PDA

View Full Version : Net firms criticised over China



mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Check out this article. The US congress is getting involved in MSN,Yahoo, Google and Ciscos cooperation with the Chinese Government on censoring content.

The BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4699242.stm)

Edit: Here is another article on it from News.com.

News.com Article (http://news.com.com/Politicians+lash+out+at+tech+firms+over+China/2100-1028_3-6039834.html?tag=nefd.lede)

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 01:11 AM
We have no right to tell other countries what to do so long as:
A - our political situation is so screwed up
B - The value of the dollar is so closely tied to that of China's and our economic relationshup with them

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 01:15 AM
We have no right to tell other countries what to do so long as:
A - our political situation is so screwed up
B - The value of the dollar is so closely tied to that of China's and our economic relationshup with them

That is true but we do have a right to regulate how much involvement US companies have with China's censorship.

somuchfortheafter
February 16th, 2006, 03:28 AM
That is true but we do have a right to regulate how much involvement US companies have with China's censorship.


******** my friend. Laize fair or however that french term that means free business is spelled. thats what I think anyway, gov't should only step in when it involves OUR citizens....

Virogenesis
February 16th, 2006, 03:56 AM
Its not a concern the american gov should get involved with.
It is their fault, Britain's fault, the league of nations fault and the united nations.
It is our actions that have caused so many wars it is America's fault that bin laden is in power they put him their because they didn't like Russia they didn't do it because they were best friends.
America saw a opening to gain and by putting bin laden into power and then trying to call the shots has created this awful mess.
It is America's fault nam happened, it is britain's fault for being retarded and backing them.

All govs are as bad as each other the american's tested nukes on their own soldiers the british tested gas on their own people.

As far as I'm concerned they are all as bad as each other.
I'm british and I cannot stand how the american govs treats third world countries, to me it seems like america wants to rule the world and because china doesn't want to play ball with them doesn't give america the right to bully them.

I see America as bullies as do many euros and it sickens me to hear this freedom of speech crap all the time.

We are doing it for democracy..... bla bla bla
If the people don't like the gov let them rebel as far as I'm concerned Religions shouldn't be pushed onto people same goes for politics how are america to say what another country can and can't do.

Democracy doesn't even work its all just lies at the end of the day.

Stormy Eyes
February 16th, 2006, 04:02 AM
Screw it. All governments should be overthrown, and all churches burned to the ground. Denis Diderot was right: "Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:08 AM
Screw it. All governments should be overthrown, and all churches burned to the ground. Denis Diderot was right: "Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".

So true.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:15 AM
******** my friend. Laize fair or however that french term that means free business is spelled. thats what I think anyway, gov't should only step in when it involves OUR citizens....

It doesn't matter what you or I think. These firms are based in the US and are first and foremost subject to US laws and regulations. If the congress passes a law that these companies can not assist in China's effort to suppress free speech or aid in the arrest of political dissidents then these firms have no choice but to comply with US law first. Besides, I think what Yahoo did was unforgivable when they assisted China in the arest of someone who voiced their disagreement with China's form of Government. If US companies are going to aid in the suppression of basic human rights and free speech just to make a dollar then I am all for the Government stepping in and stopping them.

Virogenesis
February 16th, 2006, 04:22 AM
A gov is needed to control the people of a state.
Anarchy is not the way sure it allows for freedom but with that freedom along comes confusion.

For instance who looks after the weak if a gov is not in place.
Communism is its true form isn't so bad on paper but we haven't yet seen Communism in action.

The thing you have to remember about Communism is that it is against everything america stands for.

Just like how Microsoft dislikes opensource its a threat.

Virogenesis
February 16th, 2006, 04:23 AM
mstlyevil america are no better than china

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 04:24 AM
I vote that we censor this thread for the good of the American people. lol

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:26 AM
Its not a concern the american gov should get involved with.

Absolutely wrong. It becomes the American Governments concern when US citizens and US firms are helping in the supression of liberty, free speech and basic human rights. They have every right to tell US firms that they are not allowed to participate in these activities.


It is their fault, Britain's fault, the league of nations fault and the united nations.

At least you are honest and don't just blame the US for all the worlds ills.


We are doing it for democracy..... bla bla bla
If the people don't like the gov let them rebel as far as I'm concerned Religions shouldn't be pushed onto people same goes for politics how are america to say what another country can and can't do.

Democracy doesn't even work its all just lies at the end of the day.

They are not telling China what to do here. They are telling US citizens and US based firms they should not be involved in these activities. It is your opinion Democracy doesn't work but at least citizens of Democratic nations tend to enjoy more rights and freedoms then those of other forms of Governments. Also, citizens of Democratic countries tend to have a better standard of living and overall quality of life compared to countries with other forms of Governments. So in your opinion Democracy doesn't work but in my experience it is better than the alternative.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:28 AM
mstlyevil america are no better than china

Keep telling yourself that but at least we do not jail and torture political dissidents.

Deaf_Head
February 16th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Absolutely wrong. It becomes the American Governments concern when US citizens and US firms are helping in the supression of liberty, free speech and basic human rights. They have every right to tell US firms that they are not allowed to participate in these activities.


Than why haven't they told George "Dubya" Bush and **** "deadeye" Cheney to hurting American rights?

Virogenesis
February 16th, 2006, 04:43 AM
Keep telling yourself that but at least we do not jail and torture political dissidents.
True you start wars with countries that don't play ball.
Your country talks about other countries having WMDs but yet what country used nukes on the japanese?
What country tested nukes tested nukes on their own soldiers?
What country went into iraqi for oil?
America is as bad as China I'm afraid if you can not see that then you are blind.
America has been involved in more wars than anyother country in the last 50 years than any country apart from Britian.
Fact is america is like every other gov they protect those they see fit and the people they see fit to protect are those that line their pockets.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer thats all it amounts to at the end of the day.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:49 AM
Than why haven't they told George "Dubya" Bush and **** "deadeye" Cheney to hurting American rights?

Please tell me what American rights they are hurting that Congress and the Supreme Court have not already given their stamp of approval on?

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 05:22 AM
True you start wars with countries that don't play ball.

If you are talking about Iraq, Saddaam Hussein started that war by invading Kuwait in the first place. Then he failed to live up to the terms of the cease fire. If you are talking about Korea and Vietnam, these were wars that the UN asked the US to participate in. The US did not start those wars in the first place.


Your country talks about other countries having WMDs but yet what country used nukes on the japanese?

If I have my history straight, Japan planned to do the exact same thing to the US in September of 1945. That is right Japan already had the bomb and there is evidence they had a successful test on the Korean pennisula. If we had not done it first, they would have. Also if I remember correctly Japan attacked us first. Until that moment, the US wanted no involvement in WWII.


What country tested nukes tested nukes on their own soldiers?

I never said the US Government never committed attrocities against our own citizens. I bet you that this does not happen today.


What country went into iraqi for oil?

That is entirely utter BS. The US does not recieve one drop of Iraqi oil. The US would be more inclined to go to war with Venezuela if it wanted someones oil since they are one of our largest importers. We went to war with Iraq because 1 they invaded Kuwait and the Kuwaiti Government asked for our assistance. 2. They failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire.


America is as bad as China I'm afraid if you can not see that then you are blind.

Then I must be blind.


America has been involved in more wars than anyother country in the last 50 years than any country apart from Britian.

I want hard cold facts and figures for this one. Also most of the wars we were involved in we were asked for our assistance.


Fact is america is like every other gov they protect those they see fit and the people they see fit to protect are those that line their pockets.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer thats all it amounts to at the end of the day.

How did South Korea or South Vietnam line our pockets? I am curious since at the time of those wars we basically had no real trade with those countries whatsoever. The rich may get richer but the poor have gotten richer in this country also. How many other countries in the world do the poor actually own homes, drive cars, are overweight, have microwaves, TV's, Computers, phone service, and even wear some designer clothes? In most countries food becomes a luxury to the poor. In fact most of our poor live better than the middle class in many countries. I know this first hand because I have been poor and most of my relatives have been poor. In fact I have a number of relatives that live well below the poverty line.

Edit: Moderators, I did not intend for this thread to get so political so I would have no problem whatsoever if you decided to move it to the Backyard.

mips
February 16th, 2006, 10:57 AM
Screw it. All governments should be overthrown, and all churches burned to the ground. Denis Diderot was right: "Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".


Geez, thats the kindla line I've been looking for for a long time. Think I must add it to my signature...

Derek Djons
February 16th, 2006, 11:14 AM
Screw it. All governments should be overthrown, and all churches burned to the ground. Denis Diderot was right: "Man will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest".

I don't know who this Denis Diderot is but he sure is dummer than I thought. Imagine indeed if there would be 'No Government'. Do you really think all these miljard of people who live together like it's no big deal? Do you really think everybody will get better, will have food, clothes, a roof above his head. No!

Mankind always looks up to someone. Being a baby it's your parants, being at school it are your mates, being at work it's that one dude who saves the whole project and so on. Of course this is not how all people think, since you are probably one of them :) But for the greater good of all these people I really think governments are the key.

Even look at the animal kingdom. All large repesentative mamals live in packts following rules or alone, ALSO knowning the rules about territory and more.

mips
February 16th, 2006, 12:10 PM
The problem with mankind is that it is to lazy to think for itself and pretty happy to be told what to do or be influenced in subtle ways.

Why must the people be governed ? I understand the need for laws and social structure. I think 'government' lost its meaning somewhere along the line.

This is pretty much a result of our upbringing/education and influences of control.

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 12:18 PM
That is true but we do have a right to regulate how much involvement US companies have with China's censorship.


Unfortunately, not true. There is no legal authority to control how other countries conduct their buisiness, or to dictate the conditions of how companies in YOUR country can work in another countries legal framework.
You can ban your country's buisinesses from dealing with other countries, but you cannot tell a company "You can't follow the laws of another country while doing buisiness in that country".
Effectively, you're saying that you have to follow American law when dealing in other countries, automatically supercedeing the other country's laws and regulations - no matter what.

The truth is, unfortunately, you have to follow BOTH American law AND Chinese law and both countries' restrictions at the same time. I.E. If both countries require you to pay tax, you have to pay both countries' taxes. If one country says you can't say or do a certain thing, but the other does not regulate it - then you cannot do that thing. If they conflict you will unfortunately either have to break one of the laws in one of the countries (or both of them) or you will have to cease trading in that country.

It's not UnAmerican to censor your publications or broadcasts when meeting other countries' restrictions - it's actually the LAW that you MUST do so, or face the penalties in that other country...

I realise that a lot of Americans are miffed that Yahoo et al are pandering to dictatorships whims and demands, but that's the breaks. The alternative is not to trade in those countries whatsoever. And trust me - superpower or not - not trading in China at all (or Belarus, etc etc.) would hurt America quite badly in the current climate where polarisation of the Cold War is no longer the rule.

BoyOfDestiny
February 16th, 2006, 12:22 PM
Well this thread, still not in the backyard yet...
Anyway, here it is, for those interested in pointing out the U.S is full of hypocrisy and thus should not criticize or interfere, this disturbs me. First off let me say I've been hypocritical at times. Know someone who isn't? The point is that you don't care about the issues at hand. It is fun to just play the blame game instead of actually making a difference. If you want people to say, ok the U.S is an empire, it is. Let's move on.

Whether corporations and companies should work with countries that violate human rights (if even said country violates them too!) is the issue. It is indeed odd since when I go to the university store, I cannot find any clothes not made in China. It's quite possible the workers were not paid a fair wage, and a dozen of them piled in one room to sleep.
So what to do? Boycott? Stop trade? The economy here depends greatly on China (which bugs me).
It is really REALLY easy to see what is wrong. I'd be hard pressed to offer a good solution. I don't have one that doesn't involve destroying alarm clocks and loving everybody.

As for free speech, it is "limited", not truly free. I'm sure I'd get in trouble burning a flag let's say. In China you could get in trouble for talking about a certain place (square), free Tibet, democracy, etc.

Go to google.cn and search. I rather have all the information available, isn't it nice you can look up historical "foul ups", or would you prefer propaganda only?

I'm not saying Google should force free expression in China (although I'd prefer to make the protection weak/easily bypassable), they should just not contribute. They would lose cash, and a Chinese based search engine would take it's place. The argument is the information they can offer is helpful (not sure what that means.)

Anyway, I apologize for the long rant, there are people in China that do revolt, I have a feeling they can do it without outside influence. So in the end what is my suggestion? Well, I love the idea of free speech (rather free information) as much as I do free software. I would not want to force anyones' hand, but if this post pisses off some government somewhere, I can't help but smile a little. ;)

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 01:08 PM
Keep telling yourself that but at least we do not jail and torture political dissidents.

Unless they are turned over to the American military by paid bounty hunters as radical Islamic terrorists and members of Al Quaeda. THEN they jail and torture (no - sorry - interrogate them), and imprison them without any charges or trial as "enemy combatants" in violation of either the Geneva Conventions (and associated US Laws) or American laws of habeus corpus etc.
Let's be frank - or at least honest with ourSELVES. Americans practice censorship all the time internally and externally to suit their own interests. Americans are willing to go to war on the flimsiest - or even blatantly false - pretexts to distract from problems at home, to topple unfavorable or undesirable governments, or to gain valuable resources by the right of conquest. To go against these practices labels one as "UnAmerican" ironically. These practices also take place in both in news broadcasts (claiming they are "militarily significant" and therefore classifying them) and in buisiness practices.

Americans are happy to label others as restricting free speech whilst doing the same. But Americans aren't evil. Americans aren't bad people. Americans are protecting their own interests. Americans are advancing their way of life. Americans are destroying their enemies. Americans are just normal people in a normal powerful country.

This is the same as every other country in the world is doing and has done since the times of Hammurabi and earlier. Any objective student of history would say the same. The British did it when they had an empire, the Chinese, Japanese, Indian subcontinent, Egyptians, Jews, Russians, Aztecs, Iroquois Nation, all of these and more carried out these practices at their peak and still do. They probably always will.
Large, powerful nations and empires operate this way. They have to, to maintain their viability. American isn't evil. They also aren't any better than any other large nations in this respect. About average, I'd say.
Let's put it this way: when was the last time a nation like, say, Argentina got expansionist - 1980 in the Falklands? How about Brazil?
Some are better, some are worse.

In regards to America not starting wars themselves, Oil in Iraq, etc.

The Kuwaiti government was (is) a monarchial dictatorship. It's borders were arranged by its previous empirical owners, the UK. Its royal family was appointed from the head tribal leader in its borders at that time. The Kuwaiti government's biggest customer in the world was the US. So of course, the US asked Kuwait, "Would you like us to kick out Saddam Hussain for you... you'll end up in chains or worse in an Iraqi prison if you don't of course?" The short answer for that one, I'll leave you to work out for yourself...

That preserver of justice and democracy - America - did they install a democracy or even a parlimentary monarchy? Nope - just reinstalled the monarchy. Why? Because it suited their purposes to keep a grateful, compliant, and most importantly willing king installed who would continue to deal with America and the UK on an a priori basis.

As for oil in Iraq - Where is all the Iraqi oil going then? Is it seeping into the ground? Is it being donated to the poor of the world? Is it being flown to China to deal with thier energy shortcomings, thereby allowing the poor of the country to become richer and create a larger middle class and undermine the communist dictatorship (a la American policy at this point)?

Previous to the war, Iraq was not allowed to deal in oil except on a limited oil-for-food basis. NOW all that lovely oil is readily available for any buyer.

Who is the largest importer and consumer of oil in the world?
Why do you think not a drop of this oil goes to America, for it is utterly unfathomable that anyone could think such a thing? Is this your honest belief?

I am not saying that it is being given free of charge, or stolen from Iraq as some sort of ghanima. That would be UnAmerican, and would not create any new oil barons reliant on the oil teat of America as a customer. But anyone who thinks that a larger, cheaper oil supply and driving a grateful new neuveau riche class in Iraq to suck up to America instead of a monomaniacal dictator is not a long-term goal has been taking too much of that funny grass from below the kitchen window to smoke, methinks.

As far as companies trading in undesirable locations such as China:
China is now the 4th largest economy in the world (and not very far AT ALL behind #3 - and growing rapidly!) Not trading OPENLY in such a climate is tantamount to not trading with OPEC, or Europe!
This would seriously injure the US economy, which would probably drive another depression.
This depression would of course only be driven off by another sizable war (not the piddly little Iraq conflict either...)
Historically, the only proven and effective method of ending depressions (i.e. 1810s, 1860s, 1910s, 1930s) in modern civilizations is due to a large regional or global conflict. It has been posited that every war for the last 200+ years can be traced to an attempt to either distract from local problems in one of the antagonist contries/empires or a deliberate attempt to incite war to end a recession.
Let me state this clearly: NO recession of any size worth the name has been ended by government policy in the US. Every last one in the last 100 years has required a large conflict, commensurate with the size of the recession/depression. Cast the mind back, and see for yourself.

Ergo -NOT trading with these nations would cause war - bot not in the way that most would think.

Stormy Eyes
February 16th, 2006, 01:50 PM
For instance who looks after the weak if a gov is not in place.

Let those who care look after the weak. Do you honestly think the government cares about protecting anybody but itself?

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 02:10 PM
As for free speech, it is "limited", not truly free. I'm sure I'd get in trouble burning a flag let's say. In China you could get in trouble for talking about a certain place (square), free Tibet, democracy, etc.

I think you'll find the Supreme Court ruled that burning a flag is in fact not illegal. It'll still get you a proper butt-kicking in Dallas, Texas though I betcha.

You'd be much better off just putting a rant in a blog - though maybe not on Yahoo say... ;-)

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 02:23 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4523825.stm

Have a look at America "not" torturing its political prisoners...

'Nuff sed.

In a related story on the BBC, apparently the treatment of the prisoners on the site "has not affected the numbers of hunger strikers. The numbers have just fluctuated..."

Of course they have.

BoyOfDestiny
February 16th, 2006, 02:30 PM
I think you'll find the Supreme Court ruled that burning a flag is in fact not illegal. It'll still get you a proper butt-kicking in Dallas, Texas though I betcha.

You'd be much better off just putting a rant in a blog - though maybe not on Yahoo say... ;-)

Thanks for the info.

BoyOfDestiny
February 16th, 2006, 02:35 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4523825.stm

Have a look at America "not" torturing its political prisoners...

'Nuff sed.

In a related story on the BBC, apparently the treatment of the prisoners on the site "has not affected the numbers of hunger strikers. The numbers have just fluctuated..."

Of course they have.

:( Sad but true.

I'd recommend reading Stallman's page.. You know, Richard Stallman of the GPL and free software.

His "political notes" section makes extremely good reading.
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2005-nov-feb.html

Main page: http://www.stallman.org/

Malphas
February 16th, 2006, 02:53 PM
Whatever criticisms you might have over the US government (and there are plenty of valid ones) there are places that are a lot worse. And frankly it disgusts me that IT companies are happily co-operating with China's attempts at censorship and limiting its citizens' free speech.

Sirin
February 16th, 2006, 03:02 PM
Actually, it is not only China, but all communist countries. Russia, Notrh Korea, Cuba... They all want you thinking about them, instead of yourself. Check out the 'Tiananmen' images on both the US site and China site. ;)

Just check out the atached image below.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:27 PM
Americans are happy to label others as restricting free speech whilst doing the same. But Americans aren't evil. Americans aren't bad people. Americans are protecting their own interests. Americans are advancing their way of life. Americans are destroying their enemies. Americans are just normal people in a normal powerful country.

This is true. I don't want to give off the impression that I believe the US is perfect. I just believe it is not as bad as China and many other Governments around the world and the way they treat their own citizens.


The Kuwaiti government's biggest customer in the world was the US.

If you do a little research you will find the US only gets a small percentage of oil from the Middle east. It is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to 5%. The rest of our imported oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.


As for oil in Iraq - Where is all the Iraqi oil going then? Is it seeping into the ground? Is it being donated to the poor of the world? Is it being flown to China to deal with thier energy shortcomings, thereby allowing the poor of the country to become richer and create a larger middle class and undermine the communist dictatorship (a la American policy at this point)?

Actually the New Iraqi Government has made this decision since they are now in control of their Oil Industry. I am sure there was some pressure from the US diplomat for them to do so.


Who is the largest importer and consumer of oil in the world?
Why do you think not a drop of this oil goes to America, for it is utterly unfathomable that anyone could think such a thing? Is this your honest belief?

It is not what I think but it is well published information that Iraqi oil goes to Russia and China. Almost all of the imported Oil in the United States comes from our own hemisphere. It may be possible we might recieve a very small amount of oil from Iraq but it is not enough to justify going half way across the world to start a war. No nation is above starting a war if it feels it needs more natural resources but if this was the reason the US went to war in Iraq then it sure was a waste of money when all we had to do was invade Venzuela and Canada. Then we would have had all the oil we could want right at our doorstep.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 04:32 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4523825.stm

Have a look at America "not" torturing its political prisoners...

'Nuff sed.

In a related story on the BBC, apparently the treatment of the prisoners on the site "has not affected the numbers of hunger strikers. The numbers have just fluctuated..."

Of course they have.

Trying to equate terrorist who are trying kill us to political dissidents is absurd. Besides, I was talking about how a Government treats it's own people who are political dissidents. The US does not imprison or torture it's own citzens who express dissent with the Government.

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Hello!

Ah! An astute political debater... exxxxcellent! :-)

You must bear in mind that a supply of oil is not just about the physical volume but 2 other factors as well:
1) Percieved market stability
2) Actual market value

The actual price of oil (and the HUGE world economy based upon it) is based on these 3 factors.
A) If there is very little actual oil, the price soars.
B) If the market is percieved as unstable (either in availability, cost or overall stock market or the attached oil economy - i.e. utilities/car makers/wars, etc.) then the price soars.
C) If the actual cost of production or delivery climbs, the cost also obviously climbs.

Essentially, if there is a large influx of supply on the world market, the price of production and/or supply drops, and the overall market and world stability solidifies then the price of oil drops.
One way to acheive the above is to reintroduce a large oil source into the market, a source seen to be from a stable, non-dictatorship run country with an open market - particularly when that involves an overall reduction in world and stockmarket tension. And the obvious way to acheive this is to overthrow the government in the region with a large oil supply, which has been known to destabalise the region and is run by a slightly crackpot dictator.
This also ends the area's Iran/Iraq in one fell swoop (stabalising the area again - and the stock market) while having the similtaneous effect of distracting everyone from the little issues occurring back home.


Trying to equate terrorist who are trying kill us to political dissidents is absurd. Besides, I was talking about how a Government treats it's own people who are political dissidents. The US does not imprison or torture it's own citzens who express dissent with the Government.

Ah - you missed my point slightly: The people in Guantanamo Bay are almost to a man people handed over by bounty hunters as 'members of Al Quaeda'. A fair number of them have not actually been definitely IDed and NONE of them have been arrested by the legal definition (save that of "might makes right"), charged or convicted of ANYTHING in some 18 months. They haven't actually been accused of trying to kill ANYONE at this time. If they were POWs they'd have been tried or released by now. If they are NOT POWs then they should have been released after 72 hours (or whatever new time limit has been whipped up for "terrorists" now since 9-11).

The US does not imprison or torture it's own citizens for being political dissidents. Just other countries' citizens - like the 3 British citizens it held for 13 months until the UK government got them released... without charges – or compensation.

I want you to imagine what would happen if the UK did the same thing: put up a huge bounty, then gathered 500 or so people and put them in - say - Jersey, or the West Bank, and let the SAS work them over for 18 months without charging them. Now let's imagine that 3 Americans were mixed in with them.
Would America stand for it? Would they scream and scream until they were sick?
Would they do the same if France did it? How about Israel?
Would they declare war to get their citizens back?
Does the level of anger and revulsion depend on which country is holding these people? Does it vary if the Americans are replaced with Brits? Mexicans? Hindu Indians? Russians? Portuguese? Maltese? Jamaicans? French Muslims? Canadian Muslims?

Can you not see this is hypocrisy, and these people MUST be either charged and given a trial or released and compensated? Can you not see a future, less rosy-spectacled administration charging a former administration with war crimes for this amongst other things if this goes horribly, terribly wrong – if only to clear their administrations OWN names?
Can you see them NOT charging a former administration if it doesn’t go wrong, again to cover their own butts?

It's no good going on about how democratic America is if they just drop it when the shoe’s on THEIR feet.
It's no good complaining about Iraq's former government torturing people and holding them without charge if they do the same, using all sorts of legal justifications to clear their consciences and courtrooms of blame.
What if some of the people dumped into Guantanamo had been Americans? Would they have been taken immediately to America to stand trial? THAT IS HYPOCRISY.

These questions are for people to search their own minds. What if one of these people had been a friend’s brother?
A second cousin?
Your father?
You?
But they are not – they are people you will never meet or know. But if the same had happened to YOUR countrymen, you would not be silently sitting by.
The reason there aren’t armed Special Forces soldiers breaking them out right now, war being declared, and worldwide sanctions being levied is simply that everyone is scared of America. You all know it’s true, if you search your minds.
This is law by rule of force. And anyone who says that it is just, justice or justified is speaking as a victor – “n. one who wins a conflict, war, or contest”, not a purveyor of Right and Democracy.
You are speaking as someone who says “Democracy is freedom for those who win, and servitude for those who lose. It is peace and plenty for people who are powerful, and war and poverty if you are not.”

All the stabilisation of Iraq and the securing of a large source of oil has cost is tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US, British and other allied lives. That's all.
By the way, what timeline does the US have to leave Afganistan and Iraq? Let me think...

Give you three guesses.

If Saddam had WON his war, or the Taliban had won theirs I have no doubt that far worse would be occurring in those countries now then in Cuba.
But no one would be justifying THEIR actions - ESPECIALLY America.

This whole thing has turned into a nightmare. America has properly soiled her hands properly - using cheap rationalizations - for the first time. It has overthrown 2 governments and is supporting the fragile puppet governments with might of arms alone.
I've no intention the theories involved were solid, that the plans were solid and the goals were golden and worthy. But they failed.
The theories were wrong - the Iraqis don't WANT democracy (America style). Democracy means that the people choose their OWN government, and a large portion of the population wants the former Baath party to run the country. And whether America likes them or or not is immaterial, because democracy runs on majority rules and minority rights.
The former Afgan government was essentially molded and supported by Pakistan and the US into what they became. Their Islamic fundementalism was the vehicle by which they controlled the people they ruled - i.e. the Taliban. It was a group of warlords armed and trained by these 2 governments - and they won. However, the final product was not to America's liking so the rival groups in Afganistan have replaced them.
Does anyone think that this is now a moderate, America-friendly place now? They have held strong Muslim, anti-Christian beliefs for almost 1000 years. The moment the US government's back is turned... the same thing will happen as to the Persian, Turkish, British, and Russian governments previously.

You can't just crush a people and expect them to be grateful unless you kill every single person left who liked, supported or worked with the previous regime. Unless you march around with guns for the next 200 years.

For examples: see Ireland, North.
Ireland was owned by the UK for about 500 years. 2/3s of it was given independance in the 30's. The rest is still owned by the UK - and it's still not a very popular place for UK soldiers to be based. This is after some 500 years... look at it people - seriously.

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 05:40 PM
Hello!

Ah! An astute political debater... exxxxcellent! :-)

You must bear in mind that a supply of oil is not just about the physical volume but 2 other factors as well:
1) Percieved market stability
2) Actual market value

The actual price of oil (and the HUGE world economy based upon it) is based on these 3 factors.
A) If there is very little actual oil, the price soars.
B) If the market is percieved as unstable (either in availability, cost or overall stock market or the attached oil economy - i.e. utilities/car makers/wars, etc.) then the price soars.
C) If the actual cost of production or delivery climbs, the cost also obviously climbs.

Essentially, if there is a large influx of supply on the world market, the price of production and/or supply drops, and the overall market and world stability solidifies then the price of oil drops.
One way to acheive the above is to reintroduce a large oil source into the market, a source seen to be from a stable, non-dictatorship run country with an open market - particularly when that involves an overall reduction in world and stockmarket tension. And the obvious way to acheive this is to overthrow the government in the region with a large oil supply, which has been known to destabalise the region and is run by a slightly crackpot dictator.
This also ends the area's Iran/Iraq in one fell swoop (stabalising the area again - and the stock market) while having the similtaneous effect of distracting everyone from the little issues occurring back home.

Very well put. You have a great understanding of how the World's economy works. I am sure this was a motivating factor when it was decided to overthrow Saddaam. Just as Russia's, France's and Germany's economic holdings were there primary factor in opposing the war.

ygarl
February 16th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Precisely!
Not to mention they may not have liked the idea of toppling another government for political or economic gain...

Also - who wants to strengthen a rival nation?

Empire builders of the world... There you go!

Now - if only I understood the Kernal as well as oil economies, historical political science and anthopology! LOL
:-)

mips
February 16th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Trying to equate terrorist who are trying kill us to political dissidents is absurd. Besides, I was talking about how a Government treats it's own people who are political dissidents. The US does not imprison or torture it's own citzens who express dissent with the Government.


So not being a USA citizen makes it OK ???

I'm pretty sure the US government are trying to promulgate laws that will allow the indefinate detension without charge/trial of even US citizen that are 'considered' to be terrorists. Dont know if this will actually work, I hope not.

mips
February 16th, 2006, 09:53 PM
The US does not imprison or torture it's own citizens for being political dissidents. Just other countries' citizens - like the 3 British citizens it held for 13 months until the UK government got them released... without charges – or compensation.

I want you to imagine what would happen if the UK did the same thing: put up a huge bounty, then gathered 500 or so people and put them in - say - Jersey, or the West Bank, and let the SAS work them over for 18 months without charging them. Now let's imagine that 3 Americans were mixed in with them.
Would America stand for it? Would they scream and scream until they were sick?
Would they do the same if France did it? How about Israel?
Would they declare war to get their citizens back?
Does the level of anger and revulsion depend on which country is holding these people? Does it vary if the Americans are replaced with Brits? Mexicans? Hindu Indians? Russians? Portuguese? Maltese? Jamaicans? French Muslims? Canadian Muslims?


"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ..."

It's got nothing to do with law or principles. Kinda like Hitlers word, not worth the paper it was written on...

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 11:13 PM
So not being a USA citizen makes it OK ???

I'm pretty sure the US government are trying to promulgate laws that will allow the indefinate detension without charge/trial of even US citizen that are 'considered' to be terrorists. Dont know if this will actually work, I hope not.

I'm not saying it is ok. I am just pointing out the one big difference between China and the US is how each country treats it's own citizens.

On your second point, the Constitution actually allows detention of American Citizens during a time of war if they are a threat to the national security of the country without a trial. The Supreme Court has upheld this a number of times in the nations history. The major problem I have of detaining citizens without a trial or charges right now is we are not in a declared state of emergency or war. Yet the Supreme court has upheld so far the right of the administration to do just that. I believe that is a failure of all three branches of Government to uphold the Constitution of the US. But detaining a known terrorist that is a US citizen is far different than detaining someone who expresses political dissent. Also the few citizens that are being detained are not being tortured as also happens in China with it's citizens.

mips
February 16th, 2006, 11:36 PM
Average citizens are being detained currently. Lots of photographers have been briefly detained & questioned for taking photographs in public of bridges, government buildings etc. Reasoning, they could be terrorists ?

I honestly think it's just something the US government is doing to make it's citizens think it is proactive although the reasoning is absurd. No questions asked if you have a phone camera or point & shoot but pull out a SLR and you raise eyebrowse. If I was a hostile I would not even bother with a camera, one press of a button on a GPS unit is much more accurate info :rolleyes:

mstlyevil
February 16th, 2006, 11:41 PM
Ah - you missed my point slightly: The people in Guantanamo Bay are almost to a man people handed over by bounty hunters as 'members of Al Quaeda'. A fair number of them have not actually been definitely IDed and NONE of them have been arrested by the legal definition (save that of "might makes right"), charged or convicted of ANYTHING in some 18 months. They haven't actually been accused of trying to kill ANYONE at this time. If they were POWs they'd have been tried or released by now. If they are NOT POWs then they should have been released after 72 hours (or whatever new time limit has been whipped up for "terrorists" now since 9-11).

The US does not imprison or torture it's own citizens for being political dissidents. Just other countries' citizens - like the 3 British citizens it held for 13 months until the UK government got them released... without charges – or compensation.

I want you to imagine what would happen if the UK did the same thing: put up a huge bounty, then gathered 500 or so people and put them in - say - Jersey, or the West Bank, and let the SAS work them over for 18 months without charging them. Now let's imagine that 3 Americans were mixed in with them.
Would America stand for it? Would they scream and scream until they were sick?
Would they do the same if France did it? How about Israel?
Would they declare war to get their citizens back?
Does the level of anger and revulsion depend on which country is holding these people? Does it vary if the Americans are replaced with Brits? Mexicans? Hindu Indians? Russians? Portuguese? Maltese? Jamaicans? French Muslims? Canadian Muslims?

Can you not see this is hypocrisy, and these people MUST be either charged and given a trial or released and compensated? Can you not see a future, less rosy-spectacled administration charging a former administration with war crimes for this amongst other things if this goes horribly, terribly wrong – if only to clear their administrations OWN names?
Can you see them NOT charging a former administration if it doesn’t go wrong, again to cover their own butts?

It's no good going on about how democratic America is if they just drop it when the shoe’s on THEIR feet.
It's no good complaining about Iraq's former government torturing people and holding them without charge if they do the same, using all sorts of legal justifications to clear their consciences and courtrooms of blame.
What if some of the people dumped into Guantanamo had been Americans? Would they have been taken immediately to America to stand trial? THAT IS HYPOCRISY.

These questions are for people to search their own minds. What if one of these people had been a friend’s brother?
A second cousin?
Your father?
You?
But they are not – they are people you will never meet or know. But if the same had happened to YOUR countrymen, you would not be silently sitting by.
The reason there aren’t armed Special Forces soldiers breaking them out right now, war being declared, and worldwide sanctions being levied is simply that everyone is scared of America. You all know it’s true, if you search your minds.
This is law by rule of force. And anyone who says that it is just, justice or justified is speaking as a victor – “n. one who wins a conflict, war, or contest”, not a purveyor of Right and Democracy.
You are speaking as someone who says “Democracy is freedom for those who win, and servitude for those who lose. It is peace and plenty for people who are powerful, and war and poverty if you are not.”

All the stabilisation of Iraq and the securing of a large source of oil has cost is tens of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of US, British and other allied lives. That's all.
By the way, what timeline does the US have to leave Afganistan and Iraq? Let me think...

Give you three guesses.

If Saddam had WON his war, or the Taliban had won theirs I have no doubt that far worse would be occurring in those countries now then in Cuba.
But no one would be justifying THEIR actions - ESPECIALLY America.

This whole thing has turned into a nightmare. America has properly soiled her hands properly - using cheap rationalizations - for the first time. It has overthrown 2 governments and is supporting the fragile puppet governments with might of arms alone.
I've no intention the theories involved were solid, that the plans were solid and the goals were golden and worthy. But they failed.
The theories were wrong - the Iraqis don't WANT democracy (America style). Democracy means that the people choose their OWN government, and a large portion of the population wants the former Baath party to run the country. And whether America likes them or or not is immaterial, because democracy runs on majority rules and minority rights.
The former Afgan government was essentially molded and supported by Pakistan and the US into what they became. Their Islamic fundementalism was the vehicle by which they controlled the people they ruled - i.e. the Taliban. It was a group of warlords armed and trained by these 2 governments - and they won. However, the final product was not to America's liking so the rival groups in Afganistan have replaced them.
Does anyone think that this is now a moderate, America-friendly place now? They have held strong Muslim, anti-Christian beliefs for almost 1000 years. The moment the US government's back is turned... the same thing will happen as to the Persian, Turkish, British, and Russian governments previously.

You can't just crush a people and expect them to be grateful unless you kill every single person left who liked, supported or worked with the previous regime. Unless you march around with guns for the next 200 years.

For examples: see Ireland, North.
Ireland was owned by the UK for about 500 years. 2/3s of it was given independance in the 30's. The rest is still owned by the UK - and it's still not a very popular place for UK soldiers to be based. This is after some 500 years... look at it people - seriously.

I agree with you it is hypocrisy that non citizens are held indefinitely with out a trial or charges. I also believe much of the critizism of how the US is handling these prisoners is legitimate. I personally believe that these individuals if the evidence against them is sound should be turned over to the international courts for trial or released if they can not connect them to criminal activity. This type of thing is always the end result when a nation is attacked on it's own soil. It doesn't neccessarily make it right but it is typical. During WWII, Japaneese both citizens and residents were rounded up and held in containment camps until the end of the war. This had popular support of the public but was still wrong because it unneccesarily deprived a whole race of people their civil rights based simply on their nationality alone. The Patriot Act was a knee jerk reaction to 9-11 that members of both parties supported and the public in large stood behind. It is human nature to over react when one feels threatend with harm at the hand of another. This is exactly what the US is going through right now and the people of this country are slowly waking up to see it for what it is. That is bad policy is enacted as a response to a threat to national security and safety. Any nation that experiences that type of act is going to respond in an irrational manner.