UK, between USA and EU

[halevan]

America is probably the most misunderstood country in the World, their good intentions have always been deliberately misconstrued by trouble causing factions who revel in War and bloodshed.

 

The U.S.A. has always been on the side of right and opposed the wrongdoer, now, when they have been attacked by the Al-Quaida terrorists who slaughtered over three thousand of innocent civilians without any justification, they are still being condemned,why?

 

Bush has declared War on terrorism, in order to protect his own people and who can blame him? he has decided to take the War to the terrorists instead of waiting till they attack again, whether you like Bush or not, he is the American President and the buck stops at him.

 

I lived through the last War and if the world had not resisted the Nazi killers and terrorists, we would not even be discussing this subject today, get real and stop bellyaching, Do not beleive everything you read that is printed by idiot journalists, who most of the time don't check the facts before publishing.

 

LONG LIVE AMERICA!!!

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by halevan

I lived through the last War and if the world had not resisted the Nazi killers and terrorists, we would not even be discussing this subject today, get real and stop bellyaching, Do not beleive everything you read that is printed by idiot journalists, who most of the time don't check the facts before publishing.

 

LONG LIVE AMERICA!!!

 

Hal, what do you think of US policy in Central America? Do you remember the US Army and CIA backed Guatemalan Military being responsible for in the region of 200,000 civilian deaths?

 

We won't mention Chile, Nicaragua, Colombia or Ecuador - although there were horrendous casualties in all these US sponsored conflicts, no president has ever apologised for them.

 

But Clinton did actually apologise for the Guatemalan genocide. The US record of intervention in South America speaks for itself.

 

Being convinced you are on the side of 'right' rather than 'wrong' as a nation is a very dangerous thing IMO, because you can give yourself dispensation for the ends justifying means very easily.

 

The fact that we have both Russia and the USA to thank for not being under the Reich today (which is a questionable thesis IMO) is totally irrelevant other than as historical context.

 

Actions of a nation 50 years ago do not automatically confer rights to undertake highly speculative pre-emptive strikes, even if they were the 'Good Guys'.

[cosywolf]

The way America is currently behaving is outside international law. The end does not necessarily justify the means. You cannot insist that everyone else live by rules you have helped to set, and then utterly disregard them when it suits you.

 

I am ashamed that our own 'leader' has allowed us to be allied to the flagrant breaches of human rights currently being committed by America (ie Guantanamo Bay, their behaviour in Iraq).

 

9/11 was a terrible event. But it does not excuse America's (or our) behaviour ever since.

 

When I was growing up in the states I remember one memorable lesson by a history teacher. He told us that America was the only free country in the world. One of his examples of what a dreadful, repressed place the rest of the world was...was that people were constantly being kidnapped off the street in all other countries by government regimes in tanks, many never to be heard of again (I was put in detention for arguing against this - long live freedom of speech).

I find it really ironic that America now feels that it is within it's rights to do the same thing to 'Al Q_ suspects', AND submit them to kangaroo courts without a hope of a fair trial.

It's hypocrisy of the worst kind. And it makes me view my ex-country with utter shame and contempt...sickening.

 

They reckon they are the policeman of the world. I would suggest that the worst kind of policeman is a right-wing, self-righteous one seeking revenge for a wrong, running a vendetta against anyone not sharing the same religious beliefs, and who is allowed to work outside of the judicial system to bring any punishment to anyone they fancy, proven guilty or not.

[max]

Here's an extract from Michael Moore's new book which may, or may not, add something to this thread:

 

Questions for George W Bush

[gwizz]

How do you distinguish between a terrorist group and a legitimate group that both use violence?

 

Well in my book terrorists use violence against innocent people in order to gain political advantage. They just decide who they're gonna kill and go out and do it.

 

A legitimate group has to go to the bother of getting their actions reviewed by a representative body, or a constitutionally established judiciary, and has conventions (i.e. geneva etc) that it has to follow. Even fighting against Hitler it wouldn't have been ok (for example) to kidnap loads of german and japanease kids and torture them live on radio to try and get the nazi's to surrender. But a terrorist group would do anything they could if they thought that it would get them an advantage.

 

This is known as the ends justifying the means.

 

It doesn't matter how much of an a***hole saddam was - he may well have been one of the worst dictators around but that doen't mean that the UK and US should have bombed him out.

 

Basically it boils down to what exactly are we defending against terrorism anyway? The right to live our lives without random nasty things done by to us by other people. And we can't defend our right to do that if we go round doing random nasty things to other humans.

[Phanerothyme]

Originally posted by max

Here's an extract from Michael Moore's new book which may, or may not, add something to this thread:

 

Questions for George W Bush

 

he's a brilliant polemicist on the left, but whilst I enjoyed reading Stupid White Men enormously, it was rather lacking in th efact checking department.

 

but most of the questions he poses here are vaid...

[DaBouncer]

I must admit though.. even though I am a pro-american Britton, I do not like George Bush and what he stands for while in office. He IS guilty of going outside of international law, and even though the states does a lot of good in the world (which people don't like to admit) it doesn't excuse the fact that he isn't the best example of a good president.

 

I agree that Clinton was a better president (even given his monica lewinsky faults) and i respect him for what he did with American politics in the world.

 

I can appreciate that the CIA and America have over time done wrong things but I would say the good they have done (and still do) far outways the worngs. America and americans are not bad people. They sometimes just have bad leaders. As do a lot of countries. The Germans aren't bad people... they just have bad governments (as do we).

 

If it came down to a vote between ties with Europe and ties with America... my vote would be America hands down.

[alchresearch]

Originally posted by DaBouncer

I agree that Clinton was a better president (even given his monica lewinsky faults) and i respect him for what he did with American politics in the world.

 

He also did a lot to get the different factions in Northern Ireland talking.

[Lickszz]

Originally posted by cosywolf

I am ashamed that our own 'leader' has allowed us to be allied to the flagrant breaches of human rights currently being committed by America (ie Guantanamo Bay

 

With reference to Guantanamo. Yes, people have and are being detained there, but the circumstance of their being there is extraordinary in itself. I would be worried if they were shipping all Muslim prisoners there, but as the Richard Reid trial proved, the U.S. Justice system is being applied whenever appropriate. It is one of those examples of where the winner has written the rules to suit himself. Personally, I support what they (the U.S. government) have done in relation to this and I suggest that you should look at this countries history in regard to internment without trial and removal of peoples rights before you start slinging stones at the U.S.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I'd be more entertaining of proposals to humanitise Guantanamo, if they were coupled with similar proposals for the UK legal system and constitution.