What's wrong with Americans?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

I don't get Fox News in Japan.

Fundamentalist Muslims have no country, they live everywhere. They have killed in the usual places, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, but they have also killed in India, Indonesia, Sudan, Kenya, Russia, the Philippines, Sudan, Spain, England, and the US. They would killed in other places as well, and they would kill many more if they had the means.

Is Iran's Jewish community really thriving? They are considered "Dhimmies", and enjoy no civil rights. They are not allowed to build new synagogues, they are not allowed to vote. They are not allowed to speak, pray, or hold hands in public. They are outsiders and serfs, and are only allowed to exist if they accept these conditions and pay a heavy tax to the government. The penalty for disobeying any of these prohibitions is death. They are not thriving, they are merely enduring, as they always have.

Fair enough... I was mistaken about the Iranian Jews.

BUT how does any of that counter what I said? I don't disagree that fundamentalist Muslims have no country... what does that have to do with what I said?

You said the West was at war with Islam because....

Significant parts of Islam are at war with the West, and though the west may deny they are at war with Islam, well, it takes 2 to tango, doesn't it? The war in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, who are fundamentalist Muslims. We may say that we are fighting against extremist individuals, but we are also fighting against the belief system that drives their actions.

Now the part I bolded...

I'll say it again. You could use the same logic that you used here to justify saying that the West is at war with Islam to say that the West is at war with Christianity too.

Now does that make sense to you?

[minimin]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Is torture not okay? Exactly what do you define as torture? Waterboarding? Being kept awake for days? Being forced to listen to Britney Spears or Boy George for hours on end? All of these methods are used, and though they are unpleasant, none leave scars, or are life threatening. As a matter of fact, many US soldiers must endure these "tortures" in training, and other methods which are worse. Air Force survival instructors often have their fingernails pulled out in simulated torture, and this is just in training. It hurts, to be sure, but it doesn't kill or cripple.

No,(but other forms of torture used--slapping hitting on the stomach, but not to cause internal bleeding of course, also slamming heads and bodies into walls) its not just because its only PAINFUL, doesn’t mean it should be regarded of good or fun or any less lawless, or anyless unconstitutional. Its still a crime and and I believe breaks atleast four treaties if I am correct. Just because, we should prep for situations like this doesn’t make it anymore right. Shouldn’t we have some scruples. Just because it doesnt kill doesnt mean that its okay.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Saddam was not shy about torture. He didn't mind having someone stand on the edge of a tall building and threaten to push them off if they didn't talk, and he tended to push, whether he got the information or not. He also liked to use things like sulfuric acid, electrical shocks, and even a large wood chipper which he used to shred his victims with. The lucky ones were fed into the machine head-first. The unlucky ones went in feet-first.

Two wrongs don’t make it right(plus they werent torturing US in the first place). We invaded a country took down the leader and tortured people. How correct is that and why do we have to meddle in the affairs of another country regardless of how evil the dictator is. North Korea has a pretty mean dictator does that mean we invade for no reason other than wanting to??(make every nation just like ours, we cant make every nation a democracy because we want it to be that way) Now why Bush go to Iran instead where the real problem was?

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Obama couldn't prosecute, even if he wanted to. If he said he did, it was just political rhetoric. If Bush wrote down his intentions about interrogations, and said that they were okay, then they are. The war on terror was authorized by congress, giving the president the ability to make "findings", and these "findings" become law, which makes actions committed in their name legal. Congress can change or reverse these findings/laws later on, but the president would still be immune from prosecution, if you know anything about the article of ex post facto.

As said does that make Bush's actions okay or does that make him and Cheney a war criminal themselves. regardless of what an article says...that i will look at later. but still, Just because the president does it doesnt make it legal, does he have the right to kill under this article.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

If Obama had decided to prosecute, he would never have succeeded, and, on the slim chance he did, he would have opened the door against future prosecutions against himself if he were take similar actions himself (which may be likely), not to mention reducing the ability of future presidents to make quick decisions in a crisis without having to call a special session of congress.

How would prosecuting torture hinder the presidents actions to make quick decisions in a crisis, so long as he doesnt use torture.

Regardless of whats been done in the past torture isnt okay by any standards, or for anyone. Its my opinion and aint gonna change anytime soon. hmmm...depressing world we live in these days...

[alanX]

Why did this thread get turned into a thread about war? Please get B.O.T.

[Nyororin]

I am going to second AlanX`s sentiment here.
This topic is not about the war, or about US military activity.

Don`t give me a reason to close the thread.

[skitty]

Americans are just whats left in the bowl after baking a cake,it's not good but at the same time it's not bad it's just there to use or throw out
but don't hate americans or you'll become the thing you hate IT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by skitty

Americans are just whats left in the bowl after baking a cake,it's not good but at the same time it's not bad it's just there to use or throw out
but don't hate americans or you'll become the thing you hate IT'S JUST HUMAN NATURE.

Americans are cake batter? I don't get this at all.

[Jaydelart]

Russia, Australia, Mexico, France, Japan, Iran, Kenya -- you name it... People from virtually all parts of the world live in America, and many of them are proud of it. By saying you hate Americans, you're not only offending "White" people; you're also offending the people of different races and cultures that create modern America; you're potentially saying you hate the world. Maybe that sounds too simplistic...

Hating the American government is a different story, however.

[alanX]

Originally Posted by Jaydelart

Russia, Australia, Mexico, France, Japan, Iran, Kenya -- you name it... People from virtually all parts of the world live in America, and many of them are proud of it. By saying you hate Americans, you're not only offending "White" people; you're also offending the people of different races and cultures that create modern America; you're potentially saying you hate the world. Maybe that sounds too simplistic...

Hating the American government is a different story, however.

That's giving it a little too much thought, and going a little bit too far. That's like:

X: I hate chocolate
Y: Oh that must mean you must hate milk because milk is in chocolate

No, X doesn't hate milk, he just hates chocolate. Get a clue

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by minimin

No,(but other forms of torture used--slapping hitting on the stomach, but not to cause internal bleeding of course, also slamming heads and bodies into walls) its not just because its only PAINFUL, doesn’t mean it should be regarded of good or fun or any less lawless, or anyless unconstitutional. Its still a crime and and I believe breaks atleast four treaties if I am correct. Just because, we should prep for situations like this doesn’t make it anymore right. Shouldn’t we have some scruples. Just because it doesnt kill doesnt mean that its okay.

>If you think these things are painful, you are right. But if these people were free, and had you in their hands, you would suffer far worse. Quote which part of the Constitution these practices violate (and remember that the US Constitution only applies to Americans under American authority), and name even one of the treaties which were violated. Remember that the Geneva and Hague conventions only apply to uniformed soldiers, and not to spies, terrorists, or others.

Two wrongs don’t make it right(plus they werent torturing US in the first place). We invaded a country took down the leader and tortured people. How correct is that and why do we have to meddle in the affairs of another country regardless of how evil the dictator is. North Korea has a pretty mean dictator does that mean we invade for no reason other than wanting to??(make every nation just like ours, we cant make every nation a democracy because we want it to be that way) Now why Bush go to Iran instead where the real problem was?

>No, two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree that going to Iraq was a mistake. But the reasons for going are now moot, and became so as soon as the first bombs were dropped. The past can't be undone, the only thing that can be done is to make the best of situations as they arise now and in the future.

As said does that make Bush's actions okay or does that make him and Cheney a war criminal themselves. regardless of what an article says...that i will look at later. but still, Just because the president does it doesnt make it legal, does he have the right to kill under this article.

>But it does. A presidential finding is law, the president has such powers in matters of national security. Lincoln used it to imprison 70,000 American citizens during the war without ever charging them with a crime. If the president says it is legal, then it is, and actions committed in the definition are not crimes, and therefore, under US law, Neither Cheney, Bush, nor those who they ordered can be described or charged as war criminals. Other countries might take a different view, and if they decide that Bush, et al were war criminals by the definition of their own laws and treaties, then that is their right.

How would prosecuting torture hinder the presidents actions to make quick decisions in a crisis, so long as he doesnt use torture.

>Because "torture" is useful. If it weren't, why would anyone bother to do it? If you read the reports you have been reading about the subject more carefully, you'll notice that even they say that useful information was gained that prevented attacks and saved lives. But, to some people, I guess the lives of the innocent are less important than the comfort of a captured terrorist.

Regardless of whats been done in the past torture isnt okay by any standards, or for anyone. Its my opinion and aint gonna change anytime soon. hmmm...depressing world we live in these days...

>I never said it was okay, but some things which are not okay are sometimes necessary. What happens if the government captures a terrorist who is part of a plot to blow up your neighborhood? One who knows where the bombs will be put, and the names of the people who will put them there. Should the government just ask nicely and hope he'll tell them what he knows? A tough question, isn't it?

mmmmmmmmmm

[MMM]

At the same time I was frustrated with the...simplicity...some people approach issues on this thread, I found a very interesting experiment done by someone in New York City.

I have only been to New York City one time. I am from the Pacific Northwest, and the lifestyle is a bit different in Portland, Oregon compared to New York City, NY.

In this experiment the researcher sent little robots out onto the street with flags designating their intended destination. Much to the researcher's surprise and pleasure, people helped the tiny robots get to their "destination".

Every time the robot got caught under a park bench, ground futilely against a curb, or became trapped in a pothole, some passerby would always rescue it and send it toward its goal. Never once was a Tweenbot lost or damaged.

If you think Americans are nothing but arrogant war-monging fatties, maybe this link will give you a tiny slice of another perspective.

TWEENBOTS



Would people in your hometown help a random robot find its way?
Would they?