Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

192 posts in this topic

 

Actually, hostility towards the USA is a relatively new thing in Europe.

This is anything but new. There are many examples of suspicion, deference and/or hostility to US foreign policy that go as far back as the American Revolutionary War. It has increased substantially since the turn of the previous century (!) as the US has gotten more involved politically where European powers have/had their interests at stake...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So making contentious statements on an internet forum that's based in Germany is somehow going to be cathartic for you? Sure there is a lot of anti Americanism in europe at the moment, but perhaps if you and your countrymen didn't walk around thinking you were the saviours of all man-kind and had some kind of moral capital over everyone else that resentment wouldn't be so prevalent? You're a big boy, deal with it.

Oh my god, you're saying that America is behaving the exact same way as every other country in Europe has ever behaved before?

 

Maybe attention to the recent Olympics has allowed you memory to slip, but Great Britain has invaded everywhere and been at war with everyone at some time or another. Here's the extent of imperial moral capital exercised by GB in 1921.

 

post-3208-1219133947_thumb.png

 

Goodness FC, but your postings make you sound like a hypocrite.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

have you seen the polls? Even Tories in the UK are opposed to US foreign policy, which is something of a first.

You didn't say "resolutely opposed to US foreign policy". Anyhow, were they opposed to the Six-Party talks on North Korea that may lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons? The US support for a Palestinian state? Increased foreign aid to Africa to combat AIDS? There is more to US foreign policy than Iraq. Just curious, how is the UK foreign policy in Iraq polling these days?

 

 

It is right on the border of Russia and nowhere near Iran, which does not even have nuclear weapons at the moment. It is surely obvious that would upset Russia - I don't need to "take their word for it" FFS! Why do you think "Old Europe" have been so against the missile shield from the start?

Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads (I believe it's actually 6000). Do you really think a missile interceptor in Poland can stop a barrage of Russian missiles carrying a nuclear payload? Other than Kaliningrad, Poland does not border Russia.

 

If and when Iran or a terrorist group tests nuclear weapons, you would want to have some missile defense system already in place rather than trying to construct it after a successful test, correct? As for its location, learn a bit about the trajectory of a missile shot from Iran. If the missile defense shield is so odious, why did Putin offer to have it put in Azerbaijan (which was not possible for technical reasons).

 

Russia is a country that is extremely immature politically. Anything is bound to upset it.

 

 

Bush has softened opnly since becominga lameduck with plummeting popularity. But his multilateralism is out of sync with his supposed successor, McCain.

Now you move the goalposts! First you claim McCain is perfectly in sync with Bush on foreign policy, and then you say McCain is out of sync with him. Will you please stop contradicting yourself and make up your mind? Of course, how do you know for sure what McCain will do if he wins?

 

 

McCain has stated he will continue the War on Terror and actually extend it. That is enough for most of us here in Europe to be utterly repelled by him. On foreign policy Obama is much closer to Europe, which is why he has such sky-rocketing approval ratings over here.

I guess Obama's stated intention to take unilateral action against terrorists located in Pakistan is in tune with European sentiments? How about him wanting German combat troops in southern Afghanistan?

I am not the least bit surprised that a Labour Party activist who consistently misrepresents what I post would misinterpret McCain's comments, which were anyhow made within the context of a presidential campaign. I am not aware that he said we would "extend" it, but that could be interpreted many ways, including getting Pakistan to go after Al-Qaida within its own borders.

 

As for the irrelevant European opinon of Obama, once again I point out that many Europeans think he will represent their interests and do what they want. No one knows for sure what he would do once in office, and a lot of people project what they want to see onto him, as we have seen among parts of the US electorate.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

McCain has stated he will continue the War on Terror and actually extend it. That is enough for most of us here in Europe to be utterly repelled by him. On foreign policy Obama is much closer to Europe, which is why he has such sky-rocketing approval ratings over here.

Obama has also said he will continue the war on terror, aren't you listening, or is it just selective?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads (I believe it's actually 6000). Do you really think a missile interceptor in Poland can stop a barrage of Russian missiles carrying a nuclear payload?

no, which makes it all the more idiotic that Poland and the USA are signing an agreement that would inevitably provoke them - FFS Russia has been saying it would see this as a threat for over a year now.

 

 

Other than Kaliningrad, Poland does not border Russia.

Okay, but Beloruss is VERY much in the Russia sphere and is effectively its frontline to Europe

 

 

If and when Iran or a terrorist group tests nuclear weapons, you would want to have some missile defense system already in place rather than trying to construct it after a successful test, correct?

If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon its target will be israel and not Europe. Europe has generally good relations with Iran and has had for the last ten years and I see no reason why that would change. As for a terrorist group testing nuclear weapons in Europe, the isea is frankly preposterous. If terrorists get their hands on nuclear material, I rather doubt they would go to the expense and potential threat of exposure entailed in developing a missile launch facility within range of Europe.

 

 

As for its location, learn a bit about the trajectory of a missile shot from Iran. If the missile defense shield is so odious, why did Putin offer to have it put in Azerbaijan (which was not possible for technical reasons).

Azerbaijan borders Iran Conqy and Putin suggested it, he didn't "offer it" and it was rejected because Azerbaijan is not in Nato. And do tell me how an Iranian missile trajectory towards Israel could best be stopped by a missile defence facility in Poland, I'm all ears.

 

 

Russia is a country that is extremely immature politically. Anything is bound to upset it.

don't be absurd. Russia has been a political entity for longer than the USA has even existed. And anything is not bound to upset it, Russia has very clear objectives and needs that are currently being threatened. I deplore the way Russia is seeking to resolve this but to imagine that it is some kind of chaotic failing state with volatile overreactions to everything is just bizarre.

 

 

Now you move the goalposts! First you claim McCain is perfectly in sync with Bush on foreign policy, and then you say McCain is out of sync with him. Will you please stop contradicting yourself and make up your mind? Of course, how do you know for sure what McCain will do if he wins?

as if it wasn't obvious, McCain presented himself as the guarantor of the continuation and beefing up of the foreign policy decisions that we in Europe largely deplore.

 

 

I guess Obama's stated intention to take unilateral action against terrorists located in Pakistan is in tune with European sentiments? How about him wanting German combat troops in southern Afghanistan?

I rather doubt that in office he would be able to take unilateral action in Pakistan and I was under the impress ion he had retracted that. As for Afghanistan, I agree wholeheartedly that we need to step up troop numbers. The bulk of these will be coming from the Uk who are in the process of pulling out of Iraq.

 

 

I am not the least bit surprised that a Labour Party activist who consistently misrepresents what I post

!!!

 

 

would misinterpret McCain's comments, which were anyhow made within the context of a presidential campaign. I am not aware that he said we would "extend" it, but that could be interpreted many ways, including getting Pakistan to go after Al-Qaida within its own borders.

McCain is currently suggesting a longer commitment to troops in Iraq than the White House, I'd call that an extension.

 

 

As for the irrelevant European opinon of Obama, once again I point out that many Europeans think he will represent their interests and do what they want. No one knows for sure what he would do once in office, and a lot of people project what they want to see onto him, as we have seen among parts of the US electorate.

look, European opinions of the USA have plummeted in the last decade. In the long run, unless it changes, it will lead to the election of governments in Europe that are hostile to US interests. That will not be good for Europe OR the USA and I would far rather see fences mended on that front.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple question: Why is it that the US is the only nation considered "provacative" if it does anything remotely proactive instead of just sighing, having the UN send them a really nasty letter, trying desperately to appease and hoping nothing bad happens?

 

Why aren't Iran, Russia, China, or anyone else on the planet held to the same standards for a change?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

McCain has stated he will continue the War on Terror and actually extend it. That is enough for most of us here in Europe to be utterly repelled by him. On foreign policy Obama is much closer to Europe, which is why he has such sky-rocketing approval ratings over here.

 

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cf...jectid=10522661

US presidential contender Barack Obama today pledged to pursue the "war on terror" if he his elected.

 

Meeting Afghan president Hamid Karzai at his palace in Kabul, Obama pledged to continue the battle begun by president George W Bush "with vigour", an Afghan official said.

 

 

He favours leaving behind a residual force in Iraq to protect US personnel, train Iraqi security forces and counter attacks by al-Qaeda.

 

 

Obama has also expressed impatience with the halting efforts of neighbouring Pakistan to go after insurgents in its border region, considered a likely hide-out for al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri.

Repelled yet, BTC, or is there a double-standard for Democrats?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

no, which makes it all the more idiotic that Poland and the USA are signing an agreement that would inevitably provoke them - FFS Russia has been saying it would see this as a threat for over a year now.

When making foreign and defense policy decisions, many more things than Russia's feelings need to be taken into account. Russia cannot be allowed a veto of US-Poland defense and foreign policy agreements.

 

 

If Iran does develop a nuclear weapon its target will be israel and not Europe. Europe has generally good relations with Iran and has had for the last ten years and I see no reason why that would change. As for a terrorist group testing nuclear weapons in Europe, the isea is frankly preposterous. If terrorists get their hands on nuclear material, I rather doubt they would go to the expense and potential threat of exposure entailed in developing a missile launch facility within range of Europe.

I don't think you can presume to speak for the Iranian regime. Furthermore, if Iran having nuclear weapons is of no consequence to Europe, why have the EU-3 been negotiating with Iran since 2003 about their nuclear program? Look at Sarkozy and Merkel comments (and other French and German official sources) on potential Iranian nuclear weapons. Although Iran is unlikely to use nuclear weapons against Europe, that doesn't guarantee they will not.

 

As for terror groups you also cannot say what they will and won't do for certain, and furthermore, given that Hezbollah is armed by Iran, I wouldn't be so sanguine. Better safe than sorry.

 

 

Azerbaijan borders Iran Conqy and Putin suggested it, he didn't "offer it" and it was rejected because Azerbaijan is not in Nato. And do tell me how an Iranian missile trajectory towards Israel could best be stopped by a missile defence facility in Poland, I'm all ears.

You have made an unfounded assumption in assuming that a missile shield based in Europe would be intended to protect Israel from Iranian missiles. It obviously is not. Azerbaijan was rejected for geographical reasons, BTC.

 

 

don't be absurd. Russia has been a political entity for longer than the USA has even existed. And anything is not bound to upset it, Russia has very clear objectives and needs that are currently being threatened. I deplore the way Russia is seeking to resolve this but to imagine that it is some kind of chaotic failing state with volatile overreactions to everything is just bizarre.

I know that you have a soft spot for Russia and want to see Russia in your hoped-for anti-US EU, but please be realistic about Russia. You continue to misrepresent what I post (paying attention, eurovol?) and ask the Estonians about the political immaturity of Russia, as well as Russians who have suffered a reduction in civil freedoms in Russia, e.g., muzzling the free press. You really should read some translations of what Russian state-controlled TV broadcasts.

 

As for Russia being a political entity for longer than the US, that may be a dubious claim, but even if it is accurate, simply existing is no feather in its cap since that existence has almost entirely been as a non-democratic state. Any democracy as fragile as Russia's at-best very illiberal "democracy" is politically immature.

 

 

as if it wasn't obvious, McCain presented himself as the guarantor of the continuation and beefing up of the foreign policy decisions that we in Europe largely deplore.

See above- apparently your hero Obama does as well. Time to drop the Labour Party activist-starry-eyed delusions, BTC. Will you now denounce Obama as well?

 

 

McCain is currently suggesting a longer commitment to troops in Iraq than the White House, I'd call that an extension.

Obama wants a longer commitment as well (see above). McCain's position may have changed, you probably misinterpreted it, and any continued US troop presence in Iraq is dependent on the voluntary agreement of the Iraqi government.

 

 

look, European opinions of the USA have plummeted in the last decade. In the long run, unless it changes, it will lead to the election of governments in Europe that are hostile to US interests. That will not be good for Europe OR the USA and I would far rather see fences mended on that front.

Obviously I don't want European governments to be hostile to US interests, but you will probably admit that these hostile governments would be likely to be rather extremist, plus I doubt they would find it profitable to be working too hard against US interests. If it's not good for Europe, I would think Europeans wouldn't elect such governments, and, furthermore, if that is a real possibility, it means efforts also need to be made in Europe to prevent such a thing from happening.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this all afternoon. mlovett said:

I have nothing personally to do with Guantanamo, so that was a very weak example. I am talking about what I see in my day to day experiences with people that you meet on the street, not politicians.

And BD responded:

Most Germans in the 1940s had nothing to do with the concentration and death camps personally. They still bore the guilt then as do you and I now.

And he's right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no justification for it at all - the whole point of the Geneva Convention was to give prisoners rights - no matter where they were!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as of last week, we have a senior Pentagon official actually admitting that the treatment of at least one Guantanamo detainee met the legal definition of torture.

 

 

The public record of the Guantánamo interrogation of the detainee, Mohammed al-Qahtani, has long included what officials labeled abusive techniques, including exposure to extreme temperatures and isolation, but the Pentagon has resisted acknowledging that his treatment rose to the level of torture.

 

But the official, Susan J. Crawford, told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that she had concluded that his treatment amounted to torture when she reviewed military charges against him last year. In May she decided that the case could not be referred for trial but provided no explanation at the time.

 

“His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution, Ms. Crawford was quoted as saying in an article published in The Post on Wednesday.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0