It's quite possible for one method of killing people to be more evil than another. Shooting someone with a fatal headshot, for example, is far more humane than burning them to death. Likewise, there might be other circumstances, such as nuclear fallout, that would make one method of killing worse than another.JohnP said:
JohnP said:
Regulate the news? That's quite a large step towards such an institution as the Iraqi Information Minister. But even disregarding the enormous opportunity for further political manipulation and increased governmental control, how is one to define what the "Truth" is? "Truth" is an incredibly plastic concept. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and both concepts are inherently "true" to those that hold to them.JohnP said:
John, you give King George far too much credit. The area that would become Canada was under the exact same importation and taxation restrictions and did not develop anything near the firearm culture the US has today. There are many reasons for this which are hardly important here, but it is far more complicated than simply British colonial oppression. Certainly your description of the Revolutionary War is accurate, but I entirely fail to see how the freedom of Americans hinges on their freedom to own a violent weapon, other than perhaps as an unfortunately emotional historical symbol. Understand that I do not oppose the principle of firearms ownership - indeed, I personally support the Swiss approach of mandatory military service which results in each home having firearms as well as those skilled in their use - but rather that I find many Americans have an alarming attitude towards personally possessing and using such weapons. There is a great deal of difference between the knowledge of the proper use of a firearm for self-defense and taking pleasure in and declaring one's inalienable right to own and use a weapon designed for the express purpose of ending life.JohnP said:
Stephen, you got me...I actually sent this yesterday, but I tend to wax on and on sometimes. Fair enough....Xert said:
While it is true one way may be more humane, that does not necessarily make it less evil...although your point is well taken. I think evil lies with the user of a weapon in warfare. There is killing the enemy, and then there is gleefully making him suffer on his trip to the afterlife. I do not feel that was ever the design that ANY of the powers had for their A-bombs, nor was it for us Americans. The "bomb" was developed (by all parties working on one) as a method to rapidly end the war, but in one's own favor, not because of the pain it could cause; which As a matter of fact, I believe that when the bomb was dropped (the bombardiers had no idea what it was, only that it was big, and it was secret) the pilot or bombardier was quoted as having said "My God, what have we done?" definitely not the gleeful "Yeah, take that!" of someone with evil intent. Still, point taken. There are perhaps better and worse ways to die.Xert said:
Stephen, I agree with you, in principle. Unfortunately, that is not the approach generally taken by our media here. I really do think they loathe America....Instead of wondering "Why", our news media instead jumps to the conclusion that we MUST have somehow provoked the attacks, even though there is no evidence for the same, especially not for the civilians they seem to enjoy killing. IMHO it is more likely we are simply the biggest symbol of the "west" and its excesses, and make a good target for fanatics for whom we symbolize everything evil in their religion. Face it, Gents, to a religious fanatic, any of our countries can be percieved as a veritable "Sodom and Gomorrah" of modern times. We have premarital sex, even for PLEASURE.., we have drinking, we do not circumcise our women....the list of what could be perceived as offenses to Allah or God go on...not good, when viewed from that standpoint. THAT is why, I believe, that the west was targeted, not because of perception of our foreign policies in the middle east. The people in the world trade center no more did anything to the middle east than the Londoners murdered more recently in the tubes or the Spaniards blown up on a train. Our networks, however, would have you believe that(short of our entire societies converting to Islam) that the attacks are provoked because we somehow treat Muslims bad, or that we somehow "owe" them, for the crusades, which incidentally, involved not one single American, and ended centuries ago....it is ridiculous, but that is the sort of thing one puts up with on American network news...Xert said:
I am all for accountability, unfortunately, that is not what bothers me about this case. I am bothered by their presumed GUILT in our networks, before anyone has even heard their stories, anything. These kids were placed in shackles for almost a month, solitary confinement, and only allowed out for "exercise" once a day for an hour, during which a guard held them by their chains at all times...and this was without any formal charges having been filed. They were instantly decried in the media of being guilty of a MASSACRE, and the politicians instantly took up the cry, condemning the 18 and 19 year old Marines as if they knew they were guilty. When no charges had been filed and the only "evidence" against them was the hearsay, word of mouth of an individual who stood to gain from their loss. Fact is, at that point the only "evidence" against them is, as I understand it, the word of a person captured in the same house as the supposed enemy combatant (somebody killed our guys, after all, if it wasn't him), who stands to become relatively rich (America pays "solacia" payments to those deemed wrongly killed by our troops, now) if he can convince everyone the Marine planted the AK on his relative. Now, our soldiers are getting killed because they are afraid if they shoot an enemy, they will be tried for murder. So they hesitate. And die. There is no balance to the stories. I think instead of proclaiming verdicts, like they did, our media should stick to the news. I also believe they should report ALL of the news, rather than just certain parts. You know, the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth...hopefully the truth comes out in the trial, because it sure didn't make it into our networks.Xert said:
Stephen perhaps I chose the wrong wording. What I was trying to say is that there are no consequences in the US for journalists either slanting the truth, blatantly lying, or as in recent events, giving away crucial secrets which harm us, and our people. There is no accountability. I do not believe they should be told what to report, but when they report a lie and get people killed, someone should answer, IMHO. I have already seen a couple of times where networks get a bunch of people killed, it turns out their story was false...and all that happens to them is they say "Ooops, we're sorry" on the news, and that is that. In Afghanistan around 30 people were killed in response to a report claiming American soldiers were flushing the Koran in front of prisoners at Guantanamo. Turned out to be a sensationalist story made up by a journalist. It turned out to be completely false. Nothing was done to this man, even though around 30 people died thanks to his exaggeration. It bothers me. I think they should have to tell the truth, just like you and I, when we give an account on something, and not spin it to whatever direction they wish. I only wish to hear the raw, unadulterated version. Not one with their spin or my spin, but just the plain, simple truth. We aren't getting it.Xert said:
If they simply ran a story on "accusations" like you say, that would be fine. I have no issue with them reporting the facts. But to "enhance" a story, and alter it so as to alter what it seems to say....that I have issues with, and THAT is what our networks seem to do quite often lately. If they had simply said the soldiers were accused by one of the enemy of planting the weapon, that would have sufficed. Instead they loudly proclaim it as if the boys were already tried, convicted, and sentenced. They also happened to leave out the fact that according to current US policy, if they can claim their family member was wrongfully killed by US forces, the US will pay a (quite large) sum, called a Solacia payment, to the families. I think it is a scam, and is a serious conflict of interest. Because, if as I suspect, the AK47 and spent casings next to the "victim" were his, and it gets proved he was killed while engaged in combat with US forces...then his family gets nothing. Yet if they can say he was killed wrongfully, and those evil US Marines planted the AK and casings on him....then they will get what is, for them, enough for an entire family to live on for quite a long time. This was not mentioned in our news media. If all I knew came from them, even I would hate us...so it is no wonder that the rest of the CNN/CBS/NBC/ABC watching world does. I have no problems with them reporting the facts. I do take issue with them pronouncing verdicts and witholding pertinent information.Xert said:
Well, you are probably right about Canada being under the same restrictions. The main difference is, while Canada stayed a commonwealth of Great Britain for quite some time, and gained her independence peacefully, the United States was born in a bloody revolt, after which our founding fathers noted that the private ownership of weapons had been crucial in the colonists' ability to answer the call to arms. The founding fathers also believed that people have a right to revolt against their governments should the government become to tyrannical (a right, which, has unfortunately dwindled in the last 200 years). Canada was not born of such a revolt, nor were British troops sent to quell protests there (as far as I know) as they did here. So Americans' right to keep and bear arms is directly related to the founding fathers' feeling that they should have the power, if necessary, to overthrow their own government.Xert said:
John, who was suggesting anyone act in these fashions? Everyone is critical of their government, and no one wishes their troops to commit atrocities. However, citizens of most countries also want their soldiers to be given the benefit of a doubt when in combat. Most troops want to know that if they kill an enemy in combat they do not have to face trial for every single one that has a family member upset about his/her relative being killed. Otherwise with those restrictions we would have a whole lot of policemen, and no soldiers. There are two sides to every story. Do you believe the relative of the enemy combatant(for conjecture's sake I am saying he is) when he says 8 marines conspired to "plant" a gun on his relative, as well as shell casings, and slaughtered his family....do you believe the 8 soldiers, who are intensely disciplined, and claim they destroyed the house and everyone in it when they took fire from the house....does the fact that if the troops are found to be "in the wrong" the insurgent's family will be paid a large sum, enough to keep them comfortable for years...change how you think? Maybe, maybe not. But for the news media to loudly proclaim the men as guilty, based only on the story of a family member of the enemy combatant....before any forensic evidence is gained, and before charges are even filed, is wrong. I also think slander, sedition, and libel should apply to a journalist if it applies to me. I don't see why owning a TV station makes one above the law...but apparently, it does. I support a full investigation, but I think the media (and our politicians, who should know better) should leave whatever hangings, if there need be hangings, for AFTER the trial.yasuo200365 said:
Ok, I agree with your last, but I am starting to wonder if the American networks broadcast something else to you guys than we get here....because there definitely is not any "Rosey Pro-American view" on the news here. I am starting to think you have never SEEN the news produced for American viewing. Every day it is BAD news. Every day we are subjected to what they think we've done wrong now. Every single network is biased, BADLY, against the United States, and even FOX,if you wish to slam those guys, cares more about a high school girl lost over spring break in Aruba, than anything remotely affecting us. The president of Iran has Christians and Jews sewing special "patches" into their clothing, and has vowed the extermination of Israel and "the west" but that bears hardly a mention. Nothing against that girl or her family, and I know it is horrible, but I would think countries planning our extermination would bear a little more reporting....It is bleak indeed. The news is not there to give a "Rosie view" but a "clear" view. And that is what I want from them, not the twisted and useless tales they give us now. BTW, if you ever want to see the political leanings of a network, watch who they give the fluff questions to, and who they try to put on the spot...usually you will find that they always grill people of a certain view, but give fluff questions to their "pets".yasuo200365 said:
I agree, although no one has yet suggested the media be gagged, only that they be required to tell the WHOLE truth, not just the part that suits their particular political views. That almost qualifies as getting them to talk MORE, wouldn't you think? Now, as far as national secrets, such as the New York Times keeps leaking, those are not "news" no matter how much they claim so. Common sense should apply. Telling people, for instance, that we are tracking terrorists-that is news. Telling exactly when and HOW we track them, only aids the enemy, and is treason. Unless you work for the New York Times...if you or I gave the same information to someone by microdot, we would be tried for treason and likely convicted of espionage. Maybe even sentenced to death. Yet a REPORTER can tell this information to EVERYONE, and suddenly it is "news"? Great Britain, incidentally, developed one of the most deadly nerve agents known, VX. America got her "VX" through a technology swap, probably nuclear weapons, but who knows-now question is, would telling exactly how VX is made, in a newspaper article, be news...? Exactly. There is a difference between news and "intelligence gathering". News: the police are going to be doing sobriety checks tonight, so do not drink and drive. Intelligence gathering: There is going to be a sobriety check at such and such street, at 8PM until 9PM, the streets to get around this checkpoint are...and officer Wilson and Rogers will be doing the checks.....see what I mean? not everything REPORTED is valid NEWS. Saying John Doe beat up his neighbor...is telling only PART of the story. This is what we get in America. What they didn't tell you was that John Doe was asleep in his bed, and his neighbor walked in with an axe...John suffered 2 axe wounds and is crippled for life, but was barely able to fight off his neighbor, beating him until he dropped the axe. Story changed, right? that is why I think our media should report the WHOLE story, not just one side.yasuo200365 said:
Stephen, I am not positive which newscasts you are seeing, but the ones broadcast out here (except for the local news, which is definitely pro-US) are full of scandal and hand-wringing about either how bad they think we are doing, or how they believe the war is illegal, or that how dare we deny free(whatever the flavor of the day is) to illegals, we must be racist...perhaps it is just the ultra-left slant of the media in California(?) but they are definitely not pro-U.S. In fact some of their broadcasts (unless they have a juicy scandal in which they get to bury a politician, or a priest, or whoever) could make one wonder which country ACTUALLY owned the network... The huge blaring headline, Prisoner abuse at Guantanamo!? so you are hooked to watch...only to find that the "story" consists of some human rights group from Germany inspecting the prison and finding it to be above international standards (in the way it is run). Yet, if I had gotten up for a sandwich, it would have been easy to assume people were being beaten with rubber hoses or something.Xert said:
Stephen, while I cannot disagree with the idea of a cultural war, and perhaps the world trade center was a lofty target, I also think it is interesting to note it is not America alone who is the target. It is ANYONE in the west who appears weak enough to make a good target. America's policies in the past are to blame for our last attacks....not in that we offended Muslims, but because for so many times, we did nothing. The enemy then decided we were a "paper tiger" to quote Osama bin Ladin. They bombed the world trade center. We arrested some people, but basically did nothing. They blew the side out of our ship, USS Cole. America did nothing. They killed American troops protecting UN food to Somalia. America sent more troops, but basically did nothing. While attempting to capture Mohammed Farah Aidid, a local warlord in Mogadishu, some Americans are killed (incidently after being refused armor support at the highest level....bright stars, those...) and dragged through the streets, on camera, in front of God and everybody...America did nothing, and in fact sent the WRONG message by instead, backing out of Mogadishu. Several American embassies in the middle east are bombed, killing a number of people. America did nothing. Notice the trend? Muslim fundamentalists and radicals have ALWAYS hated America and before America,all non Muslim countries. They have been on a crusade to convert all to Islam since the middle ages. It did not stop when the French knights stopped the Moors. Nor did it stop for America with the tangle with the Barbary pirates, nor did it stop with our battles with Muslim radicals in the Phillipines at the turn of the century. Spain pulled out of Iraq after Al Qaeda claims they would be left alone....lot of good it did them. Terrorists still hit them anyway. I believe the west does not understand the radical Muslim movement, and keeps paying the price for ignoring history. While a single Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist...the list goes on....lives in our countries, we are considered an enemy by the most radical elements of Islam. Having read most of the Koran, it is NOT a very friendly book towards those who are not Muslim. Our only option is strength. They will still hate us (to include Americans, Canadians, Italians, French, Russian, Australian.....) but if they fear, or at least respect, they will live and let live for awhile. America's fault was she showed weakness for too long. Now we are paying the price in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the jungles of the Phillipines. Every single time throughout history, that a western power has shown strength (much as one would to a bully in a schoolyard) the radicals and terrorists have backed down, and for a time, there was peace. Everytime the west has shown weakness or inactivity, it was attacked. It was true for Europe in the days of the Moors, it was true for us in our fledgling days, when (Muslim fanatic) barbary pirates were raiding shipping, and it is true now. Unless we all convert to Islam, the radicals are always going to hate us. So, IMHO our best bet is to accept that radicals will NEVER like us, and show strength, not weakness...If we cannot hope for the adoration of those who instigate the horrors we've recently seen, at least we can earn their mutual respect, and have them leave us alone.Xert said:
You do bring up a good point. However while every criminal/terrorist/enemy/whoever knows that the authorities look for a paper trail or trace money, I do not believe previous to this that they would have known so much about HOW it was done. That said, I will agree that (in our news, anyway) it is tedious to search through what is real, and what is BS. Both political parties try to throw their own slant on things, and honestly, an election year is the WORST time to watch or listen to anything here, because, well....it gets deep. Political ads are allowed to tell lies (they do) the news gets twisted to support (or hurt) whichever party deemed suitable to support or hurt....I would just like some plain, simple, raw, honest.....news. Nothing else, thank you...Xert said:
My thoughts exactly, but apparently the journalist was able to hide behind a thin veil, and claimed our Constitutional right to freedom of the press protected him, and that was that. It just bugs me, because, if it wasn't true, then he wasn't reporting the news. I think it would be extremely refreshing if our media actually started just giving dull, hard facts. I am speculating, but I believe part of the problem is that there is too much desire amongst journalists to get that Pulitzer, and unfortunately, everyone knows that 1) good news doesn't get it 2) it had better not offend the brass at the network and 3) it had better be a scandal. So I imagine there is a lot of pressure to either find a scandal, or to create one where there was not, before. Such as a claim that soldiers were flushing the Koran...Xert said:
Stephen, I basically agree...but I also wonder if people would pay attention longer if they were receiving honest, straight-facts style news....I believe the networks underestimate people, give them all this sensationalist blather, and the audience knows it EXACTLY for what it is, and turns the channel until their favorite SitCom comes on...perhaps it isn't a short attention span, so much as a lack of tolerance for BS...Xert said:
We get CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN...all the usual news players, and I used to (although no longer) regularly read through the headlines of major papers. It would certainly make sense that the media in California are more left wing, and I certainly agree that the media, in general, does tend to swing further left than the average American, so it's certainly possible that the California media are more left-wing than most American outlets. But, must even "ultra-left" be equated with "anti-American"? If you're saying that part of what America is is right-wing, I wouldn't disagree (for all our similarities, your Democrats would be too conservative to have a chance of getting elected in Canada, where our Conservative party is further to the left than they are), but I would argue that "America" should not be limited to one particular area of political ideology. I understand, however, that the Cold War polarized the US into a right-wing position that doesn't have a hope of disappearing while the baby boomers are still around, but the politics of Generation Y are likely to be far more diverse and make for a fascinating study.JohnP said:
Canadians are extremely proud of the quality of their soldiers. Stories are still circulated of how we were the go-to assault troops, how the German intelligence calculated where their lines were to be attacked based on the Canadian troop movements, and how, despite insurmountable odds, the men never backed down and ended up taking ground no one else had been able to take for months. I have never heard a single comment against the dedication and courage of our soldiers, and I'm absolutely positive that our "media" in general has not been "slamming" them. What has been widely questioned is our involvement in Afghanistan, the role of the military in Canada in the 21st century, and the allocation of funds to the military, but every [recent] story relating to the actual members of our military has been nothing but compassionate and supportive of the men and their families.JohnP said:
As I said John, I agree that the US is often a focal point for anti-Westernism (which makes perfect sense, given that they're the most dominant force in the West), but political decisions are still of paramount importance. Who else has been attacked? The UK, which occupied Palestine for years, and Spain, where Muslims were subjected to a fierce Inquisition. Yes, both of those happened years and years ago, but the Middle East has a very long memory.JohnP said:
Right, but HOW it's done is hardly important news in this case, except for the question of international American legality, which no one seems to be interested in. If a criminal knows that the authorities are attempting to trace him through his credit cards he doesn't use them - the knowledge that they're being traced on the most fundamental and international level is hardly going to change his behaviour in the matter.JohnP said:
Agreed. Freedom of the press does not protect libel, so why should it protect manslaughter? Was the case actually made in court, or were the authorities simply afraid of prosecuting him? A news media that simply reported [albeit still slanted] facts would be fantastic, but quick sensationalism is what sells best to the masses today.JohnP said:
It's certainly possible that people would pay attention longer, but I highly doubt it. Newscasts, like every other form of television, exist in order to sell commercials. If a station could get a higher audience by reporting strict facts, I'm pretty sure someone would be trying it. But I certainly agree that there's a growing lack of tolerance for both media and political BS, especially among Generation Y - Jon Stewart's made a career from it!JohnP said:
Interesting. I essentially agree based on what you have said about the Canadian media. As for the idea of a particular national ideology, to an extent there probably is, but much of the difference is likely due to the differences in our forms of government and how our laws (and law makers) come to be. While similar, a parliamentary system such as in Canada or a democratic Republic, such as the United States, are not quite the same, and I feel this may have much to do with some of the social differences between the two countries.Xert said:
That is good news to hear. I had heard vague reports of the Canadian media calling the Canadian troops (in Afghanistan) "murderers and baby killers" much as happens to some of us here in the U.S. If it is not true that is indeed good news; I fail to see why people believe that one of their own, after putting on a uniform and going through intense training in discipline, honor, and the proper conduct of war....would suddenly become more evil than an untrained civilian in the same situation....after all, Canadian troops are just trained Canadian civilians, and likewise with our troops...yet unfortunately I think many people love scandal, and would rather believe ill....they've also probably watched too many Vietnam movies filmed by people who also had no clue about THAT war...Xert said:
I agree. And yet....the Jews were in Israel before the Arabs....and were driven out. Correct my history if I am wrong, but weren't the Palestinians offered their own country as well, at the same time as Israel? I am pretty sure they were....and refused it based on the principle that they did not want to coexist with a Jewish(the worst form of infidel) state...and later this same view culminated in the 6 day war....either way, it is not your fault, nor is it my fault, nor John's, nor anyone in Great Britain Spain or anywhere else what supposedly occurred to the Muslims 1300 years ago. All of us can find horrible things done to our ancestors if we look back far enough. To stand by and take retribution, claiming we "deserve" it, based on these thousand plus year old perceived wrongs, is simply not a good idea, IMHO.Xert said:
Perhaps. But when the leaders of a country, religious or otherwise, call for the complete utter destruction of entire nations....it becomes more than simple consolidation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. The President of Iran (not to mention the various Ayatollahs and mullahs) is a good example, as are some of the clerics (some even inside the USA and more so in the UK) for having called for the destruction of the west (in general but especially America and Great Britain) and specifically for the destruction of Israel. This is not consolidation, this is religious backed insanity on a national level...and to be honest, if the world lets Iran develop nukes, I am almost positive they will be used. I don't like N Korea having them, but Iran I like even less. The clout Iran would gain in the extreme Muslim world for destroying Israel would be unbelievable......no, I don't like it at all.Xert said:
While I agree it should not be news...I disagree also, in that unless we tell them, they (the terrorist cells) will not know exactly in what way their money is being tracked, etc. For instance, what if the terrorists thought transactions outside the United States were untraceable....and now knows they are not....I don't mean that money was spent, but where and when....that sort of thing. Generally if something is a state secret, it is one for a reason, and the people should file for its release legally, if it is the sort of thing they NEED to know. Gossip is not news, IMHO and that is more and more what the US media seems to be reduced to...Xert said:
Stephen, I absolutely agree. I think, perhaps, that this slant (along with all the grandstanding and what-not) bothers men like you and I more than it does much of the masses who could care less....Xert said:
I am not positive it even made it to court, which is not surprising. All the network would have to do is issue an official apology and find a judge to rule they were protected by the constitution and that would be that. It only bothers me that if he was covered by freedom of press, why doesn't my "freedom of speech" protect me the same way? I think everything has been beat to death by politicians so long that the actual, plain, truth laws are interpreted so wildly by egomaniacal judges these days so as to be unrecognizable when compared to what the law actually says....Xert said:
I agree. I am also getting tired of the "2 party" system. This was never institutionalized in writing, nor is it in any of our laws, but to watch us, one would think that if an American disagrees with a Democrat, then he MUST be a Republican. Lately, I am pretty much tired of both. In a country founded with the idea that any free man could be voted in to be President, it seems the system may have gone a little too far, in that now, to even enter the running one has to be fabulously wealthy, or well-born. I wish this were not true. Can you imagine if, in either of our countries, a simple citizen, not corrupted by years of political influence, or family power or whatever, had a chance to be elected? There are MANY people out there who, IMHO would do an outstanding job at it......yet aren't millionaires/billionaires with political connections. Oh well, one can dream.Xert said:
Depends on the time frame. Likely they were still trying to blame our president for 9/11...yasuo200365 said:
Ask questions about which policy?yasuo200365 said:
Because, perhaps, 1) we were unsure if this war would become a CBR exchange at first, and 2) if it did not, the administration had stated exactly what the plan would be, to remove Saddam and institute a constitutional democracy of one form or other. 3) They were too busy wondering about whether Pres. Bush played hooky from the Air Force to care about such inconsequential things as a war...a little tongue in cheek, of course, because I am quite sure you probably did not want actual answers, as these are extremely generalized questions...yasuo200365 said:
It is interesting to me that most of the supposed horrible treatment at Guantanamo is voiced by people who have never actually been there. As for "torture flights" how much do you KNOW and how much is just media sensationalism? exactly. There is no way possible to safely question captured Al Qaeda members inside the United States. For one it would be a media circus, and secondly escape risk is much much greater. As for actual "torture" I don't know. I think my definition of torture and yours may be different, but if the purpose was to perform torture in the sense I think of it, then I agree it is deplorable to do such things. Add to that that the United States as well as most countries, know that information given under torture is suspect at best. As far as simple interrogations...our interrogators, as I understand it, have received much of their training and techniques from British interrogation specialists. Without saying more, I'll just say they're a sneaky bunch, and you'll spill your beans to them before you know you're being asked a question... The only country in the West that I can think of that actually still employs torturers, unless they recently stopped, is France. What these do, I have no idea.yasuo200365 said:
Considering in this case that the pictures were released to the American media first....your media in turn HAD to have gotten it from ours. So more likely your friend over here was simply not watching. I know when the story broke we heard of nothing else for the following year, and even now we still hear about it in "special segments" and what not. Incidentally, the initial Geneva convention broken was not the menacing dogs, but the fact that photographs were taken....which opened up a whole other can of worms. No matter what you are trying to get someone to say, it is not worth damaging your country so badly like these individuals did. On this I am sure we agree.yasuo200365 said:
This sounds like your media was simply sensationalizing this, because as the story was broken to the U.S. Media first, the "ten days" story is simply false. America is huge, however, and while perhaps 10 papers and 1 or 2 networks will get a story coverage across the entire nation in the UK, it takes MUCH more to spread it in the US, thousands of newspapers, multitudes of networks....I'm sorry but I am simply not buying the "American media is ignoring it while the UK media gets the scoop" deal.yasuo200365 said:
Just curious, but how did British forces do in Sierra Leone (no UN backing) or the Falklands...and a number of other places....John, I have nothing against Great Britain, or for the most part her armed forces (great bunch of folks).....but a nation that is truly in charge of itself sometimes has to act in its own interests. If something is in the best interest of my country, then it is in my best interest. That some in the international community, such as yourself, may not agree, or may not understand, is just par for the course. No matter which decision you make, some are not going to like it, but you had BETTER make the decision, or pay for your inaction later.yasuo200365 said:
JohnP said:
Well, the Jews weren't exactly driven out, they were conquored by the Romans, living under their rule for somewhere around 700 years before the fall of the Byzantine empire, which the Arabs defeated. Yes, the Palestinians were offered their own country as well, at the same time as Israel, but suppose for a minute that, for whatever reason, the US government fell and the land came under UN protection, only to have them declare that, in order to provide international justice, the displaced Indians were going to be given half the land in the US in order to provide them with a safe haven in which to prosper. Except, in our hypothetical scenario, these Indians haven't had a nation in 2,000 years, are scattered around the globe, and are suddenly immigrating in vast numbers to land that you've lived in peacefully for hundreds of years to form an Indian state in which you'll be allowed to live. How many Americans would be happy with that deal?JohnP said:
I agree entirely that Iran with nukes would be a completely different issue than North Korea altogether, and a far more dangerous one, and they absolutely cannot be allowed to acquire them. But I still hold to my consolidation point: sometimes, in order to keep what you've had, you have to attack that which is taking it away. The fact that the leader of a religious extremist state happens to be complicit with such only helps demonstrate that the motivation for attack is cultural, with their political state only helping as the means - pre-revolution, Iran was pro-West. Indeed, that was the original reason for their extreme revolution in the first place! Yes, it's insane, but desperate people don't exactly have a myriad of rational options.JohnP said:
Agreed, except that state secrets are often kept so for political reasons, which is where I see the greatest motivation in this case. That said, I do think we're in general agreement here, all we disagree on is the particular of whether the information leaked here was vital or not.JohnP said:
I understand and share your frustrations, but, as a citizen of a multi-party political arena, I believe the problem lies more with the party system itself than with the number of parties in it. Political parties tend to be a lot like unions: they act on behalf of their membership, but the membership is forced into passivity and never actually does any independent acting.JohnP said:
It definitely has been enjoyable. I know I've learned a lot. Even here in the states discussions of such topics are usually MUCh nastier. This has been refreshing, to say the least!Xert said:
Without subjecting the other poor members of this forum to my haranguing for a few more pages, I think there are fundamental differences, in that Canada still has extremely strong ties to Great Britain. In fact, Queen Elizabeth II is still the Queen, if I am not mistaken....and I also believe that Canada was only recently granted Autonomy, while still being considered (in a sense) part of Great Britain....it wasn't until 1982 that Canada could even amend its own constitution without approval of the British parliament, and what little I could look up say Canadian law is in fact based on English common law....Xert said:
Stephen, you make an excellent point. It would seem there really is no black and white answer...Xert said:
Tragic, but I also agree. It is too bad that grudges are held in the middle east for thousands of years. Regardless, I also think their hatred is no reason for us (or anyone) to allow them to carry out whatever vengeful acts they wish. Perhaps they feel they are simply redressing old wrongs, but in this case it comes down to survival, and my culture or yours deserves survival every bit as much as theirs. Force should be answered (or prevented, if possible) with immeasurably larger force. Whatever wrongs my ancestors or yours may have done to their ancestors, should, IMHO be settled in the afterlife, between the parties actually affected. Otherwise there are quite a few people I need to go kill....Xert said:
I'm not sure how true it is, but I gather there is a large deal of concern in Tehran that the youth are moving away from the extremist Mullahs and the Ayatollah, and are becoming more western oriented. Wouldn't surprise me if Tehran is trying to stir them up to keep the hatred boiling. Which would also explain some of the tactics (identifying patches sewn into Christian or Jewish citizens' clothing, threats to flatten Israel, etc) which are exactly the ones Hitler used to consolidate Germany under his control....I guess it makes sense, especially if the Ayatollahs felt their power slowly slipping away. It might also explain why so many of the combatants in Iraq are actually Iranian. Iran right now is like a cornered animal, and stands to either gain much, or lose much, if their citizenry sees success next door in Iraq....Xert said:
I agree completely.Xert said:
Ah, but you see that's not how it works. Canada, while officially a constitutional monarchy, has the Queen only as a purely figurative, non-political head of state. Indeed, it's been many, many years since the ruler of the UK actually even selected whom was to be Canada's "Governor General", who acts as their proxy since naturally the monarch resides in England. Yes, until 1982 Canada was not officially independent, but in reality the country had been an entirely independent state throughout the 20th century, although for the first quarter of it the English portion considered Britian to be the Mother-land (which is why Canada jumped right into WWI with such gusto. If Britian was at war, Canada was at war, simple as that - but try telling that to our French Canadians!).JohnP said:
Certainly they should not be allowed to carry our their wrongful acts as they wish, but that doesn't mean that force is to be answered or prevented with greater force. I'm no pacifist, but sometimes greater force only causes more trouble, when a more understanding approach could have greatly diffused a difficult situation.JohnP said:
Agreed. I've heard the same reports of increasingly Westernized youths in Iran (I do have several Iranian friends with family there still whom they visit), but my suspicion is that as a result there will also be a hard core group of reactionary youths who will be even more extreme as a result.JohnP said:
John, I agree, although the definition of a "world war" has increasingly gotten more global. In my opinion, the first world war was actually the Napoleonic wars, which featured an unheared of arrangement of allies against a dictator attempting to conquor Europe. WWI saw a similar situation, but with non-European nations assisting for the first time. WWII is when world wars actually become global, with a multitude of fronts spread over three continents and both oceans.JohnP said:
