For you that wanted USA to invade Iraq, suck on this..

[Driwen]

I was referring to the way in which Spain have allowed themselves to be manipulated.

still spain shouldnt be bashed in the papers for that. Papers should bring news and repeating the same subjective stuff so people cant make up their own mind.

Besides the spanish people never wanted to help out in Iraq and in the next election that got set right. If the goverment before the election had played fair (not making the media "lie" about it) and enforced the need to not let a bombing decide your opinion than maybe the soldiers would have stayed. However the current goverment had already decided to move the troops out of Iraq months before the bombing and as I dont have any real links nor access to any spanish media, cant really tell you how the bombing effected the election. However I dont think it was a clear case that it manipulated the vote towards the party who wanted out.

 

[Bodhi]

UK would be the poorest US's State, the only state where people vote for a socialist leader, etc. This would also mean no right to have your own opinion (you can have your own opinion in the EU). You're too european to be american. Just travel in Europe and you will realize that it's all the same except languages. And I really don't think Americans want you in their country. They are nice with UK atm because you're helping them to save money in Iraq war. But as soon as you may have your own opinion they will bash you (just as they are bashing Spain in US newspapers atm).

Can't have your own opinion in the U.S? You mean the country founded on free speech? Every heard of the First Amendment?

The irony/stupidity of this comment is highlighted by the initial link in this thread. Complaints about the lack of free speech in the United States, after Donald Rumsfeld was censored in the video to look like a muppet. Catch yourselves on you dribbling morons.

 

[Wij]

Can't have your own opinion in the U.S? You mean the country founded on free speech? Every heard of the First Amendment?

The irony/stupidity of this comment is highlighted by the initial link in this thread. Complaints about the lack of free speech in the United States, after Donald Rumsfeld was censored in the video to look like a muppet. Catch yourselves on you dribbling morons.

Have to agree here. If there's one thing you can't knock the USA for it's lack of free speech. Any old moron can get on telly or make a website over there. EU states are for more paternalistic. And let's not even mention Iraq under Saddam k.

 

[xane]

Besides the spanish people never wanted to help out in Iraq and in the next election that got set right. ... However I dont think it was a clear case that it manipulated the vote towards the party who wanted out.

I have to agree, the Spanish decision to support the Iraq war was very blatently against public opinion.

However, I actually think the outgoing government would have lost by even more had the bombings not happened at all. I expected the opposition to sweep into power as they openly opposed the war and would have had the popular vote, but as such their victory was not absolute and in fact the increased voter turnout (in support of defiance of the bombings) would not have helped that.

There would have been some manipulation, but I don't think it helped the opposition to the war, more against it.

 

[Driwen]

Have to agree here. If there's one thing you can't knock the USA for it's lack of free speech. Any old moron can get on telly or make a website over there. EU states are for more paternalistic. And let's not even mention Iraq under Saddam k.

the problem is that the large news networks do censor themself about certain topics though. You can say whatever you want, but the big networks wont air it as it doesnt sell well(atleast that seems to be one of the reasons).

 

[Wij]

Maybe it doesn't sell but that's going to be the same in any country. You can say what you like though. Just that not many will listen

 

[Damon_D]

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Nuff said, i hope you feel slapped in the face...

Edit: And if you have a relative or anyone you know that are soldiers down there i just want you to know that i think they are murderers not freedom fighters or wtf you want to call them.

Peace.

IMHO they should just nuke the feeker's and get it over with, and if YOU have any relatives or know someone down there then TOUGH LUCK !!!!

 

[mr.Blacky]

I have to agree, the Spanish decision to support the Iraq war was very blatently against public opinion.

However, I actually think the outgoing government would have lost by even more had the bombings not happened at all. I expected the opposition to sweep into power as they openly opposed the war and would have had the popular vote, but as such their victory was not absolute and in fact the increased voter turnout (in support of defiance of the bombings) would not have helped that.

There would have been some manipulation, but I don't think it helped the opposition to the war, more against it.

Actually from what I hear the rulling party would have won, also if it would have been the ETA instead of mostlikely All Quada the government would have won. Don't get me wrong the support for the Iraq war was low, but I doubt that for many it would have been a reason to change their vote, but a threat to ones life takes to change that.

 

[Ning]

Can't have your own opinion in the U.S? You mean the country founded on free speech? Every heard of the First Amendment?

I was speaking about UK (as a State) and not about individual rights. For example : no control on money (end of the £).

 

[Driwen]

Actually from what I hear the rulling party would have won, also if it would have been the ETA instead of mostlikely All Quada the government would have won. Don't get me wrong the support for the Iraq war was low, but I doubt that for many it would have been a reason to change their vote, but a threat to ones life takes to change that.

or the fact that the bombing put Iraq back as a hot topic for the election. Not directly because of danger of their life, but because people "remembered" it was the goverment party who wanted to go to Iraq, while the people didnt and the fact that the goverment party wanted the media to withhold information about Al Qaeda being the possible bandits probably didnt help either.

Anyway as Spain going to Iraq in the first place has already pointed out that the goverment is the one who makes the decisions and the now ruling party didnt get manipulated by terrorists and only during elections can they be punished or rewarded for their decisions (assuming nothing weird happens in the mean time and spanish democracy system works similar to mine/british/etc).

 

[Krazeh]

Can't have your own opinion in the U.S? You mean the country founded on free speech? Every heard of the First Amendment?

The irony/stupidity of this comment is highlighted by the initial link in this thread. Complaints about the lack of free speech in the United States, after Donald Rumsfeld was censored in the video to look like a muppet. Catch yourselves on you dribbling morons.

And how much free speech do people who are of arabic descent and muslims get? Do you honestly believe all the people the US are holding for an unspecified period in guantanamo bay are guilty of acts of terrorism?
The US allows you to have your own opinion as long as it roughly follows the thinking of the state.

And if you want more proof take a look at the FCC, they fine people for being "indecent" on tv/radio, how can it be a country of free speech if you can get fined for sayin something that some people don't agree with? And on top of that they're thinking of tryin to regulate cable and satellite transmissions as well as terrestial broadcasts.
Hardly a country where you are free to say what you want and have your own opinion about things.

 

[n00b]

IMHO they should just nuke the feeker's and get it over with, and if YOU have any relatives or know someone down there then TOUGH LUCK !!!!

damn retard, read my other posts....

 

[xane]

And if you want more proof take a look at the FCC, they fine people for being "indecent" on tv/radio, how can it be a country of free speech if you can get fined for sayin something that some people don't agree with? And on top of that they're thinking of tryin to regulate cable and satellite transmissions as well as terrestial broadcasts.
Hardly a country where you are free to say what you want and have your own opinion about things.

You have a rather bizarre idea of what "free speech" is. I can tell what it is not, it is not "I can do what the fuck I damn well like, mate".

Yes, the US goverment expects it's citizens to toe the line, that line being the respect for the freedom and liberty of the individual, not only yourself, but other fellow citizens. Whilst the government supports your right to a free opinion, it does not necessarily support your right to swamp other people's opinions or to impose your opinion upon them.

You can voice whatever you like without fear of prosecution, but that does not mean you can go on national television and incite hatred. If your opinion is likely to upset someone (thereby denying their liberties), then it gets banned, whether its an exposed nipple or a racist diatribe.

Freedom of speech demands responsibility for what you say, if you abuse that or overstep the mark, then the government has to come down on the side of those you are oppressing.

Regulation is not censorship. The video clip linked at the beginning of the thread is a good example, a senior government member is being openly criticised on national television, so how can you argue that the US is restricting "free speech" ?!

There are a lot of countries, typically those where the X-Ray detainees come from, that impose severe penalties, of imprisonment or even death, on its citizens who criticise the government or oppose its views. Ironically, whilst they might be languishing without trial they are afforded far more "freedom" than they might have in their own country.

 

[Stazbumpa]

1) Who would you (yes, YOU) consider to be a successful politician ?

2) Who would you consider to be a decent person that just happens to be an MP or Minister or whatnot ?

I presume this was directed at me.
Churchill, without a doubt, but then thats the only name I remember anyway.
As for the failure point I made, the first name I dropped, Mr Neil Kinnock, failed to be elected twice I think for the top job in this country.

Doesn't smack of success does it really? If he wasn't chosen to lead this country, why should he be in a position of power over us from another country?

One good thing he did was kick out the looney left in Labour, but then this paved the way for Tony Blair and his "New Labour" or rather "Tory Party Offshoot", so maybe its not that good after all.

As for Leon Brittan, I believe he was sacked by Thatcher for being shit at his job.

Both men now have job in the Euro Commission, the same body that is telling us what to do.

As for your second question, I don't really pay much attention to the Politicians themselves, just what they do. However, there are always nice people in every area of life, you just have to look.

For the record and while we're on the subject, the plight of Camp Xray prisoners doesn't bother me one bit. What the fuck were they doing in Afghanistan anyway?
Shopping?


PS: Xane has hit the nail on the head with his last post. Never a truer word spoken.

 

[Tom]

For the record and while we're on the subject, the plight of Camp Xray prisoners doesn't bother me one bit. What the fuck were they doing in Afghanistan anyway?
Shopping?

So, actually being in Afghanistan makes you a terrorist suspect? Perhaps some of them had family over there? Perhaps some were outrageous enough to be educated, and anti-war?

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so ignorant. Perhaps you should read what this guy has to say about his incarceration.

Even if any of them are guilty of terrorist activites, in a civilised society they are entitled to legal representation, and rights under the geneva convention. They are being denied both, which reflects very poorly on our 'civilised' outlook on life. How can we expect other people to believe what we say, when such hypocrasy exists?

 

[Tom]

Both men now have job in the Euro Commission, the same body that is telling us what to do.

Yeah, the same body that has a number of English MPs resident, who have a say in what goes on. Thats conveniently overlooked by those opposed to European unity.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Yeah, the same body that has a number of English MPs resident, who have a say in what goes on. Thats conveniently overlooked by those opposed to European unity.

And the British MEP's that work at the EU have been voted in unless I'm very much mistaken (Euro Elections, no?). Kinnock and Britton have NOT been voted in. I'm interested to know exactly who is elected to run the EU given that I didn't fucking vote for him/them.
Are they elected? Or is this a political body that isn't accountable to anyone (ie: the voters)?


As for X-Ray, I re-iterate that I could'nt care less. Logic and reason would dictate to me that when the USA and GB invade Afghanistan that its a very good idea NOT TO FUCKING GO THERE FFS.
I doubt very much that there are any purely civilian types who were quietly minding their own business, innocent of any combatant activity, before being captured and sent to Xray. And if they were educated anti war types, then they obviously ain't very well educated are they? The nature of the conflict in Afghanistan is way beyond their comprehension.
If there are, then thats too bad. Shit happens in war, and when a terrorist organisation is actively supported by the ruling government, it highly likely that innocents get caught in the cross fire.

But exactly how innocent are these people?

Even if some of the suspects are Taliban and not Al' Quaida, the fact that the Taliban supported Bin Laden would definately confuse the issue as to who exactly is who.
And of course these lovely individuals aren't lying at all are they? They couldn't possibly tell untruths about why they were in Afghanistan or why exactly they were holding that AK-47.
No thats the big bad western governments isn't it.

Don't make me laugh for fucks sake.



And besides, they are FAR better treated by the yanks at X-Ray than they ever would be by their own governments. Wasn't that the same government that was executing women in football stadiums for suspected adultery?
I believe that someone has already made this point though.

 

[Tom]

And besides, they are FAR better treated by the yanks at X-Ray than they ever would be by their own governments. Wasn't that the same government that was executing women in football stadiums for suspected adultery?
I believe that someone has already made this point though.

Thats shows the stupidity of your argument. It matters not how other nations treat their citizens, what is important is that we are seen to be fair, and honest, and standing by what we preach. What is going on at Camp Xray is appauling. They should be afforded legal status. If the Government can't prove their guilt, then they go free. Thats the price of freedom, taking a risk.

As for Europe, whats the problem exactly with unelected ministers? We have the very same system in this country, its called The Lords, and it works very well thankyou.

 

[xane]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so ignorant. Perhaps you should read what this guy has to say about his incarceration.

If you believe any of that, then I hardly think you are the one preaching to the ignorant.

 

[Tom]

If you believe any of that, then I hardly think you are the one preaching to the ignorant.

Its precisly the lack of information coming from the government that makes what he says more believable. Having met the guy, he hardly seemed like the kind of person to make it up for revenge. He just wanted to get on with his life.

 

[GekuL]

The Mirror have, like most tabloids, a "campaign" every now and then. They've picked camp x-ray as their current moral highground. Strange how they only seem to care about the human rights of the British prisoners though.
What the prisoners are allegating can not be corroborated remember. I am skeptical about their stories though, wtf were they doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Some claim they accidently crossed the border, while others say they purposefully went once they knew a war would start - not to fight, but to offer aid. Hmmm.
Camp X-ray no longer exists btw, that was a temporary installation while the new camp Delta was built.

 

[Bodhi]

I have no problem with what's going on in Guantanemo Bay - most of the inmates are terrorists, so deserve everything they get. Leave em there to rot for the rest of their lives without trial - surely the rights of a few terrorists are slightly less important than the continued existance of potentially thousands of innocant civilians?

 

[Deadmanwalking]

I have no problem with what's going on in Guantanemo Bay - most of the inmates are terrorists, so deserve everything they get. Leave em there to rot for the rest of their lives without trial - surely the rights of a few terrorists are slightly less important than the continued existance of potentially thousands of innocant civilians?

And if they arn't terrorists......

 

[xane]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/07/kerry.exley/index.html

 

[xane]

And if they arn't terrorists......

Allah will sort them out, then.

 

[fatbusinessman]

I have no problem with what's going on in Guantanemo Bay - most of the inmates are terrorists, so deserve everything they get.

Prove it.

Last I heard, 'innocent until proven guilty' was considered the proper way of doing things. One handy way of proving this would be with a public trial and legal counsel for the inmates; funnily enough, they're being denied this.

 

[Shovel]

True. But that only applies to natives and prisoners of war (probably). Guantanamo is full of "Illegal Combatants", which are of course entirely different...

While "war: right or wrong" is something I will remain undecided on until we all get blown up or otherwise, the whole Illegal Combatants issue made me feel sick. The immovable self righteousness of the American lawyers (sorry, politicians) as they implied that their new definition was legit over the well established "Free Man"/"Prisoner" distinction of old was saddening. ... and then they had the nerve to cry "Geneva Convention" when the Iraqis released film of the captured US troops.

I don't know if there is such a thing as a moral war. There probably is. But it appears that we (meaning the 'coalition') don't go in for things like that.

If we're going to fight wars - and sure getting rid of Saddam is a good thing - I really fucking wish we'd do them without all this bullshit. Discounting the militant pacifists, people do respond to a good cause. It's just that no one tried to sell us a good cause. They really wanted to call it something other than a war to stop people whinging, rather than being clean.

 

[Stazbumpa]

and then they had the nerve to cry "Geneva Convention" when the Iraqis released film of the captured US troops.

Yes, but I don't remember the yanks or Brits dragged dead Iraqi's through the streets and mutilating the bodies, do you?
The people in Delta (thanks for the correction GeKuL) sit in the unfortunate position of having been picked up during what was essentially an anti terrorist invasion. Terrorists aren't your normal military types in the slightest, so I can understand why the system that has been set is the way it is.
Bear in mind that despite the claims of these men in Delta, how the hell are we the uneducated masses supposed know if they're telling the truth and how to treat them given that these same men are quite prepared to blow themselves up for their god.

I really wish that the British Army had set up its own Camp Delta for IRA terrorists, and denied them legal representation for months on end, because thanks to our fair and just legal system most of the fuckers have been released and are now sat at home laughing their collective tits off at us.

Prove it.

Last I heard, 'innocent until proven guilty' was considered the proper way of doing things. One handy way of proving this would be with a public trial and legal counsel for the inmates; funnily enough, they're being denied this.

As I said before, these people are suspected of being the same types who strap bombs to themselves in the name of religion, and so to my mind applying the same set of rules that we enjoy in our free society just doesn't make sense. Don't forget, they are there for the purposes of interrogation and bringing lawyers in to represent them will only hinder the overall anti terrorist effort.
I mean how the hell are you supposed to interrogate a terrorist suspect and save lives when you have some dickhead in a suit telling him he doesn't have to answer anything?
Bear in mind the way the law works in free countries. The defence lawyer is there to protect the client, not the general public, which is why you see people getting off on technicalities when the entire planet knows they did it.
The law and lawyers sticking their oar in is the reason why wankers like Sheik Abu Hamza are still in this country living of our taxpayers money, whilst encouraging Muslims to kill westerners.

If we're going to fight wars - and sure getting rid of Saddam is a good thing - I really fucking wish we'd do them without all this bullshit. Discounting the militant pacifists, people do respond to a good cause. It's just that no one tried to sell us a good cause. They really wanted to call it something other than a war to stop people whinging, rather than being clean.

I sort of half agree with this. The reasons for going to war weren't totally bullshit, but they weren't correctly presented either. If the US and GB had said, "we want to get rid of Saddam because he COULD be making WMD and he's also murdering thousands of his own people" then the invasion would have never happened and the Iraqi's would still have Saddam as leader.
Why?
Because France, China and Russia were all quite happy to buy oil from the fucker and getting rid of him would've seriously upset their bank balances. Germany would never have gone along with it because, well, because they're German and the rest of the world would say "well he ain't no threat to us is he?"
So they went down the WMD route, which I reckon he had/has still got somewhere anyway. The anti war nations bleated on with no real alternative argument, given that most were trading with the bastard anyway, and so they were comfortably ignored.
End result = job done, now lets get the country running again.


Just my humble observations.

 

[Tom]

Bear in mind that despite the claims of these men in Delta, how the hell are we the uneducated masses supposed know if they're telling the truth and how to treat them given that these same men are quite prepared to blow themselves up for their god.

Because we're not allowed to see for ourselves. They are denied legal representation, so we can't assume they are being treated fairly, because we have no way of knowing.

I really wish that the British Army had set up its own Camp Delta for IRA terrorists, and denied them legal representation for months on end, because thanks to our fair and just legal system most of the fuckers have been released and are now sat at home laughing their collective tits off at us.

How can you judge a person guilty without a fair trial? Also, its not because of our legal system that they are free, its because of a political settlement designed to end many years of conflict.

As I said before, these people are suspected of being the same types who strap bombs to themselves in the name of religion, and so to my mind applying the same set of rules that we enjoy in our free society just doesn't make sense. Don't forget, they are there for the purposes of interrogation and bringing lawyers in to represent them will only hinder the overall anti terrorist effort.

I'm appauled that other people share this sentiment. It goes against everything that a free society is supposed to stand for, you cannot morally deny a person's right to fair treatment based on the severity of what you suspect him of doing. They are innocent, and will remain innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.

I mean how the hell are you supposed to interrogate a terrorist suspect and save lives when you have some dickhead in a suit telling him he doesn't have to answer anything?

Because thats the fairest way of deciding a person's guilt. The lawyer isn't a dickhead, a suspect has the right not to incriminate himself. If you deny them that right, you open the door to all kinds of dodgy confessions, and we don't want a return to those kind of injustices.

Bear in mind the way the law works in free countries. The defence lawyer is there to protect the client, not the general public, which is why you see people getting off on technicalities when the entire planet knows they did it.

Thats the point. You don't know if they did it. If the prosecution is unable to conclusively prove a person's guilt, then they must be found innocent. Its hard to swallow, but there have been more than a few injustices where presumed guilty people have been aquitted due to new evidence, or evidence that was not originally submitted in their trial.

The law and lawyers sticking their oar in is the reason why wankers like Sheik Abu Hamza are still in this country living of our taxpayers money, whilst encouraging Muslims to kill westerners.

Its got nothing to do with Lawyers, and everything to do with freedom of speech. If you don't like what he has to say, complain to your MP, write to your newspaper, don't just sit there mumbling. As soon as a person crosses the line and starts inciting hatred, the authorities can do something about it. Its the price of freedom, that others are able to say things you find unpalatable.

Germany would never have gone along with it because, well, because they're German <snip>

So now racism is now acceptable to bolster your argument?

 

[Driwen]

and the rest of the world would say "well he ain't no threat to us is he?

I dont know about other countries, but I do know that if the war on iraq was to free Saddam and it had a proper plan what to do after he was gone than the netherlands would probably have helped out.
As it was the UN didnt agree with it as the WMD thing was bullshit, there was no threat off those weapons to any western country and probably will never have been. If other reasons had been presented (like Saddam is a tyrant and should be removed for the protection of the Iraqi's (or for the rest of the middle east)) than the whole UN decision would have been different, but cant really predict what would have happened as I dont see any foreign media often enough to be able to do that.
Anyway for netherlands the lack of UN, the probable lack of planning what to do after the war and the reason of WMD were enough reasons to decide not to help in the war itself (but did help out protect Turkey and are helping out in Iraq since Saddam was removed). If there was no bullshit reason or more international support than the netherlands would have helped out in the war (allthough it probably wouldnt have meant more than we already did just now we would have risked soldiers life).