Guantanamo Bay: Shame on you, United States

[Buffy]

That's because your question is a fantasy. What percentage of the time would *all* of *your own* "qualifications" be the case?

• You're absolutely certain you have a terrorist.
  
• You're absolutely certain he knows *all* of the information necessary to save the hostages.
  
• You're absolutely certain that the hostages will be killed so this does not turn into a blowback situation where you've killed an innocent (was the "terrorist" you're interrogating set up?), when they end up releasing the hostages.
  

If you have incontrovertible proof of all of these *and* can prognosticate the future (will the hostages actually be killed or are you being set up?), you might well be able to get away with some sort of torture.

 

Unfortunately, the likelihood that all this is the case is so far outside the realm of reality, that no, I'd say the risk is too great, and that you'd get much better results with methods that are not potentially lethal, and a much better potential for at the very least an outcome that does not result in an unqualified "success" for the terrorists.

 

Seriously, how often do you think we are faced with a situation as you describe it?

 

Also, think a bit about what your goal here is: are you saying that it is the duty of the government to compromise everything about its laws and principles to save every life?

 

You're starting to sound like a bleeding heart liberal!

 

Do you think only that "poor saps" who join the military have the obligation to die for the principles of this country?

 

If you're as patriotic as you try to sound, would you really want the government to rip apart our Constitution and kill anyone who *might* *potentially* be in the way just to save you? Or are you a complete coward who would prefer to live at any cost?

 

Or do the men and women who bravely defend this country have some principles bigger than you that they're defending?

 

Some patriot.

 

These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand? :confused:

Buffy

[REASON]

I believe questor's only goal with this question is to provide some sort of cover or qualification for the methodology of this administration for which he has been steadfast in his support, and is unwilling to condemn in fear that it will reflect poorly on his own judgement.

 

Ironically, defending the practice of torture is what reflects poorly on one's judgement.

[modest]

It seems like no one here wants to deal with my question. Let me ask it again.

''for all your attempts at trying to qualify my question about torture, I'm trying to make it very simple. You have a prisoner that you are absolutely certain knows information that will save a substantial number of innocent lives. What do you do to extract this information (within a three day time period )This is a bottom line question.'' parens added

Possible answers-

1. I will not torture under any circumstances. The twenty innocent people will have to die.

2. twenty people are worth more than one terrorist, I will use any means neccessary to get information.

3. I will use humane interrogation methods such as----? If these do not work, the innocents will have to die.

4. this is a difficult question and I do not care to confront the situation.

 

Echo...

 

From RETHINKING THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TORTURE

 

A common argument for torture is the “ticking time bomb” scenario, in which a terrorist who knows the location of a bomb is tortured in a race to save lives. Interrogators stated that the terrorist would know that he only has to keep his secret for the short time until the bomb detonates—a time period known to him but not to the interrogators. Moreover, the torture would offer the terrorist a prime opportunity to deceive interrogators by falsely naming bomb locations of difficult access. In their combined 100 years of interrogation experience, the interrogators had never encountered a true ticking bomb scenario.

 

Postulating a situation that has never been observed is not a good argument for unethical treatment.

 

Why would we assume that our best interrogation methods would be unsuitable to your very hypothetical situation?

 

I truly think and honestly believe that this hypothetical and unrealistic situation that people run to is only designed to give some excuse for past, current, and future transgressions. REASON is spot on.

 

Answer me this: Which is more likely?...

1. The 'torture for ticking time bomb' scenario has worked
   
2. The US has tortured an innocent man to death
   

 

Some people will run to number 1 here without evidence it has ever happened in order to do an unethical thing. I would rather run to number 2 here with evidence it has happened in order to stop an unethical thing.

 

Give me liberty or give me death, I love America and remember well who and what we are. I will not change - not for Bush and not because of Bin Laden.

 

-modest

[Michaelangelica]

Give me liberty or give me death, I love America and remember well who and what we are. I will not change - not for Bush and not because of Bin Laden.

 

-modest

Great battle cry. Good for you.

"You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater", as my Mum (same as 'mom') used to say.

 

Did anyone follow up the link I gave about the incredible successes the Indonesians are having with terrorists/terrorism and reforming ex-terrorists?

With some Oz aid -got to get that in :confused:

Two hundred and sixty million Muslims can't be wrong?

The biggest Muslim nation on the planet.

With an anti-terrorism system that is working?

 

The USA needs to find more effective ways of dealing with the 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet.

[Boerseun]

It seems like no one here wants to deal with my question. Let me ask it again.

''for all your attempts at trying to qualify my question about torture, I'm trying to make it very simple. You have a prisoner that you are absolutely certain knows information that will save a substantial number of innocent lives. What do you do to extract this information (within a three day time period )This is a bottom line question.'' parens added

Possible answers-

1. I will not torture under any circumstances. The twenty innocent people will have to die.

2. twenty people are worth more than one terrorist, I will use any means neccessary to get information.

3. I will use humane interrogation methods such as----? If these do not work, the innocents will have to die.

4. this is a difficult question and I do not care to confront the situation.

It's a well-known phenomenon:

 

You catch someone and torture him senseless, dangling the carrot of "We will quit torturing you, all this pain will stop, when you tell us what we want to hear."

 

If you read the above closely, and pay particular attention to the boldened and italicised part, you will realise why there's nothing to be gained in torturing someone. Sure. He might spill a ton of beans. But you have no reason at all to believe that whatever he told you was the truth, or just a made-up fantasy to get you to pack the Pain-O-Matic 2000 torture kit (Fun For The Whole Family!) away.

 

There's no reason to believe anything admitted under torture, therefore evidence gained under torture (confessions and such) is not admissable in any court of law in the Western World. Not, mind you, because of the leftist-pinko-liberal-commie view of torture being wrong as all us leftist-pinko-liberal-commies will like you believe, simply because it's not trustworthy. So, once again. Explain your stance to us "America-haters". But we don't have a lot of time, though. We're off to assist the communist revolution in Bullshitistan where we're going to replace with President with a communist gay cross-dressing black vegetarian coke-addict America-hater.

[ErlyRisa]

LOL

 

President gay etcetcetc

 

-hasn't the SanFran community gone republican?!

[Michaelangelica]

Bullshitistan where we're going to replace with President with a communist gay cross-dressing black vegetarian coke-addict America-hater.

I'll pay that. LOL

How come Connie Rice is in Columbia at the moment?

Arranging the next CIA cocaine deal?

[questor]

Buffy, you had trouble answering my question because you did not want to accept the hypothesis. Others on this post have the same problem. They do not want to deal with a real life scenario which may tempt them to go against their professed position. You finally did answer the question although you still tried to qualify it.

''If you have incontrovertible proof of all of these *and* can prognosticate the future (will the hostages actually be killed or are you being set up?), you might well be able to get away with some sort of torture.''

Thanks for finally dealing with the question. There is no way to know if or how many times this situation has occurred. The possibility is not remote, and I would think this possibility would be the reason torture occurred, rather than just planned or random torture of all prisoners.

We are still left with other questions:

1. How many prisoners were actually tortured by Americans at the different prisons?

2. What was the reason for the torture? Was it rogue soldiers? Specific orders from above?

3. What information was gathered? Did it prevent atrocities? did it save lives?

4. What type torture was it? Did it cripple, kill, or maim? Were there lasting effects?

I have learned not to accept everything I read in a newspaper as truth, especially since our US papers routinely speak the worst about the US and

give our oponents a pass. Suppose our influential papers gave as much in-depth coverage to the Islamic atrocities, with pictures and entreated the rest of the world to condemn the terrorists, what would be the result?

It seems that most instances of torture have been exposed and dealt with, if there are more uncovered, the guilty should be punished. Were these random acts or national policy? It would be nice if all countries eliminated torture rather than using it without repercussion while the US tries to follow the rules.

[Buffy]

....They do not want to deal with a real life scenario which may tempt them to go against their professed position. ...There is no way to know if or how many times this situation has occurred. The possibility is not remote, and I would think this possibility would be the reason torture occurred, rather than just planned or random torture of all prisoners.

Great example of "teaching the controversy!"

 

You're certainly welcome to this opinion, even if it defies rational thinking: simply stating that its likely in spite of both facts and logic does not make it so.

 

I'm interested in it source of course which begs the question:

I have learned not to accept everything I read in a newspaper as truth, especially since our US papers routinely speak the worst about the US and give our oponents a pass.

Yet the argument you're giving is exactly out of the mouths of the neo-con press, again, who do not provide any of the confirmatory evidence to support the likelihood of your hypothetical, while the vast majority of the press coverage has provided sourced interviews with military interrogation experts.

 

It must be because its based on reality and actual experience that its left-wing propaganda.

 

But when Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, or Norman Podhoretz or other wishful thinkers of the radical right who have no direct or indirect expertise say they think it works, it should be considered legitimate without question.

 

Its always fun of course to see the entire American press smeared as "routinely speak[ing] the worst about the US" whenever it is necessary for the speaker to avoid any actual facts and figures.

 

To re-ask you your own question: why is it that the entire press is so traitorous? Do you think that maybe instead of implying that 77% of your fellow citizens should be lined up against the wall and shot for their "wrong" opinions, that maybe you ought to take a look at your own sources and how you unquestioningly treat them?

 

It seems that most instances of torture have been exposed and dealt with, if there are more uncovered, the guilty should be punished. Were these random acts or national policy?

This is exactly the point of this whole thread: they have *not* been dealt with, and the flimsy excuses that you have presented here that have no supporting facts, and are accompanied solely by flippant dismissal of "fabrications of the liberal America-hating press" are not taken seriously by anyone.

 

That the proponents of this view cannot see how irrational and silly it is begs the question of sanity were it not so similar to the reaction one gets from little boys who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

 

I'd shut up on this topic and let you go ahead with promoting such irrationality if your vision for America--which would seemingly view Orwell's 1984 as an outline for a perfect society--wasn't so scary and downright anti-American.

 

The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy...neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water, :hihi:

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, you have become somewhat strident in your pronouncements on this issue, and somewhat loose with your assignment of opinions or attitudes which I might not have. Let me speak for myself:

your quote:

''Great example of "teaching the controversy!"

 

You're certainly welcome to this opinion, even if it defies rational thinking: simply stating that its likely in spite of both facts and logic does not make it so.''

It is revealing to know how a person would act in an extreme exigency, this is why I had to cut through the turning and twisting to get to the bottom line.You said in the circumstance I described torture may be an option. I agree and am not ashamed to put multiple lives above a single terrorist. You say it is illogical and non-factual that this could happen. Baloney--it has happened and will happen. I am not arguing in favor of torture and I agree

that it doesn't always work or yield true information, but if confronted with a situation as I described, torture would be a last resort. I don't see how any person would prefer to see innocent people massacred while sparing the violent being who initiated the problem.

As far as newspapers being traitorous, I have not used that word. If you want to argue which side the left wing papers give support to, I would say they offer more support to the enemy than to our side. If you differ in your opinion, please tell me how you think they support our effort or the troops?

I would say that my view of America is not a socialistic, immoral , radical activist society, demonstrating in the streets whenever they are dissatisfied

with their position in life.

You say you are a Republican--what part of the Republican philosophy do you follow?

[modest]

You say it is illogical and non-factual that this could happen. Baloney--it has happened and will happen.

 

I also would like to see a source on this. In particular - when has the torture for time bomb scenario ever WORKED?

 

-modest

[questor]

Read these articles and make up your own mind. If you were the prisoner, what would YOU want the interrogator to do?...

American Thinker: Torture may save lives

Torture can be a moral, practical procedure - Ed-Op

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_torture.html

[Michaelangelica]

Some very recent press clippings from around the world

 

 

Close Guantanamo Bay!

Colin Mitchell, Adelaide 18 January 2008

Hicks’ show trial graphically illustrated for the world what is wrong about the military commissions and how far we have strayed from basic principles of justice. After six years in cruel and inhumane conditions at Guantanamo Bay, Hicks was offered an exit ticket — the price was a guilty plea. It was a mockery of justice.

Green Left - Close Guantanamo Bay!

Democrats challenge Bush to close Guantanamo Bay

2008-1-26

 

US congressional Democrats, trying to have the first word on President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, challenged him yesterday to renounce use of waterboarding in interrogations, close Guantanamo Bay to detainees

Democrats challenge Bush to close Guantanamo Bay -- Shanghai Daily | 上海日报 -- English Window to China News

Counter Terror with Justice

The so-called “war on terror” has led to an erosion of a whole host of human rights. States are resorting to practices which have long been prohibited by international law, and have sought to justify them in the name of national security.

. . .

The world shouts 'Close Guantánamo'

16 January 2008

Thousands join worldwide protests marking the sixth anniversary of the first transfers of detainees to Guantánamo on 11 January.

Counter Terror with Justice | Amnesty International

 

[JANUARY 11, 2008, was the six-year anniversary of the arrival of the first prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. On that day, activists gathered around the world to protest the prison, which has tarnished America's image and diminished our ideals. It is a symbol of torture, abuse, and injustice.

American Civil Liberties Union : Close Guantánamo

In May 2006, a UN panel that monitors compliance with the world’s anti-torture treaty urged the United States to close its prison at Guantanamo and avoid using secret detention facilities in what George W. Bush and his allies call the “war on terror.” The Bush administration dismissed those arguments, saying the UN experts lacked accurate information.

 

Last month, a UN investigator said he strongly suspected the Central Intelligence Agency of using torture on prisoners at Guantanamo, adding that many prisoners were likely not being prosecuted to keep the abuse from emerging at trial.

Protests Mark 6 Years of Guantanamo - CommonDreams.org

Jan 11 2008: 400 march, 80 arrested in Washington DC

 

January 11, 2008 – Dozens of activists organized by Witness Against Torture delivered a message to the U.S. Supreme Court demanding the shut-down of the U.S. prison at Guantánamo and justice for those detained there. About 40 people were arrested inside the Court building and another 40 on the steps

Witness Against Torture | campaign to shut down Guantánamo

 

Facts and figures: Illegal U.S. detentions

 

This focus sheet gives numerical information which supports claims about the harshness of the facility, suicide attempts, secret CIA custody and those who remain detained without charge.

. . .

# Nearly 80 per cent of those detained are believed to be held in isolation in Camp 5, Camp 6 or Camp Echo.

# Camp 6 was built to house 178 detainees. It is the harshest facility. Detainees are confined for a minimum of 22 hours a day in individual steel cells with no windows to the outside.

. . .

Hundreds of people remain detained without charge, trial or judicial review of their detentions at the US air base in Bagram, Afghanistan.

Facts and figures: Illegal U.S. detentions, Torture and Terror, Amnesty International Australia

 

Morocco: Huit ONGs pour la fermeture

de Guantánamo

 

Action à RabatEn partenariat avec huit ONGs de defense des Droits Humaines au Maroc, la section marocaine a organise un sit-in le vendredi 11 janvier 08 de 17h a 17h30 devant le siege des Nations Unies a Rabat.

Counter Terror with Justice

 

Who are the prisoners of Guantánamo?

 

The Bush administration has repeatedly described the 450-500 men detained at Guantanamo as "the worst of the worst."

. . .

As for the other 90+ percent of the detainees, few match the lurid descriptions offered by Cheney et al., and most are probably guilty of nothing at all

Who are the prisoners of Guantánamo? | Witness Against Torture

 

 

David Hicks' plea to close Guantanamo Bay

Article from: Herald Sun

 

January 12, 2008 12:00am

 

DAVID Hicks wants the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay to be closed, fearful his former fellow detainees will never receive justice, his father said yesterday.

David Hicks' plea to close Guantanamo Bay | Herald Sun

 

AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS PRESS RELEASES

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja

Democrats Senator for South Australia

Australian Democrats spokesperson for Attorney Generals

 

Dated: 11 January 2008

Portfolio: Attorney Generals

 

Guantanamo Bay- 6 years too many

 

On the six year anniversary of the arrival of the first detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the Australian Democrats have blasted the U.S. for its failure to take formative steps to close the notorious facility.

 

“David Hicks remains the only person to be ‘prosecuted’ by the Military Commission process and a flawed one at that, while hundreds of detainees continue to endure cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions in detention,” said Democrats’ Attorney-General’s spokesperson Senator Natasha Stott Despoja.

 

“Six years of a system of detention without charge, trial or judicial review.

Australian DemocratsAustralian Democrats Press Releases

 

An archive

guantanamo bay

 

Top US officer would like Guantanamo shut down

 

Posted Mon Jan 14, 2008 12:44pm AEDT

Admiral Mike Mullen says he would like to see the Guantanamo Bay detention centre closed down. (File photo)

 

 

The top United States military officer has said he would like to see the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay closed because its image has damaged America's international standing.

Top US officer would like Guantanamo shut down - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

10 Saudis home from Guantanamo Bay

 

Posted Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:35am AEDT

 

The Saudi Interior Ministry says 10 Saudis have returned home from detention at the US centre at Guantanamo Bay.

 

The US has returned dozens of Saudis over the past year in an effort to reduce the numbers detained at the controversial camp ahead of finally closing it, but some 13 are still held at the facility.

 

Public anger over the treatment of Saudi detainees in Guantanamo Bay has been high in the kingdom, a close US ally, but one which applies Islamic law.

 

Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz told the official Saudi Press Agency that efforts were underway to bring home the rest and that US authorities were cooperating.

 

Those repatriated to Saudi Arabia have received financial help from the Government to rebuild their lives and many have been allowed to go free.

10 Saudis home from Guantanamo Bay - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

Feinstein, Harkin aim to shut Guantánamo through defense authorization bill process

By Manu Raju and Elana Schor

Posted: 06/21/07 06:58 PM [ET]

Two Senate Democrats are working together to attach an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay. The probability of a presidential veto of the bill, already high due to the looming Iraq and habeas corpus provisions, would only rise if Sens. Tom Harkin and Dianne Feinstein succeed in their Guantánamo push.

TheHill.com - Feinstein, Harkin aim to shut Guantánamo through defense authorization bill process

 

Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo

 

By ROBERT BURNS – Jan 13, 2008

 

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been "pretty damaging" to the image of the United States.

 

"I'd like to see it shut down," Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October.

The Associated Press: Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo

 

Democrats challenge Bush to renounce waterboarding, close Guantanamo Bay to detainees

The Associated Press

Published: January 25, 2008

 

 

WASHINGTON: Congressional Democrats, trying to have the first word on President Bush's State of the Union speech, challenged him Friday to renounce use of waterboarding in interrogations, close Guantanamo Bay to detainees and outline new policies toward Pakistan and Iran.

[modest]

Read these articles and make up your own mind. If you were the prisoner, what would YOU want the interrogator to do?...

American Thinker: Torture may save lives

Torture can be a moral, practical procedure - Ed-Op

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/ml_torture.html

 

I like these links you give. They demonstrate some of the things I (and others) have been saying.

 

Yet the argument you're giving is exactly out of the mouths of the neo-con press, again, who do not provide any of the confirmatory evidence to support the likelihood of your hypothetical

 

I also would like to see a source on this. In particular - when has the torture for time bomb scenario ever WORKED?

 

You have been unable to provide a source citing a ‘ticking time bomb’ incident. You have claimed that it has happened before and will happen again. The op-eds you link are equally unable to cite a real situation for their hypothetical. I am not attempting to prove it has never happened - that would be fruitless. You, however, have stated it has happened and I would like to see you cite that. The closest your sources come to addressing that is here:

 

The standard response of the Left is to stick their heads in the sand and claim that the above situation is purely hypothetical and unlikely to occur in real life. That statement is debatable, but even accepting it for a moment…

-Manan Shah

 

Indeed all of your sources seem to accept that it is an unrealistic situation that is completely hypothetical.

 

So, what is the point of creating an unrealistic situation here? Why do these writers do it and what is its purpose?

 

Once you concede that torture is justified in extreme cases, you have admitted that the decision to use torture is a matter of balancing innocent lives against the means needed to save them. You must now face more realistic cases involving more modest numbers.

- Michael Levin

 

Krauthammer then correctly asks: Is this situation so different from a very non-hypothetical situation where we capture terrorists who have information that will save lives, but the danger is not imminent?

- Manan Shah

 

Indeed this is the crutch of the argument and the very purpose of the ticking time bomb hypothetical. The idea is to force someone to admit that a hypothetical situation calls for torture and then extrapolate at will. This idea is fundamentally flawed and addressed for what it is:

 

I believe questor's only goal with this question is to provide some sort of cover or qualification for the methodology of this administration for which he has been steadfast in his support, and is unwilling to condemn in fear that it will reflect poorly on his own judgement.

 

I truly think and honestly believe that this hypothetical and unrealistic situation that people run to is only designed to give some excuse for past, current, and future transgressions.

 

Hypothetically speaking - If Russia launches all of its nuclear weapons at the united states then we should initiate a retaliatory strike. Extrapolating this hypothetical to the real world - we are morally justified in launching nukes against Russia any time. So you see, this type of argument doesn’t work. It only gives cover to something that seems like a bad idea. It actually demonstrates the weakness of the argument that a hypothetical must be used to make it seem justified.

 

Another painfully obvious thing about these op-eds: the writing is meant to play on the readers emotions.

 

Five hundred helpless children against the life of some murderous creature who corrupts the atmosphere of life with every breath he takes.

- Bob Weir

 

Suppose a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from a hospital. I asked four mothers if they would approve of torturing kidnappers if that were necessary to get their own newborns back. All said yes, the most "liberal" adding that she would like to administer it herself.

- Michael Levin

 

This is not a good sign as I believe our emotional response is not always our best response. Playing on people's emotions to get them to accept torture is just a bad sign.

 

-modest

[REASON]

Another painfully obvious thing about these op-eds: the writing is meant to play on the readers emotions.

 

This is not a good sign as I believe our emotional response is not always our best response. Playing on people's emotions to get them to accept torture is just a bad sign.

 

-modest

 

Excellent points, modest.

 

On a deeper level, playing on people's emotions this way is an attempt to get people to compromise their integrity, as well as their legal and moral standing out of an unjustified fear.

 

It is a tactic widely used by this, and previous administations, and those who defend their controversial policies.

[questor]

If there is someone on the site who considers himself a neutral observer of this conversation I wish he would offer an opinion of where the guilt should lie. As I read the posts I am ever more convinced that America bashing has become an international pasttime enjoyed greatly by my own countrymen.

Let me ask some questions:

1. In all of the articles quoted, is there one which explains the reason for the war on terror? I get the impression it is America's fault.

2. Is there any gratitude expressed for the American attempt to make the world safer for all nations?

3. Is there any gratitude expressed for America's attempt to help bring Iraq

into the modern world and have a government elected by the people?

4. Is there any mention of the atrocities committed by the terrorists?

5. Is there any mention that most of the inhabitants of the prisons are truly bad people and would be killing innocents if not incarcerated?

6. Is there any recognition of the fact that many of these people have a better life in captivity than they had before?

7. Does anyone have one good word for America?

Yes, it is obvious that America is hated by many foreigners and its own citizens in an unrelenting manner. I do not know if the Americans hate their

military, their goverment, their fellow citizens or themselves. My conservative friends do not look for excuses to denigrate their own country. They are disappointed in George Bush and tired of the war, but they recognize what is at stake for the world and the Middle East. The haters are mostly young people who have not had wartime experience or a good grasp of foreign policy. Hopefully, people may sometime learn to live in peace and without conflict. That day is not yet here and America has assumed the role of global protector. I think we should reliquish that role and let others fight their own battles. We make no friends by defending others. We will make friends with the victors. As for the self-haters, you live in a free country, able to travel and live as you please. Able to become wealthy if you choose, read any book, attend any theater, buy any car, own your own home, and enjoy free association with friends of your choice. Do you understand that billions of people would die trying to be where you are?

How long will you hate your own country?

[Boerseun]

If there is someone on the site who considers himself a neutral observer of this conversation I wish he would offer an opinion of where the guilt should lie.

It seems as if a "neutral observer" would have to be someone who agrees with you. Sorry, no go. But I will, once more, try to answer your questions. I hope to all the gods of Mount Olympus that you'll read it this time.

As I read the posts I am ever more convinced that America bashing has become an international pasttime enjoyed greatly by my own countrymen.

It's not bashing when people really don't agree with you. It's merely Free Speech, and the airing of our opinions. Chances are that we really might have something to say. Also, last time I checked, the United States isn't from God, and therefore infallible. Any Great State or Person can err. Deal with it.

Let me ask some questions:

1. In all of the articles quoted, is there one which explains the reason for the war on terror? I get the impression it is America's fault.

It is. You can't declare war on an idea, emotion, or feeling. The terrorist's aim in causing harm to American lives and property also has very little to do with American lives or property, in any case. It's mostly America's commitment to support Israel under any conditions, regardless, which kinda irks those mid-east fellas into taking up arms against the States. Only problem is that no person or country in the World can challenge the US militarily, man-for-man, gun-for-gun. Your military is so insanely inflated, that the only way to tackle the US (even if only to protect sovereignty) would be to resort to terror methods.

2. Is there any gratitude expressed for the American attempt to make the world safer for all nations?

Sure! If only that was the case! US interference comes off as solely protecting American interests. And do you really believe the "make the world better for all nations" spin? Where the hell was the States when Rwanda imploded and 600,000 people died? Not there? Why? Nobody asked them, to be sure. The States mostly shrugged its shoulders when it went down, the only reason, of course, being that there are no oil nor American interests in Rwanda. America will interfere where and when it wants in order to protect and expand its interests. Whatever spin it presents to its electorate and taxpayers to justify it, is a cynical attempt to hide the fact that in doing so, the United States has garnered way more enemies than friends in the last couple of years. My country has a border for a reason. On my side of the border, my rules and laws apply. On the other side, my neighbour's laws and rules apply. And my rules and laws are my problem. If you cross my border without me asking you to do so, you've declared war on me, and being the good patriot that I am, I will kick your *** right back to where you've come from. If you come with military hardware that's the size of the next twenty biggest armies put together, then, yes - I will have to resort to terrorist means and methods, to get you the hell out of my country and go and mind your own business somewhere else. Nobody invited you here, and your presence presupposes you knowing better about what's good for me than I do. Now that's the behaviour of a real patronizing ***. You don't have the foggiest notion how things work in my country, nor what my countrymen want.

3. Is there any gratitude expressed for America's attempt to help bring Iraq into the modern world and have a government elected by the people?

Do you really expect gratitude from Iraqis? Do you realise that the mideast have long ago lost trust in the American idea of governance by the people? Hamas was democratically elected by the Palistinians, in other words, a Hamas government would consititute "governance by the people". Yet the US and Britain blew a fuse over that one. It seems more a case of "you elect the government that suits us, and we'll leave you be". Once again, you patronizingly presuppose that you know best. What, exactly, makes the American model so good? A model that ends up in boundless materialism, school shootings, etc., is no model under which I would want to live. Honestly. Get over it.

4. Is there any mention of the atrocities committed by the terrorists?

Yes. Terrorists are really, really irritating me. They suck, and should be hung from the nearest telephone pole by their gonads. But, yet again, that is not what this thread is about, now is it?

5. Is there any mention that most of the inhabitants of the prisons are truly bad people and would be killing innocents if not incarcerated?

No, there is no mention of it, and rightly so. First off, you have no proof of that, except for what you want to believe. As a matter of fact, to the best of my knowledge, the principle of being innocent until proven guilty should apply universally. Yet, the guilt of these poor bastards/evil terrorists cannot be established, because you don't do them the decency of charging them in a court of law with whatever it is you suspect them of. And what do you mean with "most"? How do you know this? Do you know case-by-case what these people have been charged with? Do you know something we don't? I don't think so. I think you're merely attempting to pull an emotional ruse by using such sweeping terms, because you have no other justification for this injustice.

6. Is there any recognition of the fact that many of these people have a better life in captivity than they had before?

Jesus, my friend. I've never laughed so hard as I've done just now. Do you really, really, believe that by denying somebody his Liberty, is made up for by the fact that he now has a roof over his head and running water?

 

Please.

 

You're an American. You've got a proud history since 1776 of protecting your Liberties and Freedoms. You've gone to war over it a few times, once even with yourself. Don't let me, a member of a nation which have racially suppressed Africans and witheld them their freedoms, trampled on their civil rights for many years, preach to you about the meaning of "Freedom" and "Liberty". I don't think you've got the faintest idea. I'm just glad that you don't speak for Americans in general, otherwise this would have been a sorry, sorry world.

7. Does anyone have one good word for America?

Yes. It's a marvellous country with wonderful people, with a proud history. I'm just worried that the current government have slightly lost sight of that fact.

Yes, it is obvious that America is hated by many foreigners and its own citizens in an unrelenting manner. I do not know if the Americans hate their military, their goverment, their fellow citizens or themselves.

Why do you insist on calling bona-fide government criticism "America-hating"? Have you ever thought about the fact that if everybody reasoned like you do, then the US would still be British?

My conservative friends do not look for excuses to denigrate their own country.

NOBODY IS DENIGRATING YOUR COUNTRY. THEY ARE CRITICISING YOUR GOVERNMENT. There is a big difference there. A government not a country make.

They are disappointed in George Bush and tired of the war, but they recognize what is at stake for the world and the Middle East.

Have you ever considered what the US government's ignoring of international sovereignty means for the rest of the world? Directly because of George Bush, I am now paying through my neck for energy. Economic growth in my country have basically come to zero because of the sudden, unexpected and unplanned-for rise in energy costs, causing poverty, rising unemployment, etc. And I'm living in the Southern Tip of Africa, not even close to either Iraq, or America.

The haters are mostly young people who have not had wartime experience or a good grasp of foreign policy.

The "haters" live mostly in your head, and even as imaginary characters I'm sure they have a much firmer grasp on foreign policy than you currently do.

Hopefully, people may sometime learn to live in peace and without conflict. That day is not yet here and America has assumed the role of global protector.

Why, exactly, do you think? Come on, now... you can do it. The answer is right in front of you...

I think we should reliquish that role and let others fight their own battles.

Happy days!

We make no friends by defending others.

You're not defending anybody. You're protecting your interests. Big Business hath spoken. You are not defending anybody, but you sure as hell are offending lotsa people with your current policy.

We will make friends with the victors. As for the self-haters, you live in a free country, able to travel and live as you please. Able to become wealthy if you choose, read any book, attend any theater, buy any car, own your own home, and enjoy free association with friends of your choice. Do you understand that billions of people would die trying to be where you are?

How long will you hate your own country?

I'm not going to dignify this presumption with an elaborate answer. There are many people in this world with their own particular way of life which might not be completely compatible with your view, but if this is the general view, that you've got the right to change the world, because, after all, everybody wants to be like us, then you're in for a big, big surprise.