posted on March 24, 2003 07:35:25 AM new
If you have concern for innocent people in countries outside that United States, they will call you anti-American.
posted on March 24, 2003 07:42:11 AM newIf you have concern for innocent people in countries outside that United States, they will call you anti-American.
When your "concern" overides the support for our troops and our safety and protection and all but gives aid and comfort to the enemy, yeah that pretty much describes an anti-american...
posted on March 24, 2003 07:42:55 AM new
The application of the term "anti-American" to describe global concern and peace has become so ludicrous that the term, anti-American it has lost it's meaning.
posted on March 24, 2003 07:43:23 AM new
Helen - You are the worst offender, imo, of being in disagreement with almost everything our country does. Not just under the Bush administration, but in every way. I have only once read a statement from you, in all these years, where you made a positive statement about something our country was doing correctly in your eyes. To me, you are the most anti-American poster here. How would you expect anyone to see your opinions as anything other than anti-American when you continally post only negative comments about everything?
posted on March 24, 2003 07:45:11 AM new
Not true Helen. If you march in a protest that is sponsored by communists and socialists, and for reasons that have nothing to do with "peace" it sure can be labeled anti-American.
There are perhaps two legitimate positions about this war. First is true pacifists, of which there are very few at these protests. Second, there are those that believe that inspections and isolation will work towards solving the issues with Iraq, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The vast majority of the protesters fall into neither of these groups.
This majority are people that either hate this country or the administration so fervently, that no matter what is or isn't done by the US, it is wrong.
As we saw in the 1960s, these people will stop at nothing, including lying, robbery, murder, and mayhem.
posted on March 24, 2003 07:49:33 AM new
You want to show global concern Helen? Start protesting for the removal of the US from the UN... that would be a good global concern...
posted on March 24, 2003 08:05:38 AM newHelen - You are the worst offender, imo, of being in disagreement with almost everything our country does. Not just under the Bush administration, but in every way.
Make your statement clear, Linda. In every way? Exactly what ways?
From my viewpoint, Linda, a good American is one who does not have the unquestioning reverential awe for authority that you obviously have. People in this country can disagree with authority and use their brains for something other than a sponge. That's one thing that makes this country great. You're not participating in the betterment of your environment when you just blindly accept everything that you read, see and hear and follow the leader no matter where he intends to lead you.
I'll post something positive about you, Linda. You are easy.
posted on March 24, 2003 08:33:17 AM new
At least I'm pro-America.
a good American is one who does not have the unquestioning reverential awe for authority that you obviously have.
I do have respect for authority and I don't feel ashamed about that. I do not have unquestioning reverential awe for authority. I just disagree with much of what you support. So it may come across that way to you.
Take for example you debate all the things we are doing wrong with everything. Fine...offer suggestions rather than only criticism. I have watched, I don't know how many times, people ask you to state what you would do [on any issue]. You don't answer...you blow them off with some smartas$ answer.
I can understand anyone being in disagreement with going to war. But you always are on the side of those who berate American, American government, etc. You are the most critical person of American policy that I have even seen. There's no middle ground with you.....everything we do is wrong.
posted on March 24, 2003 08:35:31 AM new
Helen it is true you oppose every decision made by the government . I have watched for a very long time.
Even after the towers fell and the bodies of murdered Americans where barely cold you and another began posting images of Afghanistan children and began blaming America.
And you are insulting. You do not just attack the government you attack and insult anyone who disagrees with you.
Your opinions never vary and the pattern is crystal clear.
The propaganda started with you and a few others (one seems to be missing) .
However i am happy you have the American right of freedom of speech, i am equally happy to oppose you.
I'll have to ask you, like I asked Linda for evidence of the charge that you just made. Otherwise, I have no interest in your uninformed comments. You may be happier just watching.
The people in Iraq have pride and patriotism too. Have you ever considered that possibility? The father of this family explains that to the journalist who wrote this article. They want freedom but not under foreign power.
excerpt....
But family members expressed anger at the U.S. government, which has promised to liberate them. They criticized President Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial rule, but insisted that pride and patriotism prevent them from putting their destiny in the hands of a foreign power.
..........
But they bitterly denounced the war the United States has launched. Iraq, perhaps more than any other Arab country, dwells on traditions -- of pride, honor and dignity. To this family, the assault is an insult. It is not Hussein under attack, but Iraq, they said. It is hard to gauge if this is a common sentiment, although it is one heard more often as the war progresses.
"We complain about things, but complaining doesn't mean cooperating with foreign governments," the father said. "When somebody comes to attack Iraq, we stand up for Iraq. That doesn't mean we love Saddam Hussein, but there are priorities."
A friend of the family interrupted. "Bombing for peace?" he asked, shaking his head.
posted on March 24, 2003 09:45:53 AM newI don't run around insulting people for no reason but I do respond occasionally. Notice the FOR NO REASON....sure she always has a good reason when she insults....others NEVER do. LOL
If you want me to list them in chronological order, I can. Let me know. Only if you will do the same with the posts of all those who also insult others and you don't call them on it. Always one sided, Helen.
posted on March 24, 2003 09:51:26 AM new
I understand, Linda, that it's good etiquette here to let each poster fight their own battles. Do you expect me to protect every poster?
posted on March 24, 2003 10:00:19 AM new
Protect every poster? LOL No, but when you call one person on an issue, it's only fair that you call all on the same behavior you find offensive, and practice yourself. Not just those who disagree with your opinions.
Kind of like how you used to welcome, with open arms, those who stated they were democrats when they first began posting here. But your treatment of those who held opinions different from yours were to meet your wrath....not for being insulting....just because the voiced different opinions than you hold.
posted on March 24, 2003 10:14:54 AM new
funvolt...
You don't want to see the fact that every single post that you made here is insulting. That's OK. You can appreciate the fact that when I made my statement to you that I could back it up.
But when I ask you and Linda to back up your nasty remarks to me, you can't do it.
posted on March 24, 2003 10:39:28 AM new
I am sure there are some Iraqi's that don't want the US there, just as there were Torries during the Revolution and those from the South that fought for the North and so on...
Producing one family in a city of 5 million wasn't really worth reporting at all...
posted on March 24, 2003 12:39:37 PM new
::For this thread when I read anyone who believes we're being hypocritical in following the GC, when they can see how differently the US handles enemies, I see that as saying we're no better....we're no different. And that's just not true.::
You are comparing apples to oranges. There was one issue being discussed, but you brought an entirely different one in as a factor when they should be seperate issues.
The question was regarding the showing of prisoners. Period. Is it allowed, if not, and we are going to call the Iraqi's on it, should we not be called on the same issue since our networks have done the same thing. The arguement was made that faces were not visable in the US video which in retrospect is a valid arguement.
The physical treatment of the prisoners was never a part of the issue. I don't think anyone is going argue that we treat our prisoners in a vastly more humane manner.
posted on March 24, 2003 01:07:18 PM new
You're right, it is apples and oranges, but the apples and oranges that the other poster (Linda) pointed out.
The difference is a live and non-staged filming by independent news services that are pooled by news agencies from all over the world, compared to a Iraqi government staged government controlled filming of POWS and murdered soldiers.
There is no rational comparison between the two situations. In fact, the UN would probably endorse a free press filming the treatment of POWs.
posted on March 24, 2003 01:08:43 PM new
neonmania - I understand the distinction that was made. The question was regarding the showing of prisoners. Period. Is it allowed, if not, and we are going to call the Iraqi's on it, should we not be called on the same issue since our networks have done the same thing.
My response came from place of defensiveness. To me, and my point was, that even though we may both be in violation of 'showing faces' I didn't find it hypocritical of Rumsfeld to be calling our soldiers being put in front of a TV camera, and interviewing them, the same thing as showing troops in large groups surrendering. To call Rumsfeld's actions hypocritical and NOT make a distinction about the horrors that our troops were put through by their captors is what got me going.
My defensiveness of these types of statements come from my overwhelming concern that the parents, families, etc of these POWs DON'T find the face of their loved one lying on a floor dead or being put in front of Iraq TV before they even know they've been captured or killed.
posted on March 24, 2003 01:38:48 PM new
::My defensiveness of these types of statements come from my overwhelming concern that the parents, families, etc of these POWs DON'T find the face of their loved one lying on a floor dead or being put in front of Iraq TV before they even know they've been captured or killed. ::
Understandable. The mother of the prisoner that was being shown on NBC yesterday originally found out when she caught a glimpse of him on Philipine TV. The flip side of her situation was that she stated that at least by seeing his image and hearing his voice she knew he was OK.
posted on March 24, 2003 01:52:28 PM new
I absolutely agree that Iraq has completely violated the Geneva Convention in regards to treatment of prisoners of war, and I don't extend that same criticism to U.S. media accounts.
What I am concerned with is the are-they-or-aren't-they internment of 650 foreign nationals at Guantanomo Bay. If they're "enemy combatants", they are certainly not being held according to the terms of the Geneva Convention and international law. If they are being held as criminals, they are definitely being deprived of their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The latest appellate-court ruling ducks the essential human-rights issue by saying they are not being held on U.S. soil.
From all accounts, life at GTMO is harsh and religious needs of the internees are not being met. I'm worried that Iraqi forces will use the treatment of GTMO prisoners to justify further abuse of American POWs. And I'm worried that any global sympathy will quickly be rebutted by pictures from the internment camp.
Those who cling to the fantasy that global opinion doesn't matter probably won't be too concerned about this. But I am. We're depriving the rest of the world of any reason to care about U.S. interests.
posted on March 24, 2003 02:23:04 PM newWhat I am concerned with is the are-they-or-aren't-they internment of 650 foreign nationals at Guantanomo Bay. If they're "enemy combatants", they are certainly not being held according to the terms of the Geneva Convention and international law. If they are being held as criminals, they are definitely being deprived of their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The latest appellate-court ruling ducks the essential human-rights issue by saying they are not being held on U.S. soil.
That's a good point, msincognito.
Calling the guantanamo prisoners enemy combatants is a way to skirt the issue legally, but as you point out, the true story is that they are not being treated according to the Geneva PoW Convention. About 23 have tried to kill themselves since they arrived in Janurary. They've been photographed bound and shackled with their heads and eyes covered while they kneel before US soldiers. Rumsfeld said they had no rights.
It's also important to remember that Iraqi violations of the Geneva rules regarding PoWs began long before Guantanamo.
posted on March 24, 2003 02:38:06 PM new
::The priority here as usual was to find something ANYTHING to shed negative light on America when you should have been feeling sorry Americans died. ::
Fun - Mature adults are capable of a diversity of simultanious emotions. QUESTIONING the situation does not preclude the ability to simultainiously mourn the losses, be horrified by the images, or feel rage towards the perpetrators.
posted on March 24, 2003 03:14:53 PM new
Who said the GITMO prisoners are not being treated under the GC ?
The only complaint I have heard is that their identities are not being released.
While it is a security issue, there is also the reason behind the GC for why their IDs are to be released-- to inform the country they are fighting for that they are captured and who they are.
There is no country that will claim them. The last one captured was born and raised in Kuwait, but Kuwait disclaimed him as a citizen, and this has essentially happened to all of them. No one is going to claim terrorists as citizens or soldiers of their country.
Ultimately, the GC does not apply to the GITMO terrorists. The GC was not written to apply to international terrorists and is impossible to apply.
posted on March 24, 2003 03:43:16 PM new
Human Rights Watch is trying to get the prisoners with no significant connections to the al Qaida network released. The 650 detainees are from 43 countries.
"Many countries have complained that the conditions of detention at Guantanamo - initially in mesh wire cells that critics likened to animal cages, and being held without charges or counsel - were inhumane and violated Geneva Conventions on prisoners of war."
Human Rights Watch says the Geneva Conventions allow the United States to hold POWs without charge during a war but once the war ends - as it has in Afghanistan - prisoners must be released.
The United States does not classify the detainees as prisoners of war and insists they are treated humanely.
