Justice Truth and the American Way

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #1
Justice is sliding into a big hole

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/02/1104601238365.html

US seeks lifetime jail for suspects
By Dana Priest
Washington
January 3, 2005


A prison is planned for terror detainees who cannot be charged due to a lack of evidence.

The US has plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists that they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries.

Intelligence officials say the Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#2
Qsaint said:
Justice is sliding into a big hole

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/01/02/1104601238365.html

US seeks lifetime jail for suspects
By Dana Priest
Washington
January 3, 2005


A prison is planned for terror detainees who cannot be charged due to a lack of evidence.

The US has plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists that they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries.

Intelligence officials say the Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the Government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts.

Funny thing was this was one of the reasons America wanted Saddam out, and one of the beacons America shines to the world is their justice system
 

Basic

All Australian
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Posts
895
Likes
1
Other Teams
WCE
#3
I don't know. I figure the justice system is pretty good - if your a criminal.
These guys they're holding, sure alot of them are totally innocent but I'm also sure alot of they aren't. It is just plain unfair that they are going to hold everyone but that is the way it's going to be. I guess they know who is really guilty of terrorism and they would also know who just has some loose connection to someone who once knew someone who's father was a terrorist.
The point being they have made the justice system so tight if there isn't a crap load of evidence they can't do anything but with these people they basically know what they've done even if they can't/don't want too prove it.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#4
Basic said:
I don't know. I figure the justice system is pretty good - if your a criminal.
These guys they're holding, sure alot of them are totally innocent but I'm also sure alot of they aren't. It is just plain unfair that they are going to hold everyone but that is the way it's going to be. I guess they know who is really guilty of terrorism and they would also know who just has some loose connection to someone who once knew someone who's father was a terrorist.
The point being they have made the justice system so tight if there isn't a crap load of evidence they can't do anything but with these people they basically know what they've done even if they can't/don't want too prove it.
That is the stupidest thing I have heard

Why arent bikies locked up then?I mean by your logic they look like they do bad stuff. :rolleyes: There is a burden of proof..if you dont have that proof then let them go.

I know if it was me or you we would be screaming foul

I dont know what David Hicks has or hasnt done..but I dont think 3 years without trial or release isnt fair. Either expedite a speedy trial system or let them go.
 

Basic

All Australian
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Posts
895
Likes
1
Other Teams
WCE
#6
PerthCrow said:
That is the stupidest thing I have heard

Why arent bikies locked up then?I mean by your logic they look like they do bad stuff. :rolleyes: There is a burden of proof..if you dont have that proof then let them go.

I know if it was me or you we would be screaming foul

I dont know what David Hicks has or hasnt done..but I dont think 3 years without trial or release isnt fair. Either expedite a speedy trial system or let them go.
It is just plain unfair that they are going to hold everyone but that is the way it's going to be.
That's what I said. I'm don't support locking people away without proof, I'm just saying it's going to happen like it or not.
Your point about bikies is flawed too. I didn't say they have people they think look bad. I'm sure they know out of the people they are holding who has and who hasn't commited crimes and they'll hold them until they feel they can prove it.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#7
Basic said:
I'm sure they know out of the people they are holding who has and who hasn't commited crimes and they'll hold them until they feel they can prove it.

If they dont have proof let them go...or release them on bail till you do...

If they KNOW who has and hasnt commited a crime then this new law wont be needed will it.

Are we heading towards ''Minority Report'' style policing.?'' oh hes a criminal I mean his last name is akbhar''
 

Basic

All Australian
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Posts
895
Likes
1
Other Teams
WCE
#8
PerthCrow said:
If they dont have proof let them go...or release them on bail till you do...

If they KNOW who has and hasnt commited a crime then this new law wont be needed will it.

Are we heading towards ''Minority Report'' style policing.?'' oh hes a criminal I mean his last name is akbhar''
It's not my policy and I don't support it. It's just the way it is, what can you do?
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#9
Basic said:
It's not my policy and I don't support it. It's just the way it is, what can you do?
The first thing you do is yell from the top of the highest building or you ring the American embassy and tell them your not happy

Dont shrug your shoulders and give in
 

Basic

All Australian
Joined
Mar 17, 2001
Posts
895
Likes
1
Other Teams
WCE
#10
PerthCrow said:
The first thing you do is yell from the top of the highest building or you ring the American embassy and tell them your not happy

Dont shrug your shoulders and give in
Why waste time and money calling the embassy to tell them I'm not happy when they couldn't care less?
America is it's own law and there isn't anything we can do about that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
Thread starter #14
PerthCrow said:
The first thing you do is yell from the top of the highest building or you ring the American embassy and tell them your not happy

Dont shrug your shoulders and give in
You do what the Blair did, ring JWB tell him you want our citizens let go if their is no case, and then they get on a plane to England. Funny, Little Johnny can't get on the phone.......................
 

SaveFeriss

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
7,929
Likes
5
Location
Have a Cigar
Other Teams
Ya gonna go far
#15
Perhaps we should get Kerry Packer, or the Murdochs on the blower. I reckon they'd hold more clout, and Johnny is ******** scared of em anyway. (The Packers & Murdochs that is)
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#16
SaveFeriss said:
Perhaps we should get Kerry Packer, or the Murdochs on the blower. I reckon they'd hold more clout, and Johnny is ******** scared of em anyway. (The Packers & Murdochs that is)
Murdoch would hold more clout but I can't imagine him being too sympathetic (unless there's an earner in it).

As for Johnny being scared of these two? Not so much scared but wise enough to be aware who holds the cards. Pigheaded Latham was too dumb to work this one out. If you don't bend over to these two it's much harder to gain or stay in power.
 

JW Frogen

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Posts
3,001
Likes
335
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#17
While I agree this proposal is a fundemental violation of democracy, in paticular of American principals as layed out in a written Costitution and in the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, it must be remembered that the Presidency only constitutes one part of American policy and life. As such neither Bush or the present policy in question can be used to condem America as a whole.

This distingushes America from tyrannies such as Saddam's or Stalin's, which had no democratic checks and balances placed upon them, so there was no hope of stopping such abuses, which occured en-mass, unlike the case sited in the article.

The United States is a democracy and so there are ways to stop this. If the US public voices enough opposition it will stop. If the Congress starts to oppose such executive violations of US democratic principals it will stop. And most likely to happen, when the independent federal apellet courts really start to review such executive actions, a much slower process, it will stop.

In the latter case they have already signalled firing shots to the Executive Branch, such as demanding Guantanamo detainees get council, and stating that the courts do have the authority to allow convicted Guantanamo detainees to apeal to them, against the wishes of the Executive branch.

As such blanket condemnation of America is unwarrented.
 

JW Frogen

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Posts
3,001
Likes
335
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#19
The United States has done some appaulling things in it's history, in paticular during the Cold War, but this has been the case with every major power in history. In fact every nation in history. Real politic is often a choice between the lessor of two evils. And sometimes nations will even choose the greater of two evils, and so it goes...

But it must be stated that no nation in human history has consistently promoted freedom, more often than not, and more successfully, than the United States.

Blanket condemnations of the United States reveals a lack of historical knowlege, or even worse, a dishonest selective presentation of history.
 

RogerC

Club Legend
Joined
Feb 6, 2001
Posts
1,961
Likes
1
Location
Alphington
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Cricket
#20
I understand the idea of the US not deserving blanket condemnation, but you can't just go around using America=freedom as some kind of mitigation for each appalling thing they do.

I also think that if distinctions between the politics of the US and Iraq need to be pointed out, we're all in a worse condition than I thought. They should be taken for granted.

Let's be honest - in a country as committed to the concepts of justice and freedom and human rights as the US is, the idea of a Guantanamo Bay ought not to be tolerated, much less the existence of one.

Freedom and democracy don't just flourish naturally - they need to be preserved and fought for. If we sit back and allow freedoms to be taken away bit by bit, on the rationale that we're better than Iraq, we really only have ourselves to blame.

The very fact that the US has been such a shining beacon for so long is exactly why voices need to be raised when they slip from those high standards.
 

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
#21
JW Frogen said:
The United States has done some appaulling things in it's history, in paticular during the Cold War, but this has been the case with every major power in history. In fact every nation in history.
Oh..ok, I guess that makes it all ok then. Since all nations have done some appauling things, lets justify these attrocities, shall we.

Like Hitler, Stalin...they weren't all that bad were they, after all, all nations have done some appauling things. :rolleyes:

Why are you being so apolagetic for something that deep inside, you know to be abhorrent.
Detention without trial......right out of Hitler's rule book that one. And the mark of a government bereft of any morals or concience.

In other words, this makes the US no better then those tyrants we all read about!

JW Frogen said:
Real politic is often a choice between the lessor of two evils. And sometimes nations will even choose the greater of two evils, and so it goes...
ahh...real politik....a term which is often bandied around when dictators want to justify there oppressive laws.

Once again, why are you attempting to justify this. I can swear i've heard similar words in Bin Ladens transcripts....

Tell me...is it only real politik when its the US that commits attrocities. Or do you justify all the actions of dictators with this term.

JW Frogen said:
But it must be stated that no nation in human history has consistently promoted freedom, more often than not, and more successfully, than the United States.
Yes, but only when 'freedom' suited the US foreign agenda. For all these 'promotions of freedoms' there are many examples when the US has fought against 'freedom' when it suited them.

Indonesia, Chile and Iraq ring a bell?? All examples where the US has removed democratically elected governments and replaced them with tyrannical dictators.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, countries with some of the worst human rights records on the planet, yet cosy and comfy with the US administration. Egypt recieves 4.5 bilion dollars a year in aid from the US, and when the US want to torture there prisoners...yep, you guessed it, they send them to Egypt.

Yet when the Egyptian democratic activist, Ibrahim Said is thrown into jail, for no other reason then to dare suggest that Egyptians deserve free elections....not even a whisper is heard from the US...those 'promoters of freedom'.

What...Ibrahim who??

As I said, only when it suits the US, do they promote 'freedom'. However, they also love dictators, when it suits there foriegn policy agenda, which unfortunately in the ME means oppress the people, and continue the flow of oil.

JW Frogen said:
Blanket condemnations of the United States reveals a lack of historical knowlege, or even worse, a dishonest selective presentation of history.
The same can be said of you and your blanket praise of the United States.

The United States ONLY acts in the interest of the United States. Agreed, in this area, they are no different to any other nation...however, for you to portray the US as some sort of 'bastion of the free world' is naive at best, and reveals a lack of objectivity, and historical knowledge!

And here you are somehow trying to justify life detention without trial??

*Lestat shakes his head in bewilderement*
 

JW Frogen

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Posts
3,001
Likes
335
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#22
Lestat,

I never justified detention without trial, read my intial post again, carefully this time.

Of course the overwhelming good that America has acheived world wide in the last half century does not excuse the lapses from that good, wether demaned by strategic reality or not. Though real politic must be assessed by any serious thinker on the subject. (For instance America is often critisised for not demanding democracy in Saudi Arabia, but a serious look at this proposal would reveal America has no choice. It would lead to a greater problem than the one it seeks to solve. Nations have to act in the real world, not in playschool. To not do so, leads to catastrophe.) I simply point out no major power in human history has done as much good or been as benevolent as the United States.

I condem Guantanamo and this new proposal for instance. As will the US appellet courts I believe long term.

As to America only caring about itself, well nations do not have freindships, they have interests. If you see the world any other way, you are likely to be dissapointed for the rest of your lives no matter who is the major power in the world. This view is even predominant in the UN.

But American interests in the last half century have more often than not been based not only on self interest but also idealism. This has been the case since Wilson, with varying administrations adhering to this principal or abandoning it.

From the Marshall Plan, rebuilding it's former enemies and insuring that they are democratic (compare that with the Soviet occupation of their occupied zone, Americans did not need to build walls to keep people in NATO) to it's crucial role containing totalitarian Soviet communism (ask Vaslev Havel, or Lech Walensa how important America was sustaining their hopes) to its post cold war intervention in Kosovo, America has often, unlike almost any other world power in history, chose their idealistic nature over the direct real politic instinct.

Somalia is the perfect example of this. America had NO strategic or economic interest in the country, it simply wished to stop famine, which it largely did, and to end the warlord domination of the country at the request of the UN, which it failed at. Or Kosovo, there was no economic or strategic interest for America, beyond keeping Europe from looking completely impotent in dealing with the problem.

I am not arguing that America is perfect, no nation can be, or that it has never strayed from it's idealism, as with Chile and Pinoche, (even with Chile America was the critical factor in the countries present democracy eventually demanding Pinoche hold a referenum on his leadership and honour it when he lost, this occured under Bush Sr.) nor I am arguing I agree with much of the present Presidents policy, though I do some, but no nation has produced or protected more democracies in human history. No major power has ever been this benevolent. Nor are any of the alternatives, such as China, better, or more competent, such as a UN controlled world. Which is not even realistic, the UN was not contructed in this manner. Witness their massive failures in Rawanda, Bosnia, even Somalia with US help. The UN has never established peace anywhere, they can only maintain it once it is established.

Here are a list of countries that would now not be democratic if not for America.

All of Western Europe.

Japan.

Tawain.

Australia. (While the Japanese army and navy disagreed on direct invasion of Australia, Japan did have long term plans to make Australia a satalite dependency if victorious in the Pacific war. Even to the point of planning an Imperial currency for Australia. Whist Australia faught the Japanese bravely and before America, no serious assesment could say that a Japanese victory due to lack of American intervention would have left a free Australia. It would have been a long run bet.)

South Korea.

Panama.

Nicaragua. (Though I concede the methodes used can be debated.)

Bosnia and Kosovo (Though these democracies are tenous, both are more democratic than they have ever been prior.)

Indirectly most of Eastern Europe, due to America's Cold War containment of the Soviet Union and pressure on it. As the aforementioned Vaslev Havel and Lech Walensa eloquently describe.

I just think there is a reflexive, often mindless anti Americanism about, that while justly critising some aspects of US policy, moves to a unrealistic veiw of America's overall effect on the world. Which has been more good than not. And certainly preferable to the present alternatives.
 

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
#23
JW Frogen said:
Lestat,

I never justified detention without trial, read my intial post again, carefully this time.
Forgive me if i misintrepeted your post, but I got the impression that you were somehow justifieing this archaic barbaric proposal.

JW Frogen said:
Of course the overwhelming good that America has acheived world wide in the last half century does not excuse the lapses from that good,
It can be argued that the the bad that America has committed in the last half century should not be forgiven, cause of some of the 'lapses' from that bad.

Yes...I agree that the US has done some good, this cannot be denied. However, a close look at the 20th century, you will find that the US have in some way or another been involved in nearly every conflict of the 20th century.

JW Frogen said:
wether demaned by strategic reality or not. Though real politic must be assessed by any serious thinker on the subject. (For instance America is often critisised for not demanding democracy in Saudi Arabia, but a serious look at this proposal would reveal America has no choice. It would lead to a greater problem than the one it seeks to solve. Nations have to act in the real world, not in playschool. To not do so, leads to catastrophe.)
What catastrophe do you speak off?

What...and Islamic state. Is this a catastrophe?? Why..what would that be a catastrophe??

And when I say an Islamic state, I mean a caliphate, not the tyrannical 'Islamic' republics such as Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Just as I thought, democracy is only viable when it suits the interests of the west.

Do you not see any hypocricy in this sort of policy.

And you wonder why arabs mistrust the US??

JW Frogen said:
I simply point out no major power in human history has done as much good or been as benevolent as the United States.
That is absolute garbage.

It can be argued that the Greeks have done heaps of good for the world, the advantages are to numerous to be listed.

And the Romans, for all there faults introduced many concepts and innovations that have been great for humanity.

As has the Islamic empires of the Umayads and the Abbasids.

Yes, so have the US...agreed, however, to claim that no major power has done as much good as the US is simply misleading, and to describe the US as benevolent....is just bordering on ridiculous.

Perhaps you should ask the residents of Nagasaki about the benevolence of the US??

JW Frogen said:
I condem Guantanamo and this new proposal for instance. As will the US appellet courts I believe long term.
Once again.....I'm curious as to why you believe this. These prisoners have been sitting in Guantanamo now for 3 years, with rumours of torture and human rights abuses in abundance.

Yet the US courts have done squat!

JW Frogen said:
As to America only caring about itself, well nations do not have freindships, they have interests. If you see the world any other way, you are likely to be dissapointed for the rest of your lives no matter who is the major power in the world. This view is even predominant in the UN.
Agreed. However, if humanity is to progress, then it is this way of thinking that has to change.

Yes...perhaps in the past this was a fact of life. However, we are supposed to have progressed, we are now educated.

If you are happy to accept the status quo, then fine, go ahead. However, I will not.

Your right, there's probably nothing I can do about it, and maybe I will be dissapointed for the rest of my life, however, I will never accept it.

I will continue to speak out against these 'major powers' that belittle human lives, spread destruction and misery, all for what....there 'interests'.

JW Frogen said:
But American interests in the last half century have more often than not been based not only on self interest but also idealism.
No....american interests have ONLY been based on self interest. The idealism is just a tool, a method used to manipulate the masses into supporting there interests.

Patriotism, democracy, freedom....all 'buzzwords', all terms which are used to manipulate societies views, to accept the sometimes abhorrent policies of the US, which they must have to achieve these self interests.

However.....if the US admin were as 'patriotic' as they claimed to be, then they would never have sprayed Agent orange on there own troops in Vietnam.

They would never have sold weapons to the contra's.

If the US were as 'democratic' as they claim to be, they would never have removed the democratic govt of Chile, to replace them with murdering dictators.

If the US were as committed to 'freedom' as they claim to be, then they would never have even considered locking up people for up to 3 years without trial, and they would never have even thought of imprisoning these very same people for life, all because they don't have enough evidence to try them in a court of law.

JW Frogen said:
From the Marshall Plan, rebuilding it's former enemies and insuring that they are democratic (compare that with the Soviet occupation of their occupied zone, Americans did not need to build walls to keep people in NATO) to it's crucial role containing totalitarian Soviet communism (ask Vaslev Havel, or Lech Walensa how important America was sustaining their hopes)
Agreed, that the Marshall plan was one of the good things that the US govt has done in the 20th century.

However, don't be fooled. The marshall plan was a required reaction to the growing threat of communism.

If there was no soviet or communist threat, do you believe that the US would still have implemented the marshall plan?? I think not.

JW Frogen said:
America has often, unlike almost any other world power in history, chose their idealistic nature over the direct real politic instinct.
Once again, I strongly disagree with this statement.

The Islamic empire for one, definately chose its idealistic nature over direct real politic instinct.

And the soviet union for all its faults did the same. Just happens that with the examples listed, I assume that you strongly disagree with there idealogies....whereas you agree with the US idealogy.

Perhaps this is why you are defending the US with such gusto. ;)

JW Frogen said:
Somalia is the perfect example of this. America had NO strategic or economic interest in the country, it simply wished to stop famine, which it largely did, and to end the warlord domination of the country at the request of the UN, which it failed at.
Correction....no strategic or economic interests WHICH WE KNOW OF.

JW Frogen said:
Or Kosovo, there was no economic or strategic interest for America, beyond keeping Europe from looking completely impotent in dealing with the problem.
You think??

You don't think that bringing down the last communist (Socialist) government , and the removal of the last truly anti-US leader in Europe as being in the strategic interests of America...or more importantly...NATO??

JW Frogen said:
I am not arguing that America is perfect,
Once again, I apolagize if I misinterpreted what you were saying. But it appeared to me that you were somehow trying to justify why America has the right to implement life detention without trial.

JW Frogen said:
no nation can be, or that it has never strayed from it's idealism,
You say that as if it somehow justifies the actions of a country, that they have never strayed from its idealism.

Nazi Germany never strayed from its idealism.

Soviet Russia never strayed from its idealism.

North Korea has never strayed from its idealism.

I think you get my point!

JW Frogen said:
as with Chile and Pinoche, (even with Chile America was the critical factor in the countries present democracy eventually demanding Pinoche hold a referenum on his leadership and honour it when he lost, this occured under Bush Sr.)
Chile is but one example of many.

A similar tale can be said of many South American nations.

Then there is Iraq. Indonesia. Nicarugua.

Then there's the nutters like Idi Amin that have been placed in power by the US.

JW Frogen said:
nor I am arguing I agree with much of the present Presidents policy, though I do some, but no nation has produced or protected more democracies in human history.
Only when it suited there US strategic interests to protect those democracies.

Like c'mon...they only entered WW2 AFTER they were attacked.

It appears that they were more then willing to sit by and watch all of Europe fall to the tyranny of the Nazi's.

JW Frogen said:
No major power has ever been this benevolent.
Once again, I'm sure that the Iraqi's, Afghani's, Vietnamese, Koreans, and residents of Nagasaki just to name a few would strongly disagree with you.

JW Frogen said:
Nor are any of the alternatives, such as China, better, or more competent, such as a UN controlled world.
In this regard, I agree with you.

However, just because the alternatives are worst, doesn't mean we should just accept any actions of the major super power of the world.

JW Frogen said:
Which is not even realistic, the UN was not contructed in this manner. Witness their massive failures in Rawanda, Bosnia, even Somalia with US help. The UN has never established peace anywhere, they can only maintain it once it is established.
Agreed. I'm definately no supporter of the UN. The concept of the veto is most undemocratic, don't you agree.

JW Frogen said:
Here are a list of countries that would now not be democratic if not for America.
I assure you, the list of countries that would be democratic if not for US meddling would be a lot longer then the list which you have provided.

Also, would be interesting to see a list of all the conflicts of the last century, in which the US instigated, or were somehow involved in.

It would be a rather long list.

JW Frogen said:
I just think there is a reflexive, often mindless anti Americanism about, that while justly critising some aspects of US policy, moves to a unrealistic veiw of America's overall effect on the world. Which has been more good than not. And certainly preferable to the present alternatives.
Not at all...it is not 'anti-americanism' to criticise any policy which you do not agree with.

I am not anti-american. I've grown up with american culture. Many of the american virtues and idea's are great, and yes, I agree many american innovations have made the world a better place.

However, I am very much anti-american forriegn policy.

Why? Because it is aimed at achieveing maximum profits for american multi-national coglomarates (I'm sure I have mispelt that word :)), with the price often being human suffering.

Because it is aimed at achieving ultimate power for the american nation, often the price being the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

Because this policies are empirical in the nature, and often result in the oppression and persecution of millions of 3rd world civilians all over the world.
 

utility

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Posts
9,208
Likes
5,762
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
#25
The US government does what is good for the US government and their business interests. Not for peace. Not for democracy. Not even for the American people.

Reverse the sides and imagine what the US would be saying if 500 of their citizens were being held in similar circumstances.
 
Top Bottom