OT: Stress and Duress--warning: downer

fluter_d · Post by **fluter_d** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:18 am

And I also think it's important to mention that, even today, when some (not all) Irish people think of/talk about the English/British, the atrocities of Cromwell in the 16th? 17th? century are still brought up - and still rankle. National memory is a very long thing. Don't underestimate it. And never assume that someone you treat badly will not, given the chance, hurt you back.

ChrisLaughlin · Post by **ChrisLaughlin** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:02 am

First, I find it's never helpful to turn a debate into an "us vs. them" scenario, especially when it involves branding those of a different opinion with broad and sweeping terms such as conservative and liberal. Such branding and categorizing dehumanizes one-another by disrespecting the possibility, and indeed, verity, of individual human thought, idea, feeling and opinion. Intentional polarization of issues, debates, and even conversations is a tried and true method of ensuring the impossibility of any sort of progress or understanding.

That said...

The United States Declaration of Independance clearly states that rights are "unalienable". I think that's fairly clear. Yes, we as a country, in our greed, fear and selfishness did twist that declaration so that it would not protect the rights of women and people we had designated as "slaves", but we did, after much struggle, learn from our mistakes and change the law to include EVERYONE... not just some people, not just US citizens, not just those we agree with, but EVERYONE. Most of us recognize at this point that denying rights on the basis of gender or the color of skin is not only foolish but just plain wrong.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html states: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

I'm pretty darn sure that means everyone, not just US citizens.

The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man states:
"Right to equality before law.
Article II.
All persons are equal before the law and have the rights and duties established in this Declaration, without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor."

I'm pretty darn sure that means all people, not just US citizens.

When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom then it stops being freedom. When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom of speech then it stops being freedom of speech. We can not, as a country, pick and choose who we think should be granted human rights and who should be denied them. Those rights are, by our own declaration, "unalienable".... they belong to everybody.

I'm proud of my country. I love it very much and there's nowhere I'd rather live, but I know that countries make mistakes. We've done it before and we'll do it again. The US calls itself "the land of the free and the home of the brave" - let us not be the land of the unfree and the home of the cowardly.

http://www.amnesty.org

[ This Message was edited by: ChrisLaughlin on 2002-12-28 11:29 ]

chas · Post by **chas** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:48 am

On 2002-12-28 11:02, ChrisLaughlin

When we start choosing who is worthy of freedom then it stops being freedom.

Chris, I agree with most of what you said. But we routinely deny rights to people who have committed crimes, and we keep people, including US citizens, in solitary confinement if we have a reason to suspect that they or their cronies will commit further crimes if they're allowed to communicate. That's the rationale behind keeping these people incommunicado -- it's certainly valid in some cases and not in others.

FluterD, I think you'd be surprised at the number of Americans who are suspicious of government actions in general. I may be unusual, but I'm one of them. If the public schools here were a bit more open, we'd all have it ingrained in us, since that's the way many of our Founding Fathers thought.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:47 am

I am a liberal, and haven't voted Republican once in the past 19 years.

I am not fond of the current leadership of the United States, the condition of the economy, or where the country as a whole seems to be headed.

That said, on the subject of 9/11 and its aftermath, it is a very clear-cut issue. We were attacked, brutally, by people acting from a deadly combination of cowardice and malice. The attack was effective, and its greatest measure of its effectiveness was in the sad and predictable changes in our country and our way of life, the erosion of freedom, the needless internal response of curtailing our own rights.

That said, our external response has to be so brutal, so inhuman, and so terrible, that no one ever dares do this again. And it would be the responsibility of whatever party or president that was in power at the time of the attack to make sure that happens.

We have to do terrible things, to prevent worse and more terrible things later. We have to kill, effectively and efficiently, to save more lives later.

Because if 9/11 goes unanswered, no country, no people anywhere will ever be safe again. That's not rhetoric--it is a sad fact.

I weep for what we must do, but I recognise that it must be done.

Best wishes to all,

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

claudine · Post by **claudine** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 12:18 pm

On 2002-12-28 12:47, peeplj wrote:
We have to do terrible things, to prevent worse and more terrible things later. We have to kill, effectively and efficiently, to save more lives later.

Very liberal point of view. Did you ever consider that the actors of 9/11 are all dead already, and that your effective and efficient killing will probably concern lots of innocent people while Bin Laden & co are still running free. You have been lucky to be born in a rich and mighty country. What if destiny had decided to make you a poor farmer in Iraq? Would you still accept the death of thousands of children whose only fault is to be born in the wrong country?
See what is happening in Israel since they voted for Ariel Sharon. The situation is getting more and more dramatic for all concerned parties. Violence always leads to more violence. This war (in Iraq) will only increase the number of volunteers for the terrorist movement.

ChrisLaughlin · Post by **ChrisLaughlin** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:27 pm

I saw a great little quote the other day:
"Why do we kill people who kill people to teach people that killing people is wrong?"

Rando7 · Post by **Rando7** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:44 pm

On 2002-12-28 13:18, claudine wrote:

Would you still accept the death of thousands of children whose only fault is to be born in the wrong country?
.... Violence always leads to more violence.

A few comments:

If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear. Maybe that makes me a bad guy but that's the way it is. What makes the choice more obvious is that kids in Iraq are ALREADY in danger from their own government. There are eyewitness accounts of children set on fire, poisoned or used as human shields for tanks by Hussein's government. And don't even start with the "US embargoes are killing Iraqi children" stuff - there is one guy responsible for the embargoes and that's Saddam Hussein, who apparently has plenty of money for his palaces while his people starve.

How far should the "violence begets violence" theory be stretched? When you see someone threatened, should they not be protected? Do you continually turn the other cheek? Should Hitler have been left alone to do as he pleased? If Israel is attacked do we stand aside?

The US doesn't question it's leaders or government? While there was a consensus towards war with Iraq, it has weakened considerably. Half of what is in the media is questioning one government policy or another. I actually thought (maybe I am wrong) that Europe was much more likely to accept what their governments told them as they tend to be more socialistic. Ireland may be an exception as it seems to have moved away from socialism the past couple of decades. If you want to see discussion of government policies on both sides visit http://www.freerepublic.com or http://www.democraticunderground.com. There are plenty of radicals on both sides.

Finally, to clarify my comments on POWs, etc I believe the US goverment, while classifying the captives as unlawful combatants, has stated they intend to follow the Geneva Convention guidelines towards treatment of POWs in their treatment of the captives. This article implies they are not being treated that way although as I said I have my doubts about the article.

Wizzer · Post by **Wizzer** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:50 pm

Rando7
"If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear. Maybe that makes me a bad guy but that's the way it is."
No one else would make any other decision when it came to the kids lives.
The trick is to make sure that not only your children but your grand children are not in danger and not to kill anyone's children mother brother or father.
Strong, smart, effective leadership can work thru the problem we are facing in the world. When we believe that saber rattling and chest pounding is strong leadership instead of a fools game is when we suffer.
Modern technology is making the world a smaller more interdepended community of beings. We as the strongest and riches county in the world need to provide Leadership and developing avenues of discussion and problem solving. We need to stand by our values instead of propping up petty dictators and military governments as we have over the past 30 years. This will win us the hearts and minds of those who now believe that we are the evil satin.
This is not a religious issue and I gasp when I hear those who use religion to spread hatred on either side.
Have faith in the founding father of this country who provided us with wisdom. If there wisdom of there basic rights of man were observed throughout the world it would be a fairly peaceful and prosperous place for all mankind.

claudine · Post by **claudine** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:53 pm

On 2002-12-28 14:44, Rando7 wrote:
If given the choice between my own kids being in danger and some unnamed kids in Iraq being in danger, my choice is clear.

Rando, I bet even the Iraquis give their children names and love them.

If Israel is attacked do we stand aside?

This is at least a very simplified version of the truth.

Don't you forget that the US had already a war in Iraq in 1990. What was it good for? As George Sr didn't finish the job, Junior now begins the same story again. How many more people will die this time? Cui prodest?

And why won't the US begin a war against Saudi-Arabia? Most of the terrorists came from there, including Bin Laden. Members of Saudi-Arabian big business have given financial support to Al Quaida. So why don't they consider them to be their enemies? Too many economical interests involved?

And I didn't know that Ireland used to be a socialist republic. I've always thought that they were a rather conservative and very catholic country.

[ This Message was edited by: claudine on 2002-12-28 16:15 ]

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:56 pm

I agree with those who respond to
FluterD that Americans are as skeptical
of their government as Europeans--and
I've lived in Europe. The appearance of
unquestioning unanimity now flows from
the fact that we've been wounded
terribly and the country has come
together like an immense family
and rallied round the government.

I've been watching terrorism for
decades, sometimes at uncomfortably
close range. Call these people
all the names in the book, but never
forget that they are not crazy,
not quaking in their boots, not
afraid to die and that they are
playing chess with us.

In Manali in 87 I was caught up
in anti-Sikh riots--Sikh separatists
in the Punjab had machine gunned
70 Hindus on a night bus.
The Sikh temple was burned
down, shops were smashed, people
were running through the streets laughing
as if it were a festival. 'We must
teach the Sikhs a lesson!' the
manager of my hotel explained to me,
cheerfully.

I realized that the riots were the
point of the terrorist attack. The idea
was to provoke a response from
Hindus that would
persuade moderate Sikhs all over
India that they could never live safely
without a separate state in the Punjab.

There are two stages to a terrorist
attack--what they do to us and what
they hope we will do to them. Often
the second stage is the goal of the
first--the idea being to radicalize
large numbers of moderate people and draw them into a war, or more terrorism, against
us. I think we can be sure that it
is OBL's hope that our response will
be terrible, brutal and inhumane.

We are, you know, increasingly
seen in the world as denouncers of terrorism who sponsor
state terrorism, champions
of democracy who prop up fascist
regimes in Arab countries, condemners
of torture who are torturers. Whatever
else we need to be now, we had better be
skillful. At the least, it is imprudent to lose our decency.

If anything is worth dying for,
the vision of fundamental human rights
upon which our country is based
qualifies. I'm convinced, though,
that there's no need to either die
or lose our souls. I'm disturbed that we are doing nothing to address the injustices
that breed these despicable acts
against us. That would be dangerous
politically, which is the principal
reason we're not doing it, I believe; much less risky to 'blur the line between humane
and inhumane treatment' of Al Qaeda
suspects. Best

Rando7 · Post by **Rando7** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 5:01 pm

On 2002-12-28 15:53, claudine wrote:

Don't you forget that the US had already a war in Iraq in 1990. What was it good for? As George Sr didn't finish the job, Junior now begins the same story again. How many more people will die this time? Cui prodest?
The decision not to "finish the job" was a coalition decision, not George Sr's . Had the elder Bush gone into Baghdad he would have lost the support of several Muslim and a few European nations, plus Russia. In retrospect we might have been better off had he finished the job, as you say.

And why won't the US begin a war against Saudi-Arabia? Most of the terrorists came from there, including Bin Laden. Members of Saudi-Arabian big business have given financial support to Al Quaida. So why don't they consider them to be their enemies? Too many economical interests involved?

You're supporting a war with Saudi Arabia but not Iraq? If there was clear evidence that the Saudi Arabian government supported the September 11 attack then yes I would support action against them. I agree with you that their position in all this is unclear and the US should be watchful. This war has made strange bedfellows, especially the US and Pakistan, and the US may regret later some of the alliances it has made.

And I didn't know that Ireland used to be a socialist republic. I've always thought that they were a rather conservative and very catholic country.

I am no expert on Irish politics, but my understanding is that they have seen a shift towards capitalism and away from socialism the past few decades.

Look, I am no war-monger here. If there is a peaceful way out then I am all for it, but we just completed eight years of diplomacy with Bill Clinton but the WTC was attacked anyway, Palestine and Israel still hate each other, Saddam Hussein is still in power, etc, etc. I hope very much this is all sabre-rattling and no war will be necessary, but to say the US and it's allies should not use force to protect ourselves only serves to strengthen our enemies.

[ This Message was edited by: Rando7 on 2002-12-28 18:07 ]

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:05 pm

To second the response to Claudine's
question, what was the first Iraq
war good for? Several things: it
liberated Kuwait of Iraqi forces
and probably spared Saudi Arabia an invasion. It so weakened the Iraqi army that
it was much less of a threat to its
neighbours. Probably the war prevented
a nuclear war in the middle east.
It served notice to nations in
that (and other volatile) areas
that efforts to annex each other would not be tolerated.

The 'job,' as defined by the
UN mandate, was to liberate Kuwait,
not to invade Iraq. The job was finished
when we liberated Kuwait and neutralized
the Iraqi army. If we had
unilaterally invaded Iraq and removed
Saddam, Bush's vision of a peaceful
world kept safe by multilateral
forces, in which nations don't invade
one another, would have been dashed. Because
we kept the trust of the Arab nations,
which had fought side by side with us
against Iraq, they drew much closer to
us than ever before. Bush was then
able to bring the sides of the Arab-Israeli
conflict together to help
forge the Oslo accords, another
consequence of the first Iraq war.

Bush Sr was the American president
who was closest to the Arab nations and
who best understood them.
Also he was the most willing to
lean on Israel to make peace. He
refused to sign loan guarantees
for new Israeli settlements and he
signaled the Israeli government
that American aid was imperiled
if it didn't move toward peace.
One wonders what would have happened
if he had been re-elected. It has
been said that he lost the election
partly because of his tough stance
toward Israel, a lesson that hasn't
been lost on his son.

The principal reason we've
given for our present stand on Iraq
is that Iraq is continuing to work
on weapons of mass destruction,
including nukes, that Saddam would likely use them offensively (e.g. against Israel)
and that these programs are specifically in
violation of the peace treaty
Iraq signed after the first war.
(It's a bit like the Treaty of Versaille,
which prohibited German re-armament,
except that its limited to WMDs.)
To my knowledge, none of this
applies to Saudi Arabia. Best

Wizzer · Post by **Wizzer** » Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:26 am

JIM STONE:
quote:
"it liberated Kuwait of Iraqi forces
and probably spared Saudi Arabia an invasion. It so weakened the Iraqi army that
it was much less of a threat to its
neighbors."

The problem with the action is that the Kuwait people are no freer today than they were under Sadam. Women still have not rights and we propped up a monarchy, got men killed and many more very sick. We are back in the same situation to day we were in 10 years ago and we are not likely to bring Democracy and free will to these people. We will kill thousands have a few parades and find our grand children fighting in the same situation.

The Saudi certainly do not want democracy on their front door and will do what ever it takes to destroy any fledgling government that will attempt it in the middle east.

So what is the answer. The answer was set to paper in the constitution and bill of rights of the United States these principles must be adopted in some form thru out the world and that should be our goal. It will take time, effort, and possibly far less money than the cost of the wars it will avoid.

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:13 pm

Laisse tomber, Claudine...

Some understood you point, some where convinced before you started, some never will (when there's a will...)
No point reminding that, to Brits, 1917 IRA were "terrorists".
To Germans, French (or Dutch, Belgian, etc.) 1944 resistants were "terrorists".
To French, 1953 Viet-Minh, 1961 Algerians...
To Russians 1861--yessir: one-eight-hundred-sixty-one--Tchetchens, 1996 Tchetchens and to-day any Muslim...

No point reminding that, with the focus conveniently elsewhere, we got a nice counter-revolution backed by guess who? started in Venezuela, same kurnels (Colonels), same truckers' 'union' as in Allende's Chile... Nothing politically common, true : yesterday copper interests as against Lumumba in the 60's, to-day oil as in these on-going 90's.

No point reminding when and where the very term of "concentration camp" and its very horror were invented. Hint : not Germany, not Russia...

No point reminding German troops til 45 had "Gott mit uns" on their belt-buckles.

Totally OT (or is it ?) :
Claudine : il y a "Un homme nommé Cheval" ** on Arte channel à 20:45 GMT+1 to-night, don't miss it if you haven't seen it yet.

** A man called Horse (¿if reverse-translated approx. right?)

E = Fb · Post by **E = Fb** » Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:53 pm

I'm basically with you Chuck. However, I don't want to see our culture become another Roman Empire, filled with intimidation and blood lust.

Let's all start by agreeing that most of these captives are not nice people. Second point we can all agree on, if they want some shut eye, they know what to do. They can cooperate dammit. It's not complicated. Nobody has to lose sleep.