Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?
Or a different US?
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!
They gave the peace prize to an american president last year.
The prize committee out-and-out said that the "lifetime acheivement award" they gave Jimmy Carter last year was intended as a denunciation of the sitting US president ("Why can't you be more like Jimmy Carter?"). That was an ugly display of politicization and propoganda that severely (in many eyes) damaged the credibility of the award. I suppose we should be thankful that the committee restrained itself from choosing Saddam this year. In any event, it clearly helped set a general tone at the Nobels that winning the award is associated with criticizing the US (which is, after all, seen as the greatest threat to world peace in many European countries).
Oh come on people, biting the hand that feeds her would be coming out and saying that peace is a bad thing or that democracy should take a hike. I hope that the thread starter is a troll. What arrogant expectations of servitude!
Saying that US stooping to a medieval level of human rights protections at Guantanamo is a BAD THING is just common sense. What the hell planet do you guys live on?
And the US IS the biggest threat to peace in the world given our current level of imperial arrogance. Give me your probability analysis of the following:
Likelihood of Iran invading anywhere ____
Likelihood of the US invading Syria or Iran ___
I'd like you to comment on which is more likely to occur.
Seems like she took her moment to let the world know that she's not selling out to the west even though she hates the conservatives in Iran. What the hell did you expect her to say? Did she offend your expectations of grovelling third world figures when the prize didn't buy special treatment for the US? America is only going to live up to its ideals when we keep an open ear when people let us know if we fall short of them.
I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here.
Go back to lurking until your political consiousness move beyond
Quote:
"Dean: Again, very homeland for a last name. HOWARD, however, is going to have his ass beat by world leaders. Quick: who would win in a fight? Tony? Vlad? Gerhard? Jaques? Howie?...I know a guy whose first name is Gephardt. He ain?t very macho. And DICK? Um."
Maybe once that happens you'll learn why posting to criticize her for this is stupid.
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?
Or a different US?
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
And because his country is not immaculate, he does not have the right to spell out what he considers the truth about the US. So we come around full circle...
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist (US citizen or otherwise) being tortured to death by US government _____
Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist being tortured to death by Syria or Iran _____
Let me give you a hint...over the past year, the probabilty of the first statement was 0.0 and of the second statement 1.0.
Really, I think it reflects fundamentally good trends that people in Europe are so up in arms about Guantanamo, even if it is a bit of an overreaction. It means we've come a long way from the days when killing the men, raping the women, and enslaving the children was an accepted outcome of war. It reflects progress when it's not an even an issue that the prisoners are fed well, given medical care and allowed to pray, and that even the Red Cross can't criticize their physical living conditions.
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!
No, you are, for the most part, a great country and one that I love. Idiots are a minority in your country, but they are there.
You are not perfect, you did not invent human rights (in fact you don't have the best record on the planet) and the 'I love the US like a mommy not a wife' crew need a fückin' wake-up call ... such as the original poster. Nutter.
As I have said, say and will continue to say, America is a fantastic thing.
US managed to "accidentally" bomb the headquarters of AlJazeera in Kandahar the day that the US took the city. Then they "accidentally" bombed the headquarters of AlJazeera in Baghdad the day that the US took that city. Sounds like journalists from the Middle East should take out fat life insurance on themselves any time they cover a war in which the US is fighting.
You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.
You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).
WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).
You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.
You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).
WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).
Not your post Harald I know your record and where you stand.
Of course I realize that the Nobel Prize is not a US award. Neither is it simply Swedish: at least this year the award was given in Oslo (if I recall correctly it is a joint Norwegian/Swedish thing). But let me restate my point and hope it makes sense.
-- the winner is a human rights lawyer. I think that is a good thing to be.
-- the winner is a human rights lawyer in Iran, where such people are much needed.
-- the US was the first country in the world to make the concept of human rights (from the Enlightenment) central to law.
-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.
-- the US is now and has always been a foe of the regime the winner is fighting.
So what does she do when the world is watching? Of course, she attacks the US. She at least has a sharp eye for pop culture trends.
To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? Maybe she hasn?t had access to much news over the last few years.
Again, I would never suggest that she not be allowed to say what she wants, but I would propose to her that she is unwise to attack her biggest friend.
To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US.
And if you're sitting right in the middle of two invasion targets and your country is also being called "evil" BY THE US don't you think that might be cause to be a little worried? Or do you think she should lobby for an invasion of Iran? In the spirit of human rights and peace maybe? Surely the Iranians will dance in the streets when johnny comes marching in.
-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.
I don't know her background, but most pre-revolution leaders have been speaking out against the push within the US government to threaten Iran. Maybe you should look into that.
WASHINGTON, Dec 10 (IPS) - Key U.S. civil liberties and social justice groups marked International Human Rights Day Wednesday by launching a new ÓU.S. Human Rights NetworkÓ dedicated to raising awareness about international human rights standards and focusing attention on the U.S. failure to enforce them.
More than 50 groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), said they had agreed to join forces to address what they said was Óthe alarming rate of human rights violations in the U.S.Ó, particularly as it pursues its Ówar on terrorismÓ.
They called for U.S. citizens to speak out against these abuses, as well as to fight ÓU.S. exceptionalismÓ, the view pushed strongly by the administration of President George W. Bush, that the United States should not be constrained by international law or human rights standards, especially relating to economic and social rights.
ÓThe demonstrations that we are currently seeing against the U.S. around the world are a reaction to the perception that the U.S. -- and particularly the Bush administration -- thinks that it is above international law -- laws the rest of the world are required to abide by,Ó said Ajamu Baraka, who works for Amnesty International USA's (AIUSA) Atlanta office and is part of the network's secretariat.
ÓThe rights of ordinary Americans and others residing in the U.S. are being trampled on a daily basis -- in violation of a host of international laws and standards,Ó said Cathy Albisa, a secretariat member who is based at CESR.
ÓThese include the right to economic security and a decent standard of living, the right of children convicted of crimes not to be executed, the right to a fair trial, the right to seek asylum, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, among any others,Ó she added, noting that the U.S. has the developed world's highest child poverty rate and that 20 percent of adults are functionally illiterate.
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights
Welcome to AI, GregInMex...where no comment is left unscrutinized.
It has already been pointed out that the US has nothing to do with the Nobel prize, but you should probably also know that the concept of human rights originated in 13th century England (in the Magna Carta).
The reason why it is important that any human rights abuses perpetrated by the US Government be given attention (even if the magnitude of the abuse pales in comparison to abuses by other nations) is that the US is supposed to stand for something better. The citizens of the US are certainly great supporters of human rights, but Government's don't always do what the citizens expect, let alone practice what they preach. Leaders sometimes have to make difficult decisions, and occasionally these decisions are incorrect. Sending a bunch of people into legal limbo because its easier than giving them a trial or granting them the POW rights is one of those cases.
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
Comments
Originally posted by Harald
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?
Or a different US?
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!
Originally posted by Anders
They gave the peace prize to an american president last year.
The prize committee out-and-out said that the "lifetime acheivement award" they gave Jimmy Carter last year was intended as a denunciation of the sitting US president ("Why can't you be more like Jimmy Carter?"). That was an ugly display of politicization and propoganda that severely (in many eyes) damaged the credibility of the award. I suppose we should be thankful that the committee restrained itself from choosing Saddam this year. In any event, it clearly helped set a general tone at the Nobels that winning the award is associated with criticizing the US (which is, after all, seen as the greatest threat to world peace in many European countries).
Saying that US stooping to a medieval level of human rights protections at Guantanamo is a BAD THING is just common sense. What the hell planet do you guys live on?
And the US IS the biggest threat to peace in the world given our current level of imperial arrogance. Give me your probability analysis of the following:
Likelihood of Iran invading anywhere ____
Likelihood of the US invading Syria or Iran ___
I'd like you to comment on which is more likely to occur.
Seems like she took her moment to let the world know that she's not selling out to the west even though she hates the conservatives in Iran. What the hell did you expect her to say? Did she offend your expectations of grovelling third world figures when the prize didn't buy special treatment for the US? America is only going to live up to its ideals when we keep an open ear when people let us know if we fall short of them.
Thanks,
Curufinwe
Originally posted by GregInMex
I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here.
Go back to lurking until your political consiousness move beyond
"Dean: Again, very homeland for a last name. HOWARD, however, is going to have his ass beat by world leaders. Quick: who would win in a fight? Tony? Vlad? Gerhard? Jaques? Howie?...I know a guy whose first name is Gephardt. He ain?t very macho. And DICK? Um."
Maybe once that happens you'll learn why posting to criticize her for this is stupid.
Originally posted by BRussell
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!
Originally posted by Harald
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?
Or a different US?
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
Originally posted by The General
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
And because his country is not immaculate, he does not have the right to spell out what he considers the truth about the US. So we come around full circle...
Originally posted by The General
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better
Way to miss his point.
Originally posted by Curufinwe
Likelihood of Iran invading anywhere ____
Likelihood of the US invading Syria or Iran ___
Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist (US citizen or otherwise) being tortured to death by US government _____
Likelihood of anti-government activist or journalist being tortured to death by Syria or Iran _____
Let me give you a hint...over the past year, the probabilty of the first statement was 0.0 and of the second statement 1.0.
Really, I think it reflects fundamentally good trends that people in Europe are so up in arms about Guantanamo, even if it is a bit of an overreaction. It means we've come a long way from the days when killing the men, raping the women, and enslaving the children was an accepted outcome of war. It reflects progress when it's not an even an issue that the prisoners are fed well, given medical care and allowed to pray, and that even the Red Cross can't criticize their physical living conditions.
Originally posted by BRussell
[edit] Never mind. You're right, we're genocide-lovin', retard-executin', vote-denyin', cowboy-hat-wearin' Arab-haters and we're proud of it!
No, you are, for the most part, a great country and one that I love. Idiots are a minority in your country, but they are there.
You are not perfect, you did not invent human rights (in fact you don't have the best record on the planet) and the 'I love the US like a mommy not a wife' crew need a fückin' wake-up call ... such as the original poster. Nutter.
As I have said, say and will continue to say, America is a fantastic thing.
Originally posted by Harald
As I have said, say and will continue to say, America is a fantastic thing.
There is something fishy about this thread
Something a bit interesting going on here....
Fellows
Originally posted by Towel
fed well, given medical care and allowed to pray
. . . but not be charged with anything nor see a lawyer . . .
Plenty of journalists and union leaders have been targeted by the US in the last year. Don't believe me? Check this out.
Union Leaders
Iraq
http://lnn.labourstart.org/more.php?id=106_0_1_0_M
Iraq
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_...cd2bdf4ab0e2a9
Journalists
US managed to "accidentally" bomb the headquarters of AlJazeera in Kandahar the day that the US took the city. Then they "accidentally" bombed the headquarters of AlJazeera in Baghdad the day that the US took that city. Sounds like journalists from the Middle East should take out fat life insurance on themselves any time they cover a war in which the US is fighting.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
There is something fishy about this thread
Something a bit interesting going on here....
Fellows
Pray tell Fellows what's that?
You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.
You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).
WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).
Originally posted by Harald
Pray tell Fellows what's that?
You're welcome to check my record (if it's a personal thing) ... you'll find me very robust in saying when I think the US has screwed up.
You'll also regularly find me calling suicide bombers 'scum,' saying that Israel has an absolute right to exist and defend itself (but adopts doomed practices) and that the US is a great country with, among other things, the best constitution on the planet (but one that is under threat).
WRT to THIS thread, the original poster said that the US invented human rights; I pointed out this is bollocks. The original poster is blinded to this by thinking his country perfect when it isn't; a very dangerous and too prevalent POV in the US (which has often been the bravest and most determined of nations).
Not your post Harald I know your record and where you stand.
The thread.
Fellows
-- the winner is a human rights lawyer. I think that is a good thing to be.
-- the winner is a human rights lawyer in Iran, where such people are much needed.
-- the US was the first country in the world to make the concept of human rights (from the Enlightenment) central to law.
-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.
-- the US is now and has always been a foe of the regime the winner is fighting.
So what does she do when the world is watching? Of course, she attacks the US. She at least has a sharp eye for pop culture trends.
To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? Maybe she hasn?t had access to much news over the last few years.
Again, I would never suggest that she not be allowed to say what she wants, but I would propose to her that she is unwise to attack her biggest friend.
Originally posted by GregInMex
To the east of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US. Does she approve? To the west of Iran, an evil regime has been vanquished BY THE US.
And if you're sitting right in the middle of two invasion targets and your country is also being called "evil" BY THE US don't you think that might be cause to be a little worried? Or do you think she should lobby for an invasion of Iran? In the spirit of human rights and peace maybe? Surely the Iranians will dance in the streets when johnny comes marching in.
Originally posted by GregInMex
-- the US has fairly consistently (with huge and unforgivable gaps towards Indians and Africans, which I grant is a point) been the biggest single supporter of the concept of human rights.
Not the people running the country right now:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/c...lliburton.html
I don't know her background, but most pre-revolution leaders have been speaking out against the push within the US government to threaten Iran. Maybe you should look into that.
More than 50 groups, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to the New York-based Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), said they had agreed to join forces to address what they said was Óthe alarming rate of human rights violations in the U.S.Ó, particularly as it pursues its Ówar on terrorismÓ.
They called for U.S. citizens to speak out against these abuses, as well as to fight ÓU.S. exceptionalismÓ, the view pushed strongly by the administration of President George W. Bush, that the United States should not be constrained by international law or human rights standards, especially relating to economic and social rights.
ÓThe demonstrations that we are currently seeing against the U.S. around the world are a reaction to the perception that the U.S. -- and particularly the Bush administration -- thinks that it is above international law -- laws the rest of the world are required to abide by,Ó said Ajamu Baraka, who works for Amnesty International USA's (AIUSA) Atlanta office and is part of the network's secretariat.
ÓThe rights of ordinary Americans and others residing in the U.S. are being trampled on a daily basis -- in violation of a host of international laws and standards,Ó said Cathy Albisa, a secretariat member who is based at CESR.
ÓThese include the right to economic security and a decent standard of living, the right of children convicted of crimes not to be executed, the right to a fair trial, the right to seek asylum, and the right to be free from torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, among any others,Ó she added, noting that the U.S. has the developed world's highest child poverty rate and that 20 percent of adults are functionally illiterate.
http://www.ips.org/
click on world news... then north america
Originally posted by GregInMex
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights
Welcome to AI, GregInMex...where no comment is left unscrutinized.
It has already been pointed out that the US has nothing to do with the Nobel prize, but you should probably also know that the concept of human rights originated in 13th century England (in the Magna Carta).
The reason why it is important that any human rights abuses perpetrated by the US Government be given attention (even if the magnitude of the abuse pales in comparison to abuses by other nations) is that the US is supposed to stand for something better. The citizens of the US are certainly great supporters of human rights, but Government's don't always do what the citizens expect, let alone practice what they preach. Leaders sometimes have to make difficult decisions, and occasionally these decisions are incorrect. Sending a bunch of people into legal limbo because its easier than giving them a trial or granting them the POW rights is one of those cases.
Originally posted by The General
your from London right? if so, is this the same London that is part of England, that still wont pull out out of Northern Ireland, the same one that is in Europe? Europe is no better, older, more whiney, but no better