Once again when the US Govt Does something wrong...

You know, the year preceding The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, I advocated just selling them stuff... It still seemed like the better idea. Still does.

and if it's not on TV, its not in a "logical professional and academic setting" that "we understand"

right Roland?

Hey, cause soundwave can violate conservation of mass and energy, it must be true because it's on TV, and that's where that science stuff takes place!

P.S. Soundwave was awesome. Timmy would prolly be on Ritalin or something these days.

yeah, if it's not on TV, it is not science either.





see, they didn't show torture on TV, i told you they aren't torturing anyone!

Whoa I wonder if the radio counts? Or recorded video? I think that's where they put it. Like with all the "TOO HOT FOR TV" videos! And the documentaries...

Forget torture as the standard.

In our country, we have laws against any testimony given in duress. Why? Because it's unreliable, and people wind up telling you what they think you want to hear, rather than the truth.

When the FBI visited GITMO, they stated that standards employed there - such as dogs, sleep deprivation, etc - were beyond those that the FBI uses, and were not reliable.

Given that the FBI is arguably the most professional law enforcement agency in the world, I think it's obvious that GITMO or the secret prisons are a waste of time.

What good is freedom if we've lost our humanity obtaining it?

Not in the Boy George stolen presidency it doesn't.

I suspect that if the supporters of Boy George were taken down to the US Concentration camp in Cuba and allowed to watch the Goonsquad in action against innocent people, they would still support Boy George.

dood, everytime you call him that you torture, humiliate, and make the real Boy George cry

If God blesses America, which nation do you mean,

Argentina??? its in America
Cuba???? Its in America
Haiti???? Its in America
Mexico??? Its in America
Canada??? its in America
Colombia??? Its in America
Ecuador??? its in America
Panama??? Its in America
Venezuela??? Its in America
Brazil??? Its in America
Peru????? Its in America
Costa Rica???? Its in America
El Salvador??? its in America
Honduras??? Its in America

Need I go on????

And why stop there, why can't God Bless all nations on the face of this planet???

I realize that... so I will go back to calling him George the Second.

My Apologies to the Real Boy George.

Actually the best country in the world is Canada. If California were independent it would be the best.

And Actually, any nation that does not have George the Second as its dictator is the best.

Today, Dick the VP said just that... We should blindly follow George the Second.

To that, I say, No way.

Why?

This shadow and shell of a nation now forces the poor to work to get a meger check of 200 bucks a month. George the Second is a Dictator, who is controled from Colorado Springs Colorado and Lynchberg Virginia. And George the Second has broken more treaties than Adolph Hitler did before World War 2

LOL.. how do you know? You've previously stated that you don't even work for a living.

You don't work, and the government supports you... and yet you do nothing but criticize it?

Criticism is fine, but it seems as though there must be SOMETHING good about the country, since you wouldn't have anyone supporting you without it.

Oh, and what treaties did Bush break?

It's not so much that he breaks treaties, it's that he undermines them deliberately to make them useless, then refuses to submit previously signed treaties to senate for ratification. The link I include is just one in many of a google search that took me a few seconds to perform on the subject. I'm sure you can look into it more if you're looking for an exact number or a side by side comparison. I'm afraid I don't have enough time to post good information on the complete data.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,710768,00.html

And honestly, saying someone essentially can't criticize the country because they rely on it is not thinking about it. You rely on it too in different ways. So, please, never take that approach again. It degrades us all.

Now if this were BASELESS criticism, like "Oh, I just don't like them thar bushies" or "the man is keeping me down" or "Our g0v3rnm3nt suxx0rz l0lz", then that would be purposeless. All other criticism, thought out and supported criticism like this, is perfectly valid and generally leads us to be a stronger country. We can't exactly work on our problems if we don't hold up the mirror every now and then.

I specifically stated that criticism was fine... But the impression I got from Magnum was that he simply saw NOTHING good about the US. (he asked "Why?" when the notion of being thankful that he lived here came up)

I'm not suggesting that criticism is bad.. I think criticism is what helps make things better (if, it is well thought out, as you suggest). But suggesting that the entire government is evil and America is horrible, when that government is what pays your bills every month? I mean, that seems pretty silly... Obiously, if someone is supporting you, you should be thankful for it.

I'll check out the treaty link and get back to you (although the fact that it's from the guardian kind of tips me off to the quality of the listing and its bias). I just wanted to point out that I'm not against criticism of the government at all.

You gotta realize that I argue for the sake of argument, and tend to take the opposite position from whatever's thrown out there. And on these forums in particular, it appears that the majority is pretty much anti-administration, anti-war, etc. So, playing the counter point may give the impression that I support Bush, when that is not actually the case.

But someone's gotta argue that side, right? Otherwise, what's the point of discussing anything?

In regards to the "broken treaties", there are some obvious points to deal with.

1) The kyoto protocol: Simply not signing a treaty is obviously not a "broken promise". Kyoto was not in the best interests of the US. Additionally, if you look at the emissions rates of many european countries that signed the agreement, you'll note that they aren't actually meeting the requirements set by it... So, what's worse? Not signing a treaty, or signing it and then breaking it.

2) The Anti-Ballistic Missil Treaty: This was a pretty majorly flawed idea to begin with. I mean, it focuses on the idea that no one can be allowed to try and protect against missiles, because we prefer the idea that if anyone uses one, the entire world gets destroyed. Come on.. That's not a good game plan. Additionally, the US did not break this treaty. The treaty specifically included a clause that allowed either party to withdraw from the treaty, which the US did, completely legally.

3) The international court: I completely oppose such an institution, as I believe it erodes my rights as an American, putting control of law into the hands of people who I play no role in electing. (sometimes in the hands of people who NO ONE had a hand in electing)

Most of the other things listed in the article aren't related to treaties at all.. they're basically just the Guardian taking jabs at Bush, as it tends to do on a regular basis, and they're obviously not presenting the whole story. The foreign aid issue, for instance... The US gives a low percentage of its GDP in foreign aid compared to many countries.. although that number ends up being larger than any other country's donation, except I believe Japan. Additionally, that number does not include private donations, and I believe the US leads the world in private donations by its people. It's difficult to make straight up comparisons of GDP donations, when the entire system of charitable contributions is different.


The Vienna Treaty is the one point that may have merit though. I'll have to look up some more information regarding that.

ABM
World Court
I believe the count is 6 on Warcrimes
Several Global Warming Treaties already passed by President Clinton, President Reagan and President Carter
Geneva(SP) Convention
Several Treaties on the treatment of War Prisoners
Several Warcrimes Treaties

His argument is the same old same ole that Dick the Vip said "Thou shalt not Critize George the Second"

Ahhh but the ABM treaty is flawed only in the mind of the republicans. It was a VERY good treaty and there are several others he has broken, treatment of War Criminals, Geneva Convention, War Crimes Treaties a lot that were signed by President Ronald Reagan.

As for kyoto protocol, this should had been a no brainer to sign. Except the big wig big business and big wig big Family Rights groups complained and pulled the strings of their puppets in Congress.

So the question is... On one hand we do not sign the treaty and die because we kill the atmosphere, the other is we live and clean up our atmosphere.

Which would you choose?

I thought so.

I believe we've already discussed at length why, in fact, the US itself would have no economic/sociological/political hardships meeting the Kyoto accords in other threads. So it doesn't bear expanding on.

The point about the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was that instead of debating the merits or flaws of that treaty, a failed program to shoot down missiles was trumped up to replace it (thus undermining the point of the treaty and diplomacy as the article indicates).

And I think we've been talking at length in various threads about various breaches, confirmed and possible of various treaties concerning war and treatment of prisoners.

I will agree the source is particularly biased, but it's laden with a good deal of facts. I keep providing facts and I am rebutted with opinion, guessing and unsourced or unverifiable facts. If the guardian is no good that's fine, it was just one of the first things my google search hit. You're welcome to do a similiar search to find the source closest to the original (like committee reports, government documents, senatorial proceedings, etc). For speed and brevity I thought this sufficient and relevant for discussion.

Also on the point of charity... Our government currently -gives- money and food to our own poorer citizens (in addition to foreign aid we -give- to poorer nations). The thing to realize here is that we have historically called foreign aid loans, when in reality we have almost always wound up forgiving such debt. (As interest and such on nations already crippled to the point where they need to ask other nations for help is quite beyond them). Mostly I think that the point here is that if you think our government should be EXPECTING some kind of gratitude or attitude of obesence or servitude or loyalty because we happen to give aid to a particular class of people, you should instead make the point CLEAR that you don't think the government should be giving these people anything at all. Because that's what you REALLY mean if you expect anything out of charity.

Cho my goddess!

I was born in Kyoto.

/Ayame Leaves The Building

-Ayame Sapeur<3

Could you point me to that discussion? I'd be interested to read it.



The ABM treaty was designed for a world where you had two super powers, and you were operating on the idea that if either side fired, everyone on the planet dies.. that's a truly insane policy. It's even more absurd when you consider that even after its inception, more missiles were built, well beyond the number needed to kill every living human on the planet. This was the "point" of the treaty.. Mutually Assured Destruction.

Calling it a "failed" program is pretty silly. I mean, there's nothing about such a problem that makes it impossible, contrary to the beliefs of scientists trumped up by the USSR to sign a letter to that effect during the 80's. American scientists believed they could do it... I mean, hell. We went to the freaking moon in less than 10 years.

I honestly don't see why anyone would oppose being able to shoot down ballistic missiles. If you develop such a system, then ballistic missiles become ineffective weapons, and you don't need to worry about them.. Besides, such technology would have various other applications. It's not like you somehow develop technology that is ONLY good for shooting down ICMB's.

If there's one problem with the SDI program, it's that they invested too much money in ballistic solutions, instead of high energy weapons.



Oh, I have no problem with the Guardian for the purposes you're using it for. It's just a summary of the complaints.

However, certain points it brings up are simply false. Th ABM treaty was not broken. The Kyoto protocol was not a "broken promise". The US is not obligated to participate in any such treaties. That's one of the benefits of being our own nation.

The guardian can claim that these are bad decisions, but they cannot claim that they are somehow broken promises... because no promise was ever made.

The problem with this, is that people like Magnum who don't know any better just repeat this stuff, as though the US actually broke the ABM treaty, when that is obviously not the case.




All I expect to get out of charity, is a better world with happier people. That will in turn make my life safer and happier.

I don't expect anyone to sing the praises for the US, but I will point out when people choose to distort facts in order to try and create a sense of guilt.

While those things are atrocities, China's abuse of Buddhism goes much further.

Let's imagine, by comparison, a hypothetical.

Let's say China were to invade Vatican City, Rome, and surrounding areas. Thousands are slaughtered, and the Catholic Church fleed into Egypt, a nearby country with a totally different religious base where it would have to be a stranger to the people there. The Pope is declared to be invalid, by China.

Then, a few decades later, during a Papal choosing session, China kidnaps the bishops and holds them hostage, then comes up with their own person to choose the new Pope, and declares him to be valid.

A billion Catholics would rise up and demand regime change in China. A war would start, likely involving nuclear exchange.

...

And yet, that's what China did to Buddhism. They invaded Tibet, declared the rightful Dalai Lama to be invalid, and when the Panchen Lama was named, he was kidnapped by the Chinese government, who then named their own Panchen Lama -- literally so they can take over the religion. The Panchen Lama basically chooses the successor to the Dalai Lama - as the bishops choose the new Pope, only it's one person, not a vote.

Here's a good BBC article about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4551425.stm

But those good natured Buddhists ... we should all learn from their patience and dedication to non-violence.