Favorite Conspiracy Theories

[csdenmark]

"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."

 

We are confused! Can you please explain whose rights we need to stop violating? What rights are you talking about? I do not disagree I just do not know what you are talking about.

 

Is a Country ever allowed to violate other peoples rights? If so then when? Is Pacifism the best way? Is it ever Moral for one person to kill another? For one country to try and kill another?

 

Who do we not let choose for themselves? If they choose us to fight and die should we or not? We are confused! When do we choose for ourselves and what do we choose?

 

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. We are confused but any help would be nice. We want to clean up our house but most of us (ME) find these issues confusing and that makes us not consistent in general US standards.

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.

[mike777]

"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."

 

We are confused! Can you please explain whose rights we need to stop violating? What rights are you talking about? I do not disagree I just do not know what you are talking about.

 

Is a Country ever allowed to violate other peoples rights? If so then when? Is Pacifism the best way? Is it ever Moral for one person to kill another? For one country to try and kill another?

 

Who do we not let choose for themselves? If they choose us to fight and die should we or not? We are confused! When do we choose for ourselves and what do we choose?

 

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. We are confused but any help would be nice. We want to clean up our house but most of us (ME) find these issues confusing and that makes us not consistent in general US standards.

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.

 

 

 

"Is a Country ever allowed to violate other peoples rights? [/color]

Certainly not - you must respect the integrity of all human beings. They have all same right and values. Thats the basic of human rights."

 

 

 

This is not logical, Germany never invited us into their country so it is immoral to attack Germany in WWII? It is immoral to violate Nazi rights?

 

We can only enter a country when more than 50% of the citizens of that country say it is ok? This is very confusing!

[sceptic]

Jails being comfortable. Jails are hell

 

b*****t Jails are not hell, they are quite reasonable places to spend a few months after earning more money in ashort time than you could in 10 years of hard work

[sceptic]

America being a country that is scum in the eyes of the world. Let me remind some of you that without us you'd be speaking German or Russian right now, with no chance of EVER having freedom

 

I actually object to this statement "without us you'd be speaking German " who do you think you are making statements like that, I am sure we were capable of dropping a nuclear bomb on hundreds of thousands of women and kids, the only reason you got involved was Pearl Harbour, you were not in a hurry to help out before that, you were dragged into the war like the rest of us.

[csdenmark]

We can only enter a country when more than 50% of the citizens of that country say it is ok? This is very confusing!

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.

[mike777]

But Hitler was freely elected and it was the will of the German people that we do not bomb and invade their country!

 

Are you saying we can never invade/bomb a country that has free elections and more than 50% of the people do not want us to bomb them?

 

This is why we Americans have confusing standards, we are confused!

 

In 1991 how do we know more than 50% of Iraq wanted us to invade? Do we take a vote in Iraq or a poll or do we just guess? My guess is less than 50% of Iraq wanted us to invade but if you have other data showing I am wrong ok. We never saw it in the USA.

 

In any event why do not other countries invade in 1991 if it is the moral thing to do?

[Codo]

Your country was not attacking Germany in WW 2 for years. You just send a lot of money, weapons and other stuff to the allies. The US was not at all interested to join the war at all and not yet prepared.

But Germany and Japon had an alliance, so, after the Japaneses decided, that they try to win a war against the US, Germany was forced to join and they really did not like this, because they had other goals

Of course, it was very welcomed, that the US decided to join this war, because else, the Nazi may had more time for their cruelties. Luckily, they (we) had never a chance to win, but it had take much longer without Americas help.

 

But the problem is not: Must I stop the Nazis? Must I/we stop the Taliban? Must I/we stop the Klu-Klux-Klan or Pol-Pot? Danes with their cartoons? Paelstines or Isralelis? If the Germans had been happy with their Nazi Regime, or just too weak to stop it. Who gives anybody the right to rescue us from them?

Of course, this was no real question during that time. We brought War to all parts of Europe, there had been enough countries, which needed help badly,so it had been right to help all of them and stop the cruelty asap. But if the Nazis had just been a German problem?

 

The question is: Who decides who is bad or good? You, me, anybody?

 

I would prefer the UN as such an authority. Unluckily, your goverment does not share this view and follows just its own interest.

 

The US was not attacked for their war to free Kuwait. A big alliance was formed through the world. Nearly anybody gave what he could and the US took the lead and the (deserved) glory.

But whenever the USA ( or Russia, or whoever) decided on its own, that it wants to change the government of another country, the fealings of "the world" get hurt.

 

And unfourtunately, you did this more then once. I think Afghanistan was the point, where the feelings started turning around. Inteligent people cannot believe, that it is a good idea to bomb a country to kill terrorists. Besides that: The terrorists for the 9/11 seemed to be in Hamburg before they came to the US. So, with the logic for that war, why didn´t they bomb Hamburg? (I live here, so I am quite lucky, that they did not..)

 

And Iraq was a desaster. No ABC weapons found, no democracy built up, roits and killed peoples anywhere.

And: No real legitimation from the UN, no big alliance.

 

This makes me sad and I guess many others too.

[mike777]

The question is: Who decides who is bad or good? You, me, anybody?

 

Yep this the key question I agree.

 

I would prefer the UN as such an authority. Unluckily, your goverment does not share this view and follows just its own interest.

 

Yep, well said! Some in the USA prefer the UN but most do not! In fact many hate this idea quite strongly with a passion. Do not blame our government, blame the people of the USA.

 

The US was not attacked for their war to free Kuwait. A big alliance was formed through the world. Nearly anybody gave what he could and the US took the lead and the (deserved) glory.

But whenever the USA ( or Russia, or whoever) decided on its own, that it wants to change the government of another country, the fealings of "the world" get hurt.

 

And unfourtunately, you did this more then once. I think Afghanistan was the point, where the feelings started turning around. Inteligent people cannot believe, that it is a good idea to bomb a country to kill terrorists. Besides that: The terrorists for the 9/11 seemed to be in Hamburg before they came to the US. So, with the logic for that war, why didn´t they bomb Hamburg? (I live here, so I am quite lucky, that they did not..)

 

Think about this 19 young guys with a few thousand bucks in spending money and armed with boxcutters(small knives) did 9-11. Most of them from Saudi Arabia! We are confused, who do we bomb or should we just shrug our shoulders and forgot about it, confusing! You tell who we should not bomb but tell us who we should bomb or not?

 

And Iraq was a desaster. No ABC weapons found, no democracy built up, roits and killed peoples anywhere.

And: No real legitimation from the UN, no big alliance.

 

This makes me sad and I guess many others too.

 

This makes many in USA sad and confused and divided. But what should we do now, just leave right now? We are confused.

 

 

--------------------

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

 

 

Thanks for your post, your raise a good many points but we need answers not more blame ok?

[csdenmark]

But Hitler was freely elected and it was the will of the German people that we do not bomb and  invade their country!

 

Are you saying we can never invade/bomb a country that has free elections and more than 50% of the people do not want us to bomb them?

 

This is why we Americans have confusing standards, we are confused!

 

In 1991 how do we know more than 50% of Iraq wanted us to invade? Do we take a vote in Iraq or a poll or do we just guess? My guess is less than 50% of Iraq wanted us to invade but if you have other data showing I am wrong ok. We never saw it in the USA.

 

In any event why do not other countries invade in 1991 if it is the moral thing to do?

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.

[csdenmark]

Do not blame our government, blame the people of the USA

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

[Gerben42]

And Iraq was a desaster. No ABC weapons found, no democracy built up, roits and killed peoples anywhere.

And: No real legitimation from the UN, no big alliance.

 

This makes me sad and I guess many others too.

 

This makes many in USA sad and confused and divided. But what should we do now, just leave right now? We are confused.

 

What the USA should do now? Become a good citizen in world politics, this includes:

 

* Respect the Geneva convention, regardless where. This means shutting down Guantanamo Bay and whatever secret prison camps all these flights over Germany went to.

 

* Don't go on "liberation" missions not approved by the UN, or lie to the UN to get approval.

[Codo]

Hi Mike,

 

I agree, that you don`t need more blame. Not you, not your country.

 

But I doubt, that you will need answers either.

 

You have millions of good people in your country, you will surely find better answers then any of us here will. After all, we need all of our answers for ourself, enough homework is waiting... B)

 

But just for the curiosity, I have four wishes:

 

-Help the UN and accept their ideas, even if they don`t match with yours or mine. No single handed use of your ultimate power against sovereign countries.

 

- Help the UN to learn from the mistakes of the "Völkerbund" (soory have no translation for that..)

 

-help spreading the ideas of democracy, human rights, education and freedom of thoughts by being an idol and not (just) by economic, military or political power.

 

- be there, if the UN begs for your help

 

But okay, I won`t life long enough to see my own country/state/town/me to live this way, so it is just a dream, that these wishes come true.

 

But we can be quite optimistic. The internet is a great gift to share different views and thoughts all over the world. And that will help to make the world a village and a better place to be.

I strongly believe, that the world for our grandchildren will be much better then ours. And ours is much better then the world from our grandparents. At least here where I live.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, it appears that we have fully appreciated the limitations of human nature.

 

Like the universe itself, Humanity maintains a balance that, unfortunately, incorporates all things good AND bad. There is so much bad (at least this is what we hear about and discuss.....) that if there is much less good then to maintain the balance it must be very very good.

 

At least this is what we must hope for, otherwise we are all in Hell.

[mike777]

And Iraq was a desaster. No ABC weapons found, no democracy built up, roits and killed peoples anywhere.

And: No real legitimation from the UN, no big alliance.

 

This makes me sad and I guess many others too.

 

This makes many in USA sad and confused and divided. But what should we do now, just leave right now? We are confused.

 

What the USA should do now? Become a good citizen in world politics, this includes:

 

* Respect the Geneva convention, regardless where. This means shutting down Guantanamo Bay and whatever secret prison camps all these flights over Germany went to.

 

* Don't go on "liberation" missions not approved by the UN, or lie to the UN to get approval.

Wow this seems to be a common theme:

 

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

2) Geneva Convention only applies to Armies not people not in uniform, Please read it, this makes no sense. When does the Geneva Convention not apply, are you saying never?

3) Where should we put the prisoners, this makes no sense, we should not have any prisoners in prison?

[hrothgar]

>2) Geneva Convention only applies to Armies not people not in uniform.

>Please read it, this makes no sense. When does the Geneva Convention not

>apply, are you saying never?

 

The Geneva Convention is formally titled "Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War".

 

Article 2 of the Convention holds that "In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them".

 

As you note, the primary scope of the Geneva Convention is "declared war" or "armed conflict" between High Contracting Parties. It is certainly possible to make the argument that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorist or other non-state actors.

 

With this said and done, non-state actors are nothing new to the legal system. If I go out and shoot a convenience store clerk I am a non-state actor. I will be prosecuted under existing US criminal codes. The US criminal codes clearly specifies a set of rights that I enjoy. (Miranda protection, Habeas Corpus, yada, yada, yada) Equally significant, if the United States prosecutes a foreign national for violating our criminal code he still enjoys the protections of our legal systems despite the fact that he is not a US citizen.

 

The debate over the Geneva Convention and the War on Terror collapse into a very simple question: Is there a set of individuals who are not covered by either the Geneva Convention OR existing US criminal code. I argue that this set should be "empty". The Bush administration should be forced to treat detainees as EITHER Prisioners of War OR "common" criminal. In either case existing legal structures clearly provide these individuals with a set of rights and legal recourse.

 

I can not sanction the argument that there is a set of people who don't enjoy any legal protections. The Bush administration is is subjecting people to indefinite detentions without describing their crimes; torturing and murdering detainees. This is the type of behaviour that I associate with fascist police states, third world dictactors, and drug cartels.

[mike777]

I agree with how you frame the debate. Do they have rights and if so what are they?

 

The phrase "indefinite detention" sends a chill down any decent thinking person. And what idiot thought up the term Homeland Security, where is my black shirt?

 

I will leave to others the debate over torture, where is the line between it and getting information, the whole ticking bomb /save our buried child issue, etc. We can all agree on the rest.

[joshs]

I am obviously in favour of torture. After all, I play bridge with some of you! :rolleyes:

[csdenmark]

I agree with how you frame the debate. Do they have rights and if so what are they?

 

The phrase "indefinite detention" sends a chill down any decent thinking person. And what idiot thought up the term Homeland Security, where is my black shirt?

 

I will leave to others the debate over torture, where is the line between it and getting information, the whole ticking bomb /save our buried child issue, etc. We can all agree on the rest.

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

[luke warm]

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.

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

 

the people of USA has never mandated their government/president. Much too low turnout to legitimate a democracy.

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

[joshs]

I will never forget the following:

 

In the waining days of the soviet union the mayor of St. Petersberg was running for re-election. He was un-oppossed since the opposition could not get on the ballot. The laws of the soviet union required everyone to come and vote, and required 50% of the vote for the mayor to be elected. The mayor lost.

 

For me this was the defining moment of the collapse of the soviet union. The citizens came out to vote as required, and in an exercise of democracy, left there ballots blank.

[pbleighton]

"as proof of subjective morality, you state "It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible."

 

taking that as a true statement, make your case for subjective morality... read mike's post first"

 

1. It is a true statement.

 

2. Mike's post didn't address this argument at all.

 

3. The argument is so self-evident that your request for a "case" is totally disingenuous, but here it is: slave ownership is universally condemned by Christians and Christianity today. It is condoned in the Bible, Biblical arguments were used to support it for centuries (and those arguments were largely accepted), and now it is wrong. Morality changes, and is therefore subjective.

 

I thought I could squeeze a little bit of intellectual honesty out of you. Well, I've been wrong before, and I will be wrong again.

 

Peter

[csdenmark]

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.

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

 

the people of USA has never mandated their government/president. Much too low turnout to legitimate a democracy.

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.

[Gerben42]

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

 

You're getting the idea. It's very logical. If there is a good reason to attack someone the UN will approve. If there a bad reason (Iraq for example) then they won't.

 

2) Geneva Convention only applies to Armies not people not in uniform, Please read it, this makes no sense. When does the Geneva Convention not apply, are you saying never?

 

As Hrothgar already set now there are people of which the US says: they do not fall under US laws for "common" criminals and also not under prisoners of war so we can do anything we want with them, like putting them into horror places like Abu Grahib or Guantanamo. This has to stop!

 

3) Where should we put the prisoners, this makes no sense, we should not have any prisoners in prison?

 

In prison yes, but not torture them.

 

If you want to know why many people in Europe and also the rest of the world has a problem with the US government, it's this double moral standard they are using as described in the last 10 posts or so.

 

Therefore, I conclude that Pres. Bush should be impeached for attacking Iraq on false evidence and for allowing prisoners to be tortured in "prisons outside the law" like Abu Grahib and Guantanamo Bay.

 

If you are a US citizen and think that human rights should apply to everyone, tell your representative to vote for impeachment.

[Walddk]

Sometimes I find it hard to believe that Claus and I are from the same country. He is obviously entitled to his opinion and views, but I want you to know that they don't express the views of the majority of the Danish population.

 

Sure, we don't all agree with everything that has happened and is happening in the USA and in places where the United States is involved, but let me emphasize a couple of things:

 

- Americans are best at solving USA's problems.

- Danes are best at solving Denmark's problems.

 

By reading Claus' posts one could get the impression that USA is hell and that Denmark is heaven on earth. This is rubbish.

 

In my opinion, Claus does neither country a favour by expressing his extreme views, and fortunately no-one takes them seriously. I suggest that Claus travels to London, finds a box to stand on and enlightens the world at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.

 

Roland

[Sigi_BC84]

1) Are you saying the USA should not go to war unless the UN says it is ok? This makes no sense. Why make the UN the boss over the USA? You mean every country gets to vote on whether the USA can attack a country? This is not logical.

International law prohibits assaulting foreign countries if not for self defense, if I understand it correctly.

 

So, yes, the US should respect the will of the United Nations in this regard and not simply attack sovereign states (no matter how evil) if it sees fit. This does not apply when there is a real threat (from nuclear weapons for example). There was no such threat coming from Iraq.

 

--Sigi