Fahrenheit 9/11

Oh BTW Germany doesnt even have Veto power at the UN, just thougt that that is worth mentioning as well.

 

[ QUOTE ]
About the Florida elections, in all probability no conspiracy took place. Micheal Moore is just connecting dots where there are none.


[/ QUOTE ]

it is hard to say "in all probability" because it assumes A) nothing untoward happened B)no reason or gain would come of something untoward occuring. We know that there was a debacle in Florida and we know that there were huge gains to be had.

So what did happen?

ex-felons cannot vote in Florida. Database was told to make sure these people were culled from the voting rolls. The company was further instructed to cull people with similar names as those ex-felons and that even an 80% match of information was sufficient to turn eligible voters into ineligible voters. This led to the possibility of completely innocent people who shared similarities with ex-felons would be denied the right to vote, something the Database project manager warned others of in an email. This was ignored.

Further, a fraudulent list of 8,000 floridians were thrown off the voiting rolls because list stated these were all former convicted felons who had since moved to Florida. All of the felons had had their voting rights re-instated and there were some on the list were convicted of no more serious a crime than littering. This list was provided by the state of texas.

How bad did it get? The elections supervisor of Madison Counter, Florida was informed that she herself was a felon and therefore ineligeble to vote. How many voters were barred rightly or wrongly from exercising their democratic right? 173,000. Mostly black and Hispanic voters.

State Law requires that all ballots from overseas must be postmarked, or signed and dated by election day. What did the New York Times discover and print?

1) 344 ballots had no evidence that they were cast on or before Election Day 2) 183 Ballots were postmarked in the United States (remember, overseas votes) 3) 96 ballots lacked appropriate Wintess information 4) 169 ballots came from unregistered voters, had envelopes that weren't signed properly or came from people who hadn't requested a ballot 5) 5 ballots came after the november 17 deadline 6) 19 overseas voters voted on two ballots and had both counted

Every single instnace violated Florida law and yet there were counted.

And then of course there were the re-counts which eventually got halted. Why was the ballot counting halted? here's the explanation issued by Justice Scalia: "The counting of votes that are of questionabl legality, does in my view, threaten irreparable harm to petioner [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he [bush] claims to be the legitimacy of his election".

So, because these votes might prove to be false Bush might encounter serious problems, therefore we shouldn't push it. In something as serious as an election in a democratic country if the legality of votes that give one candidate a slim win over another comes into question you don't push it aside. Not if you want to remain democratic. you get to the bottom of it.


[ QUOTE ]
the U.S. has done things in its past for it's own good that I'm not proud of and would rather forget. As for N. Korea, the world will deal with them soon enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The current administration would rather you forget as well. Even just little things like Bush proclaiming "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," and then recently saying: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

Of course he does, he spent over 40% of his presidency taking vacation (according to a tally by CBS News) at one of his three retreats (Camp David, His ranch, Kennebunkport, Maine). It is extremely hard getting that kind of sack time when there are countries to take over and then position hand picked governments to lead them into democracy.

But lets move on to imminent threats and possible threats. Sadaam represented the possible threat since his ties to Al Qaeda were tenuous at best and there existed no proof that he had WMD (speculation isn’t proof, theorizing isn’t proof). But we had to invade. Now North Korea! They were imminent. They even said “we have the weapons and the grapes to use them†but Bush’s approach for this group of people was markedly different: “the diplomacy is just beginning". Physical proof backed by a vocal government and yet no action. I wonder why?

[ QUOTE ]
think what you are referring to when you say "Bush signed documents nullifying international torture laws" is a decision by the Administration that the U.S. soliders should not be held on trial at the international court in the Hague. This doesn't mean the guards from Abu Graib will escape justice. they are currently being court martialed and then will face a criminal court in either the U.S. or Iraq. Or you might be referring to the executive order signed after 9/11 that gave interrogaters more leeway in an interrogation. George Bush abhores torture and never authorized the techniques used in Abu Graib. Furthermore he never ordered anyone to torture anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expectation of any moral, democratic authority is that it operate within the bounds of the law. The international court is set up to ensure that no abuses of power, Claims of sovereignty or sovereign immunity of heads of states exist or are allowed to proliferate. It ensures that private law and private consideration or interests not be allowed and that justice remains in all cases.

This ceases to happen when a world power opts out (Security Council Resolution 1422) and then threatens to veto the renewal of all peacekeeping operations, if council members did not agree to the text of Resolution 1422.

The Rome Statute is an incredibly important Multi-lateral treaty and is being amended by Resolution 1422. Article 27 of the Rome Statue expressly prohibits making distinctions on the basis of official capacity. It is this article that promises that no-one is above the law, not peace keepers, not heads of state. No one. This is invalidated with Resolution 1422. Resolution 1422 defenders argue that the core of the Rome Statute would remain intact with the exemption of individuals from the International Criminal Court jurisdiction because examples of peace keepers committing crimes were very low. This is not a valid reason for undermining world-wide democracy and for invalidating certain key points of the Rome Statute.

A tear eventually becomes a hole. Why does the US think they need exemption from the ICC if their intentions are wholly honorable? Exemption breeds contempt and arrogance, something the US administration displays far too readily.

GE

 

From your link-
"(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one."

I don't know if you ever read the book Bush at War by Bob Woodward (he's the investigative reporter who uncovered the watergate scandal). this book chronicals the events in the white house during the 9/11 attacks. Immediatly after the attacks on the WTC, in all the confusion of moment the first person that came to allot of peoples mind, as a possible accomplice, was Saddam Hussein. the next day in the breifing room the president was determened to find out if Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. wouldn't you suspect him or at least want to make sure he had nothing to do with it.

GodEater, I don't know if you've noticed yet but the Bush Administration and most Americans could care less what the U.N. thinks. The U.S. has its own sovereignty and can choose to punish it's citizens however it pleases for whatever crimes they commit. The U.S. doesn't have to submit it's citizens to an international court of justice. the U.S. has it's own legal system. The U.N. is a forum for international debate, not a world goverment.

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater, I don't know if you've noticed yet but the Bush Administration and most Americans could care less what the U.N. thinks. The U.S. has its own sovereignty and can choose to punish it's citizens however it pleases for whatever crimes they commit. The U.S. doesn't have to submit it's citizens to an international court of justice. the U.S. has it's own legal system. The U.N. is a forum for international debate, not a world goverment.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the US is just a collection of states under presidential rule, not the worlds keeper. The bush administration cares very little for the UN until it needs its umbrella, it cares little for world rights unless its their part of the world, it cares little for human rights unless they are the "right" kind of human: american.

people who want their way of life to be the only way of life come hell or high water are usually dictators. They usually eschew all forms of public scrutiny appealing to exemption from law due to their "good works" or right to rule (usually given by god).

Dictators should be overthrown. Even if their name is Bush.

GE

 

Interview

Here is a link to a cool interview with British comic book legend Alan Moore. He covers art, politics, history, mass media and more. This is a brainy and humorous fellow. Check it out:

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/07/22/moore/index.html

 

Ok, Germany is a non-permanent member of the UN, I'll give you that, but it can still abstain from voting.

But your other claims are unfounded. In the run up to was France and Germany wanted more inspections, more time and a further resolution that would permit force. At no time did Germany state the reason it wanted to abstain was because it thought the existing international intelligence flawed.

This bbc article summarises the situation just before the war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2682313.stm

How all this implies I'm cluless I've no idea. You take one error about Germany not having veto power then contradict my point with one of your own and declare me cluless. Twit.

 

Maximum, if you still believe that it's simply operating on bad information after numerous people coming forward and saying that their intelligence showed no connection between al'Queda and Iraq, then there's nothing more to discuss. You remind me of a person who walks out the door without an umbrella when they see thunderclouds and the trees bowing in a really stiff wind, because the weatherman told them there was no chance of rain that day. But I honestly hope you're right, and I'm wrong. Vindication of my views will be a pyrrhic victory - I'd much much rather everything turn out flowers and cute puppy dogs, and all the people whose lives this war has affected not have suffered those trials in vain.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Shaolin_Hopper said:

Maximum, if you still believe that it's simply operating on bad information after numerous people coming forward and saying that their intelligence showed no connection between al'Queda and Iraq, then there's nothing more to discuss. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Hold on, I've repeatedly said there wasn't a connection between Iraq and Al'Queda. The Uk never claimed this either, only a few American politicials did. The intelligence that was accepted by the whole international community was that he had weapons and programmes to build more......this intelligence has only now been shown to be ufounded.

The main motivation for Blair, I think, was the threat of terrorists colluding with Iraq if weapons stockpiles existed.

The US/UK case for war presented to the UN ws not over a supposed link to Al'Queda. They went to war due to continued breaches of resolution 1441.

 

This isn't a reply to anything specific, just my two cents.

America, as the world's super power, sooner or later will learn the same lesson 'Great' Britain learnt as the one-time super power.

You can't 'bully' the world into doing what you want for the simple reason that the US needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the US.

Someone mentioned earlier that no-one would dare attack the US due to a superior millitary. Tecnologically speaking this is true, but when it comes down to tactics I can't think of a single instance in America's long-running miltary career where a tactic other than "lets bomb them" has been employed. Power without the knowledge to use it is worthless.

So basically what I'm saying is, don't get too comfortable, cause if the world wanted to, it could take America anyday...

And if America continues to try and bully other nations for too long, this is precisely what will happen.

P.S. I think its absolutely disgusting that no US government has had the decency or the balls to apologise to Japan for its cowardly actions in WWII.

And if you think what I just wrote is outrageous then I ask you for a brief moment to imagine what if Japan had dropped two atomic bombs on the US killing a quarter of million IINOCENT civillians - offering the excuse that it saved Japanese lives?

 

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think what I just wrote is outrageous then I ask you for a brief moment to imagine what if Japan had dropped two atomic bombs on the US killing a quarter of million IINOCENT civillians - offering the excuse that it saved Japanese lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting situation and one most people tend to gloss over. No matter who they were affiliated with the Japanese chose millitary targets when approaching the war. The US chose civillian targets.

It is a huge difference.

GE

 

Do a search, Joschka Fischer maintained several times in the run upo that there was no proof, nothing that convinced them of the US claims.

And this ISNT the first time I called you up on your misinformation and lack of knoledge in this thread so dont give me that crap.

 

It had been maintained by many that the WMD claims seemed unfounded and the so called evidence the US and UK presented was faulty at best and downright fabrications at worst.
People like Scot Riter had concerted media campaigns organised against em calling em pedophiles or talking about SandM parties where they allegedly had a bit of fun, all witouth proof of course, just ways to smear their names.
Ritter and other former UN inspectors who made STRONG argumentations against the US claims were called traitors and agents on Saddams payroll etcetera.

The case the US and UK presented wasnt credible at any point in time yet those who said so were trashed beyond belief.

Just a few facts for you, the Niger claims were found to be unreliable by the CIA and the CIA managed to stop Bush from using the claims in october 2002, afterwards of course Bush decided to use those false claims anyway during the 2k3 state of the union addres.
The aluminum tube claims Bush used were disproven a full week befiore Bush mentioned em.
I and many others after the powell UN presentation said dude shows some computer CG, holds a vial and shows footage of planes a decade old and writes a bit on a piece of paper and he has the nerve to call that irrefuteable proof ?
I used to have a way of irrefuteably proving that I was hung like a horse after that.
I say it and if people dont believe me im willing to write it down on a piece of paper I AM HUNG LIKE A HORSE, that proves it right?
After all that was what Powell did and you seem to believe them back then.

Here is another truth about propaganda, tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Thats what happened here.

Let me give an example, the vast majority of people believe Saddam threw out inspectors in 98 becouse hey thats what they heard all the time right?
Now go check the UN files and you will see that the inspectors left becouse Clinton decided to resume a bombing campaign.
You sir are blind to the truth and if it would start pissing in your face you would turn around and say its raining.

 

I know you're a smart guy so I hope I've read your post wrongly. Are you saying it was right or OK to target civilians?
If so then I don't even know where to begin explaining what's wrong with that.

Anyway, I guess the point I was making (before I get flamed) is that nothing lasts forever. Rome didn't last, Athens didn't last, Japan's empire didn't last, the Ottoman empire didn't last, Britain's empire sure as hell didn't last etc.
And the way you treat other nations when you're in power will affect the way they treat you when you fall.

Of course, after you've fallen from grace no-one is going to remember all the good things you did, they'll only remember where you fucked up.
The US has had its fair share of fuck ups in the last 50 odd years, as well as its prouder moments. The US has also fucked off a large quantity of the planet, so if it wants to be treated well after the inevitable loss of supremacy it really does need to change its attitude towards foreign policy - a lot of bridge building needs to be done.

Oh just another quick point, I believe the 'War on Terror' will do more harm than good. The Sept 11th attacks were an act of desperation from Bin Laden. And the west's response is most likely exactly what he wanted. I think he wanted us to drop bombs in the middle-east, he wanted us to live in fear of eachother, to spread yet further racial hatred across the world.

If you''re British you should be wary of this as right-wing groups such as the BNP are using racial hatred to increase their support. Undoubtedly there are groups all over the world doing this.

And just think, in the middle-east the terrorist groups we're so desperate to eliminate will be using the images of dead arabs in the streets, and images of US led torture to increase their numbers.

Even the phrase 'war on terror' makes me think of my government's 'war on drugs' the results of which were a) drugs became more widely available and b) drugs on the whole got a lot cheaper.

This concludes my rant - for now.

 

[ QUOTE ]
GodEater said:

[ QUOTE ]
And if you think what I just wrote is outrageous then I ask you for a brief moment to imagine what if Japan had dropped two atomic bombs on the US killing a quarter of million IINOCENT civillians - offering the excuse that it saved Japanese lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting situation and one most people tend to gloss over. No matter who they were affiliated with the Japanese chose millitary targets when approaching the war. The US chose civillian targets.

It is a huge difference.

GE

[/ QUOTE ]

A million so called comfort women beg to differ.
The Japanese certainly had their fair share of wartime atrocities.
Dont gloss over THAT.

 

You have read me (or I wrote poorly) wrongly. It is never okay to target civilians.

GE

 

I agree with Fishie with respect to the atrocities commited on the Chinese during WWII.

 

"You can't 'bully' the world into doing what you want for the simple reason that the US needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the US."

This is one of the main problems that I have with the US. We are so isolated, so un-international, that we don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us.

Many people are like, "Why should we? We're the US!" That just shows downright stupidity and ignorance. We're all on this world together, we all need to work together as a world of nations, not as a divided group of countries.

The current administration has pissed off the world. If Bush is re-elected, the world will think that Americans just don't care what the world thinks, and are happy with how Bush is running the country. I think people need to put things in perspective. The country will be safe no matter who is running it, because our military is modernized and updated. What we need to do is put more defensive systems in place...less offensive fronts in other countries.

Iraq will actually help our military and our country in the long run; having control of those resources is really the best thing that the US could have, for themselves. This still doesn't justify anything.

Dropping the bombs on Japan was shitty. I'm surprised that the Japanese don't hate us. Maybe it's because they realize that it's not the newer generations that made these decisions (of course, many Americans still yell 'Jap' on the day of Pearl Harbor, we're always living in the past.)

Sometimes, I just want to move =)

 

[ QUOTE ]
MonkFish said:So basically what I'm saying is, don't get too comfortable, cause if the world wanted to, it could take America anyday...


[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I plan on running far far away from this place once my debts to the government are repaid...I love this country, but it scares the hell out of me to see where it's heading.

 

Do I approve of the fact that we dropped atomic weapons on Japan to save US lives? To be entirely fair, there are lots of theories going around that dropping the bomb on Japan was done to impress the rest of the World, that Japan was already looking to surrender at that point. I don't necessarily believe them, but if they were true, then yes, I would disapprove.

Assuming that is not true, then so long as it saved American lives, yes, I have no problem with that. My grandfather was in the South Pacific as an armsmaster of some sort for the army (armsmaster - one proficient with the repair and use of military equipment). He could have been killed if we had had to invade Japan. This is war we're talking about, not beach volleyball.

Do I feel sorry for the people that were bombed? Yes. Human life is precious, and war makes your population a resource to be spent.

Would I personally be able to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, knowing what it would do? Probably not, but I can't say what effect knowing that my failure could cause the deaths of my fellow pilots would have on my decision.

Could I order it to be done? Possibly, if I saw an overwhelming need for it that conventional weaponry could not handle. If I knew that invading and subduing Japan would cost an estimated million American casualties. I am not sure I could handle the aftermath, but I would probably give the order. Even then, that would be one American life for a million American lives and who knows how many Japanese lives.

If there's one common factor that I would say defines a soldier who has seen combat, it's that they all have extremely bad memories. There's no glory in watching someone's brains get blown out by a sniper half a mile away, nor in seeing people crying over ruined homes and dead relatives. Several people involved with the dropping of the atomic bomb committed suicide afterwards. But that's a handful of American casualties as opposed to a million.

People point to Hiroshima and say, 'That's an atrocity.' They should point to the entire war and say, 'That's an atrocity.' Tokyo was firebombed during the war. Japan refused to surrender. How many people died because of that? How many people in Manchuria suffered because of the war? How many Japanese soldiers and civilians would have died fighting the US if we had not dropped the bomb? You have to look at the alternatives. The long term results of the atomic weapon were much less understood then. There were only a couple tests done before, under as much secrecy as an atomic explosion can be kept, and not much time to spend on aftereffects. I don't think anyone who dropped the atomic bomb was happy with the results of their work. One of the scientists who worked on the project said something to the effect of it being the worst perversion of scientific knowledge ever, something that never should have been invented or unleashed upon the world.

Now, the ten thousand dollar question. Would I condone an attack of the magnitude of Hiroshima in the future?

If the casualties caused by it were less than those projected for both sides by an invasion resisted in full force using conventional weaponry, yes. If facing a foe who is going to fight to the death over every last inch of ground and stand strong in the face of overwhelming force, against all reason, rejecting all attempts at peace. If it stood a good chance of ending the war under circumstances like those, yes, I would condone it. And I would mourn for the lives it took, as I mourn for the lives of common people everywhere, soldiers and civilians, who die because men in power cannot reach agreements.

 

Could the US have picked targets with fewer civilians? Or were those the only choices?