democracy is to their totalitarian religio-political ideals and systems. This is why they are fighting tooth and nail in Iraq, and why we must do everything in our power to stay the course until democracy succeeds in Iraq, and the Iraqi people become self-empowered enough to effectively deal with the jihadists and totalitarians (who wish to enslave everyone under 7th-century-style sharia and absolutist religious governance).

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

So, according to you the only actions we can take that will be effective are hardline stick approach.

I suggest that you listen to the Iraqi and their feelings on the occupation.

MoD (brit) poll this month

[ QUOTE ]
Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;


[/ QUOTE ]

The last point is telling, is it not. They feel less secure after the occupation.

We are doing what we did in Iran. Creating an atmosphere where the country will (has) become radcially opposed to the Americans. Driving them ever deeper into a theocracy.

We created the Iranian theocracy and are on the verge of either creating one in iraq or having iraq explode into civil war.

The stick approach does not work. History's lesson.

I suggest establishing diplomatic and more importantly trade relations with Iran. That would be of much greated benefit in the long run. Move in poker is for amateurs.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

For even more on that impact of the Iraqi invasion consider this

[ QUOTE ]
But only in the past year has Basra established a reputation as one of Iraq's most radicalised cities, where the most extreme strictures of Islam are enforced by bearded men with automatic weapons.

Since Saddam's fall and Washington's decision to disband the Iraqi army, Basra has very largely become the preserve of militias pledging allegiance to intolerant ayatollahs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

78% of the Iraqi population turned out for the recent vote. That indicates that they want democracy.

Yes, there are security problems. Did you expect that there wouldn't be? But some things, like freedom, are even more important than immediate security--as Iraqis showed by turning out to vote (both times) despite the threats of terror attacks.

You really ought to consider giving the Iraqis a chance--at freedom. After all, it appears to be what they want too (else they would not have voted).

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

At this point I am all for giving Iraqi's self determination.

When you are occupied by a foreign force, and when the political apparatus in place remains so primarily due to the foreign force, that is not freedom.

The Iraqi's voted in elections that Saddam held too.

The elections mean little until the foreign forces have left and a sustained political system is in place. Whether that political system is democracy or theocracy or fascist is their choice.

The poll, if valid, clearly says that Iraqi wants to be free of the occupation, so they can pursue their own fate at their own hands. Is that likely to happen anytime soon?

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

I can't tell if your post is sarcastic or just kooky talk.[ QUOTE ]
-Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, none of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent. They may be of little intelligence value because they are low-level fighters, but they took up arms against American troops. If someone's got a link that says otherwise, hook it up. You think we should give these guys US citizenship? How would you feel about giving German soldiers Norwegian citizenship after WWII?

[ QUOTE ]
Stop torture. Wake up, don't become like this you are fighting. Don't flush 300 years of struggle to establish a free, democratic society into the toilet due to a external threat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone can agree torture is unacceptable, but there is a huge difference between abuse and torture. Disrespecting the Koran by throwing it on the floor is abusive, but it's not torture. Our enemy beheads people, records the beheading, and puts it on the internet. What happened at Abu Ghraib and at Gitmo wasn't torture.

[ QUOTE ]
-Continue the investigations, but establish juridical processes around it which can stand daylight. Now everything is in a shady light and not many except the American right-wing trust the processes. More open processes could lead to more consciousness about the atrocities some of these groups have comitted/planned and could lead to condemnation from the majority of moslems. In addition, more openness could lead to more information being made available to the investigators.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what kind of court these people could be tried in.

[ QUOTE ]
If these steps were taken, it could be the beginning of making a real functioning anti-terrorism Interpol. Norwegian officers said in a documentary that the communication between different foreign security services operating in Iraq is so bad that they sent their own security officers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea but I see no way this could work. Every country looks out for its own intrests often to the detriment of others. I'm thinking of the Italian Red Cross giving aid and comfort to the enemy in Iraq.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I am all for giving Iraqi's self determination.

When you are occupied by a foreign force, and when the political apparatus in place remains so primarily due to the foreign force, that is not freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more free than now than it was under Saddam, and will continue to move towards greater freedom as Iraqis become more capable of handling their own security. To leave now would be negligent given the extent of their lack of preparedness and the extent of insurgent attacks.

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraqi's voted in elections that Saddam held too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, come on. It's not an election when there is only one candidate[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
The elections mean little until the foreign forces have left and a sustained political system is in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that 78% of Iraqis voted is highly significant. Give things some time, jeez.

[ QUOTE ]
Whether that political system is democracy or theocracy or fascist is their choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily, and not so simple. But we can save that discussion or debate for another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
The poll, if valid, clearly says that Iraqi wants to be free of the occupation, so they can pursue their own fate at their own hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be reading too much into that part of the poll. I have read polls which interestingly show BOTH of the following: 1) that Iraqis don't like the American presence and wish it the occupation was already over, AND 2) that Iraqis don't want the Americans to leave them alone to face the insurgents yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Is that likely to happen anytime soon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on your definition of soon, I'd guess;-) When the Iraqis have a stable and functioning government and are capable of handling their own security affairs, America will probably leave.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's more free than now than it was under Saddam

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this poll there are many Iraqi's who dont agree with your take. They are a bit closer to the action.

[ QUOTE ]
To leave now would be negligent given the extent of their lack of preparedness and the extent of insurgent attacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Iraqi's dont appear to agree with you. It is after all their life.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, come on. It's not an election when there is only one candidate


[/ QUOTE ]

It is also not an election when you dont know the candidates you are voting for (the case in the first election) or the details of the referendum (the case in the second election).

The voting is just the Mullahs telling the guys what to vote for (mostly). Substitute Saddam for Mullahs from before.

[ QUOTE ]
I have read polls which interestingly show BOTH of the following: 1) that Iraqis don't like the American presence and wish it the occupation was already over, AND 2) that Iraqis don't want the Americans to leave them alone to face the insurgents yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Links of possible. And opinions from WorldNet, etc dont count. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
When the Iraqis have a stable and functioning government and are capable of handling their own security affairs, America will probably leave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see. A clear statement of when they will actually be free.

You need to understand what Freedom means.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

I think you are reading too much into those poll questions and answers. But no point arguing about it I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
You need to understand what Freedom means.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you--it definitely DOES NOT mean existing under the heel of a tyrannical regime which would torture and kill you for dissent, or on a whim.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean we need to nuke Tehran


[/ QUOTE ]

whoah whoah whoah, why so hasty? I think a few nukes shoved up Tehran's ass could do some good.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are reading too much into those poll questions and answers. But no point arguing about it I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better to read polls than your (or someone else's opinion). Still waiting for the polls you cited -- but, as usual, not holding my breath.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I know, none of the detainees at Gitmo are innocent. They may be of little intelligence value because they are low-level fighters, but they took up arms against American troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, posting pretending to be knowingly about this without even knowing about the basic facts. A lot of the detainees were never fighting against American troops, many were handed over from allies. One link (from a official US government site):

[ QUOTE ]
Q Mr. Secretary, can you tell us is there a temporary restraining order still in place preventing the military from transferring any detainees outside of Guantanamo, and does that only affect the 38 non-enemy combatants?



SEC. ENGLAND: Well, I know that -- I'm not sure there's a restraining order, but, of course, I think it has been reported we have Uighurs from China that we have not returned to China, even though, you know, some of those have been deemed, even before these hearings, to be non-enemy combatants because of concerns and issues about returning them to their country. And I understand the State Department has been working with other countries to see if we can have them go to another country, and my understanding is that's still -- they're still in Guantanamo, so that issue is unresolved. So I – at a minimum I know the Uighurs are there and have not been returned to China.



[/ QUOTE ]
Link

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

ACPlayer, even the poll you cited does not inelecutably support all of your stated conclusions about what the Iraqis want. Try reading the poll questions and answers more narrowly.

Also, there is nothing in your poll to contravert my point that many Iraqis BOTH want the occupation to be over AND are afraid of being left alone to face the insurgents before they are ready to do so effectively.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

From your own seven month old link

[ QUOTE ]
Q When they get released, are they free, or are they released to the government for further prosecution or whatever?



SEC. ENGLAND: No, they're free. I mean, they're released. They're free. We just move them to a different area on Guantanamo. Arrangements are made to send them home.



Q Do they get any special privileges once they have been designated not an enemy combatant? Better quarters or better food?



SEC. ENGLAND: It's a better environment, I believe, it is a different area than they've been in, while waiting to be transferred. And we do that as quickly as we can. State has to do it. They have to make arrangements, transportation. So there's some finite time involved to do all that.



Q And how much time have they been there? A month? Weeks?



SEC ENGLAND: Different times. I think some maybe have been there as much as two months. You know, again, it's up to State along with the country. Sometimes it's just difficult to arrange transportation. The delay is not necessarily on us, it's really on the country they're being returned to. But we try to move them out as quickly as we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

38 out of 578 is not "a lot." Your posts indicate you live in some kind of a fantasy land where you expect everything the US does to be perfect. I can't take your posts seriously anymore so feel free to keep spewing the hate.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
From your own seven month old link

[ QUOTE ]
Q When they get released, are they free, or are they released to the government for further prosecution or whatever?



SEC. ENGLAND: No, they're free. I mean, they're released. They're free. We just move them to a different area on Guantanamo. Arrangements are made to send them home.



Q Do they get any special privileges once they have been designated not an enemy combatant? Better quarters or better food?



SEC. ENGLAND: It's a better environment, I believe, it is a different area than they've been in, while waiting to be transferred. And we do that as quickly as we can. State has to do it. They have to make arrangements, transportation. So there's some finite time involved to do all that.



Q And how much time have they been there? A month? Weeks?



SEC ENGLAND: Different times. I think some maybe have been there as much as two months. You know, again, it's up to State along with the country. Sometimes it's just difficult to arrange transportation. The delay is not necessarily on us, it's really on the country they're being returned to. But we try to move them out as quickly as we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

38 out of 578 is not "a lot." Your posts indicate you live in some kind of a fantasy land where you expect everything the US does to be perfect. I can't take your posts seriously anymore so feel free to keep spewing the hate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if the link is old, it shows the errors of your argument that those who are detained have necessarily fought with US soldiers. Some are i.e. Taleban soldiers who fought against Northern Alliance soldiers. Not saying that those should not be detained, but your whole 1st post showed that you have next to no knowledge about the situation and before making opinions a minimum amount of knowledge should be aquired.

In addition it shows that there are innocent prisoners there, not being released. This has been confirmed by US authorities by several occasion. I.e., they contacted Norwegian authorities (my home country), and specifically asked if Norway would accept Guantanamo detainees to be released and granted asylum in Norway. In communication with the Norwegian authorities they stated that these prisoners did not constitute any danger to US or allies. Still they are kept in a prison.

I can discuss with Gamblor, MMMMMM, Vulturesrow or others with whom I disagree very much because it is interesting to see how they interpret the facts in a different context due to difference in values, perspectives or which sources they trust. Then I listen to what they say (accepting it or not)and they hopefully listen to what I say (accepting it or not) You make arguments that are not backed up by facts or experiences interpreted one way or other, they are just based on your guessing of what is going on; and you basically close your ears when your opponents are talking.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

In a previous post I stated what I thought to be true and asked if anyone could provide a link showing otherwise. You did provide a link showing I was incorrect. The link you provided was old, but it showed the US trying to rectify the situation. Compare that with what you wrote the US should be doing...

[ QUOTE ]
-Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The very link provided by you shows what you originally wrote is completely wrong. The reason I wrote that I couldn't take you seriously anymore is because you knowingly provided a link showing the opposite of what you wrote the US is doing. The quote of yours above reeks of anti-American hatred if you knew the situation was different than you stated.

I don't read the politics forum because I want to see a bunch of people agreeing with each other. I want to see different points of view on all the issues. But if at first you indicate the US is not releasing people from Guantanamo Bay and then you provide a link showing the exact opposite, how can I take what you say as anything but a total bias against the US regardless of the truth?

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Still waiting for the polls you read.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a previous post I stated what I thought to be true and asked if anyone could provide a link showing otherwise. You did provide a link showing I was incorrect. The link you provided was old, but it showed the US trying to rectify the situation. Compare that with what you wrote the US should be doing...

[ QUOTE ]
-Release those who are proven innocent. There have been prisoners there which is proven innocent but which have not been released since the US does not know where to send them. They did not dare to release them at Guantanamo since they were considered to have become a security risk due to the treatment they received. I think they deserve compensation and US citizenship if US cannot find any other place for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


Are you trying to ignore what the link and other media reports says? They have found them innocent, but they are still not releasing them. My claim stands valid. Your post is among the silliest I have read in this forum.

Re: MMMMMMM and others US foreign policy defenders - ethics?
 

Your link is seven months old. The link says it may take up to two months to return the people to their countries. It is fair to assume from your link they have now been released. Your posts appear to say that the US is intentionally trying not to release these people and then you provide evidence that the US is doing the exact opposite. This is why it looks as if your contradicting yourself. If you have more current info please post it.