csdenmark

I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up. It is very likely Denmark and Italy very soon will leave the coalition of armed forces. I think something like by the end of this year. It is then very likely that Denmark will offer more humantarian aid, which is the normal way for scandinavians in armed conflicts. This means education in building civilian institutions like judicial system, police education, human right education. Such methods are those needed to bridge cultural differences. With fairly good results we have done so in some african nations. Unfortunately we have never tried in Cyprus but instead used that conflict as a solarium for danish youngsters.

No - I tend to the positiion it has been more interesting - at least potential to be so. To me all the bidding sequences makes no sense at all and I have always wondered why persons with intellectual capacity find any meaning of such. I am disappointed of the water cooler - as most topics there too seems of very little meaning. A few topics are of interest. Those which are able to reveal a bit of differences between cultures and general knowledge of people based on different sources of information. It is very interesting to see who are very active in posting in BBO Forum in general but have no posts at all in important topics in Water Cooler.

i prefer that view to thinking he is unfamiliar with posting his condition of contest This last not I have checked and stated here too. Dan is the one to blame here. In rules for the tourney they states that only complaints forwarded to their head-director are to be accepted. BBO Forum is simply wrong address for his complain. He is also asked to help them to improve their rules by contacting them. Looks like he has preferred to raise his problems here instead to those persons who have asked for them. That tourney has a very detailed set of rules uploaded. Much more than most tourney organizers.

I doubt very much anybody posting here have problems to understand the word 'moral' and the implications derived from that. To me this looks like a discussion of words instead of values. The value we put into a statement may differ - but not the word itself. At least danes know the comedy Erasmus Montanus, other countries may have similar way to express that. For those interested to know what Erasmus Montanus is about this is a link to a summary in english Maybe you have already guessed!

It happens from time to time. Very frustrating. There are not so many postings about this problem because when you are host yourself you cannot see you are disconnected or maybe just in your way out. Only the three others have a chance to see and they can do nothing. I will welcome a solution to this.

I refer to human rights simply because thats the recognized standards all memberstates of UN have accepted to comply to. That the standards generally accepted as basis for democratic values. I have never heard of anybody disagreeing those standards. Many are violating parts of human rights agreements - normally they are hard blamed for it. I have never seen any country officially disagreeing or maybe even trying to have those standards changed fundamentally. Please remember thats also the standards on which not only our national judicial systems are based but internationally law as well. We may in future be prepared for attacks against those values from some of the theocraties - but none else I think. Those are simply what you may call conscience of world community. Maybe you prefer the word 'our common moral values' - then OK with me.

Digital Tradition Mirror What Did You Learn in School Today Listen to Pete Seeger: What did you learn in school today http://sniff.numachi.com/~rickheit/dtrad/scores/LEARNSCH.gif What Did You Learn in School Today (Tom Paxton) What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that Washington never told a lie I learned that soldiers seldom die I learned that everybody's free That's what the teacher said to me And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that policemen are my friends I learned that justice never ends I learned that murderers die for their crimes Even if we make a mistake sometimes And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that war is not so bad I learned about the great ones we have had We fought in Germany and in France And someday I might get my chance And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that our government must be strong It's always right and never wrong Our leaders are the finest men So we elect them again and again And that's what I learned in school today That's what I learned in school Copyright Cherry Lane Music Publishing Co., Inc. SOF Thanks to Mudcat for the Digital Tradition! Visit the Tom Paxton web site

As you know I am not American, but I still find that comment insulting. Roland No Roland I fear it is a fact but I will be very happy to be proven wrong.

Me too - at least to give it a try but I doubt the americans have the knowledge to do so. Or at least that little comment that the whole coalition in Iraq are responsible for the problems in general, Denmark and Italy incl.

So it is in Dafur. Here also USA takes the NO-position. Other examples of such might be Eritrea, Angola and Myanmar.

This just for evidence of poor record for USA but not only USA. Really looks like USA has chosen very bad company. Link to Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 U.S. Policy of Abuse Undermines Rights Worldwide (Washington, D.C, January 18, 2006) – New evidence demonstrated in 2005 that torture and mistreatment have been a deliberate part of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism strategy, undermining the global defense of human rights, Human Rights Watch said today in releasing its World Report 2006 . Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause. But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch Printer Friendly Version Also Available in Related Material Human Rights Watch’s 2006 World Report Report Free Email Newsletter Contribute to Human Rights Watch The evidence showed that abusive interrogation cannot be reduced to the misdeeds of a few low-ranking soldiers, but was a conscious policy choice by senior U.S. government officials. The policy has hampered Washington’s ability to cajole or pressure other states into respecting international law, said the 532-page volume’s introductory essay. “Fighting terrorism is central to the human rights cause,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “But using illegal tactics against alleged terrorists is both wrong and counterproductive.” Roth said the illegal tactics were fueling terrorist recruitment, discouraging public assistance of counterterrorism efforts and creating a pool of unprosecutable detainees. U.S. partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances. The European Union continued to subordinate human rights in its relationships with others deemed useful in fighting terrorism, such as Russia, China and Saudi Arabia. Many countries – Uzbekistan, Russia and China among them – used the “war on terrorism” to attack their political opponents, branding them as “Islamic terrorists.” Human Rights Watch documented many serious abuses outside the fight against terrorism. In May, the government of Uzbekistan massacred hundreds of demonstrators in Andijan, the Sudanese government consolidated “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur, western Sudan, and persistent atrocities were reported in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Chechnya. Severe repression continued in Burma, North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Tibet and Xinjiang in China, while Syria and Vietnam maintained tight restrictions on civil society and Zimbabwe conducted massive, politically motivated forced evictions. There were bright spots in efforts to uphold human rights by the Western powers in Burma and North Korea. Developing nations also played a positive role: India suspended most military aid to Nepal after the king’s coup, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations forced Burma to relinquish its 2006 chairmanship because of its appalling human rights record. Mexico took the lead in convincing the United Nations to maintain a special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism. Kyrgyzstan withstood intense pressure from Uzbekistan to rescue all but four of 443 refugees from the Andijan massacre, and Romania gave them temporary refuge. The lack of leadership by Western powers sometimes ceded the field to Russia and China, which built economic, social and political alliances without regard to human rights. In his introductory essay to the World Report, Roth writes that it became clear in 2005 that U.S. mistreatment of detainees could not be reduced to a failure of training, discipline or oversight, or reduced to “a few bad apples,” but reflected a deliberate policy choice embraced by the top leadership. Evidence of that deliberate policy included the threat by President George W. Bush to veto a bill opposing “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” Roth writes, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s attempt to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency from the law. In addition, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed that the United States can mistreat detainees so long as they are non-Americans held abroad, while CIA Director Porter Goss asserted that “waterboarding,” a torture method dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, was simply a “professional interrogation technique.” “Responsibility for the use of torture and mistreatment can no longer credibly be passed off to misadventures by low-ranking soldiers on the nightshift,” said Roth. “The Bush administration must appoint a special prosecutor to examine these abuses, and Congress should set up an independent, bipartisan panel to investigate.” The Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 contains survey information on human rights developments in more than 70 countries in 2005. In addition to the introductory essay on torture, the volume contains two essays: “Private Companies and the Public Interest: Why Corporations Should Welcome Global Human Rights Rules” and “Preventing the Further Spread of HIV/AIDS: The Essential Role of Human Rights.”

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Binding prescription for all memberstates of the UN. Article 8 1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited. 2. No one shall be held in servitude. 3. (a) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour; () Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court; () For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include: (i) Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention; (ii) Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors; (iii) Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; (iv) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

Dan I think I see your point but I doubt you are justified in your complaint. I used this opportunity to take a look of their rules. To me it looks they really intend to be serious and to inform best possible. I think you have noticed their general disclaimer that no appeals accepted unless forwared to their head-director. They also ask for suggestions to improve their information/rules by contacting them either via BBO or a mail address. I am pretty sure they will love to receive a message from you.

arrgghhh... you stated earlier that of *course* morality is subjective, now you rail against the u.s. because of it's double moral standards... i take that to mean that they say one thing but do another... however, under your view of morality, both the saying and the doing are moral and immoral at the same time the u.s. says "we believe in national sovereignty," and attacks iraq... the statement itself is moral to whomever thinks it is and immoral to one with a different opinion... the act is immoral to one and moral to another, thus both - or neither, is right - or wrong one who affirms a subjective morality can't argue anything based upon that morality unless intellectually honest enough to grant a 50/50 chance he's wrong i don't understand your logic... are you saying that people in a free society should be forced to vote? or are you saying that because a certain percentage of people exercise their right not to vote, the election should be declared null? to vote in a nat'l election here, one must meet age and citizenship requirements.. that is all... if they choose not to vote, they presumably do so of their own free will... the fact that they choose not to vote shouldn't negate the election Not so difficult Jimmy. Ask around your many minority groups - especially the black ones. They have a story to tell you. Regarding double moral standards you only need to read the reports published by US based Human Rights Watch.

I will leave to others the debate over torture, where is the line between it and getting information This might be helpful Mike http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/83/0,1886,2320211,00.jpg dpa- Im Gefängnis Abu Graibh, in dem die Misshandlungen geschehen sein sollen Frontal21 Gefolterte Gefangene - Amerika ruiniert seinen Ruf Die Bilder von den Folterungen irakischer Gefangener durch US-Soldaten sind weltweit auf Empörung gestoßen. von Natalie Cieslik, Johannes Hano, 04.05.2004 http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/img/25/0,1886,2321049,00.jpg More info here: Gefolterte Gefangene - Amerika ruiniert seinen Ruf

I like to try to clear up a few more of your questions Mike. It is always important to know. Inspiration for improvements need to come from somewhere. Perhaps some day there will be more New Danes than Old Danes? I have tried to explain the reason why we work with integration as an alternative to segregation. If we succeed we will have managed to overcome this problem else your perspective will not be the end of the danish nation but certainly the end of danish identity. I know for a fact that if Denmark or Sweden or many of those countries were next door to America alot of us would be multi cultural ( if we were single that is). I am not sure what you mean here. Denmark is for danes. If you want to live here, interested in learning our values with intentions to adopt them - then you are welcome - else not. We find it confusing that childern born in many countries are not automatic citizens of that country no matter if the parents are legal or not I am not completely sure of our rules. I know for sure that Denmark dont allow multiple citizenship. All coming here must choose. As I remember it is so that all children born in Denmark are granted danish citizenship. Anytime they can choose citizenship of their parents - then they are no longer danes.

Wrong again Roland. We are not but we are closer to live up to standards of human rights, maybe thats what you mean. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Declaration on the Right to Development If you would care to read my post, you will see that I said that we are not, so how Wrong again Roland. We are not .... can make any sense is beyond my comprehension. I did not write one word about human rights; I merely told the viewers that we have had a Liberal/Conservative government for more than 5 years - and that has nothing to do with socialism (thank goodness). Roland Sorry Roland - I read Echognome as Roland. I was wrong sorry. I know quite well we share values here. In other areas like bridge we dont share values. But Roland was not meant Roland Wald. It was a simple misreading by me. I responded to Echognome.

No Mike - the people of USA has never mandated their government/president. Much too low turnout to legitimate a democracy.

In any event why do not other countries invade in 1991 if it is the moral thing to do? Maybe just rhetoric Mike. Nobody else has the military power to do so. We made a virtue out of necessity. Just like we all did in 1956 and 1968. In 1980 all had made their homework - and worked perfect.

Wrong again Echognome. We are not but we are closer to live up to standards of human rights, maybe thats what you mean. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Declaration on the Right to Development

No it is not Mike. You are wiser than that. To stay out of Chile ought to be simple. Allende was free elected. It was a simple violation of the free will of the people in a country. In 1991 Bush asked the people of Iraq to tumble down their dictator. In the confidence of US help the Shia muslims in South started a civil war. Unfortunately USA was not serious. But I really think you must focus on the good examples. I only know of Solidarnosc. I hope there are more and fear there are not more.

Can we just agree that socialism in a small, rich country like Denmark or Sweden might work fantastic, whereas in a large country like the U.S. not so well No we cannot. First we don't have socialism. Such exists nowhere on the globe. It is theory only - so for other economic theories. But always good to have a leading star. Second - the reason why it has worked well in Scandinavia, is the inhabitants mostly share same kind of values. You see in Germany, France, Italy they basically have the same kind of structure. But of course everything is running more smoothly in small societies than in big ones. Thats the a main reason why Denmark and Holland rather quick has adapted the new conditions for world economy where you see hard problems in Germany and France. Those are later to come to Italy too. I think the problem in USA is you have not so much involvement in political life. Too many persons(50%) are not registered to vote. This also means that only few participate in public debates. The political parties are more for fond raising than political education.

Is a Country ever allowed to violate other peoples rights? Certainly not - you must respect the integrity of all human beings. They have all same right and values. Thats the basic of human rights. We are always confused when we should send our children to fight and die. They are young 18 year old boys and girls. Should we send them to Darfur? Should we send them to Kuwait or the beaches of Normandy? Many in the USA disagree on when and where or if ever we should send our children out to fight and possibly die. Never unless requested by manifest demand by the population of a country. I have explained earlier that US failed not to help: Hungary 1956 Czekoslovakia 1968 Iraq 1991 You did very well during 1980's supporting Solidarnosc - the outcome of that we are full of gratitude for - making an end to the eastern facistic regimes tumbling down the Berlin Wall. We would have been happy for US to stay out of Nicaragua and Chile. It is not only about war - but as I said at the beginning of this thread. The problem with US is basically their double moral standards.

Mike I take your question serious as I think it can be a bit difficult to understand for americans living in a multicultural society. Denmark and most of Europe countries are used to have a population of persons with parents and grandparents living all their life in Denmark. Not so very much contact with foreigners, yes other scandinavians, that means we share all same values. This is no longer so. Since 1970 Denmark has become a society with more foreign contacts. Refugees from all over the world has sought help here. Those coming from South-America and from Asia has normally returned to their home countries after medical care and their home countries has got rid of their dictatorships. We now have to deal with a large portion of persons from the Middle East. In general they have poorer education, many are analphabets, living on economic help from public transferrencies. This is an unsustainable situation. As well economically but also seen from a perspective of decent humanity. We want all here to benefit from our options for activity. Therefore we, like other nations, try to change our rules trying to pursuade and help those persons to be integrated in the danish society. Some call them new-danes, well thats a term. I prefer to be more precise, therefore I use the term non etnic danes. But today the term mostly means persons coming to Denmark from the Middle East and from Northern Africa. It mostly means persons with muslim background. In Denmark we try to fight segregation. We try to help those who have no background in democratic values if they want help. If they dont want help to understand and dont need so then fine OK. If they need help but dont want help - then we ask them to leave Denmark.

Moral is subjective of course. You use your moral standards to messure who you accept as the good guys and who you think are the bad guys. It is nothing objective - if so then your argument 'national interests' would have been correct. Different political views reflects different moral standards. We are some who have hard problems to see consistency of general US standards. We are simply unable to see the decent moral standard in violating the right of others to choose for themselves. We pledge you instead to show the good example cleaning up your own house.