Land Of The Free? Imprisonment Without Trial

[ilw]

I'm not gonna carry on debating cos I think i would be repeating myself, but I'll summarise and clarify

1) What rights does a country have in choosing how to deal with its inhabitants eg what rights does it have in regards to choosing what constitutes a crime, and what a punishment within its borders
2) Who decides (decided?) what rights a country has regarding its inhabitants
3) What right does a country have to enforce what it perceives as a right in another country and to what extent is it allowed to go in order to enforce this right.
4) What rights do people have regarding their beliefs, eg are they allowed to believe in and continue practices based on a belief despite the fact that science can show its false
5) Theres more to life than democracy if when thinking about any of these points you fall in the trap of thinking well it must be up to the people to decide then you are just chasing your own tail.
6) I'm sure theres a 6, but minesweeper keeps distracting me so I'll post it later if i think of it.

To a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate, I'm pointing out the flaws and the grey areas of the system that exists now. The system that exists now between countries is essentially a heavily restrained 'might is right' idea.



Edit: And as for the country I suppose Lichtenstein would be a nice starting point

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by ilw@15 September 2003 - 16:06
I'm not gonna carry on debating cos I think i would be repeating myself, but I'll summarise and clarify

1) What rights does a country have in choosing how to deal with its inhabitants eg what rights does it have in regards to choosing what constitutes a crime, and what a punishment within its borders
2) Who decides (decided?) what rights a country has regarding its inhabitants
3) What right does a country have to enforce what it perceives as a right in another country and to what extent is it allowed to go in order to enforce this right.
4) What rights do people have regarding their beliefs, eg are they allowed to believe in and continue practices based on a belief despite the fact that science can show its false
5) Theres more to life than democracy if when thinking about any of these points you fall in the trap of thinking well it must be up to the people to decide then you are just chasing your own tail.
6) I'm sure theres a 6, but minesweeper keeps distracting me so I'll post it later if i think of it.

To a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate, I'm pointing out the flaws and the grey areas of the system that exists now. The system that exists now between countries is essentially a heavily restrained 'might is right' idea.



Edit: And as for the country I suppose Lichtenstein would be a nice starting point

Not being funny, but this is neither a summary OR a clarification.

It's a list of 4 questions, 1 patronising statement, and 1 flippant remark.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by ilw@15 September 2003 - 16:06
I'm not gonna carry on debating cos I think i would be repeating myself, but I'll summarise and clarify

1) What rights does a country have in choosing how to deal with its inhabitants eg what rights does it have in regards to choosing what constitutes a crime, and what a punishment within its borders
2) Who decides (decided?) what rights a country has regarding its inhabitants
3) What right does a country have to enforce what it perceives as a right in another country and to what extent is it allowed to go in order to enforce this right.
4) What rights do people have regarding their beliefs, eg are they allowed to believe in and continue practices based on a belief despite the fact that science can show its false
5) Theres more to life than democracy if when thinking about any of these points you fall in the trap of thinking well it must be up to the people to decide then you are just chasing your own tail.
6) I'm sure theres a 6, but minesweeper keeps distracting me so I'll post it later if i think of it.

To a certain extent I am playing devil's advocate, I'm pointing out the flaws and the grey areas of the system that exists now. The system that exists now between countries is essentially a heavily restrained 'might is right' idea.



Edit: And as for the country I suppose Lichtenstein would be a nice starting point

1/ None

2/ The people of that country, ultimatly. They may have to FORCE their views in some situations.

3/ None

4/ They have a right to believe anything they want to, in my opinion.

5/ Agreed. Democracy = Cakes and Circus'. People will vote for what THEY want, irrespective of the good it will do the country or population at large.

6/ There are plenty of others.



Immaterial of all this, im free to follow MY beliefs, irrespective of what my Government or their Government (or even parents) want.

If they want to be educated, i'll support that.

If they dont, im equally happy with that.



Robert A Heinlein:

Democracy: Based on the principle that the many know better than the few.

Theocracy: based on the priciple that the few know better than the many.

Monarchy/Despot/Dictator: Based on the principle that one knows better than the many.


Huh, say again?

Who decides?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@15 September 2003 - 01:48
What about the ones you miss j2t4? 

But Bush cited the U.S. military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of the strides the United States has made in cracking down on anti-American militants and those who might harbour them or provide them with weapons of mass destruction.

A little quiz for my American friends. The above quote was from a news report.

Can you spot what really pisses a lot of people off in the above quote?

Clue: It's what's not there.


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

@ j2k4

I await with 'bated breath the true, inside story of 9/11.

I seem to remember your theory was, that 911 happened because America was seen as the "Great Satan" and had no political motive, is that right?

What do you want me to say? Do I really have to point out US involvement in Muslim countries? Do I have to point out that Osama Bin Laden was recruited, armed and financed by the US, then abandoned? Look at every US involvement in the muslim world for your answers. Look especially at Saudi Arabia.

I must say I find this, as an answer, or an attempt to fulfill the "promise" of your original post, is more than a bit disappointing.

I may have mentioned the U.S. as being seen as the "Great Satan", but I deny having defined our intent as being devoid of political motivation.

As a matter-of-fact, I believe I have said, on several occasions, and in several ways, in several threads, the U.S. rarely moves personnel around internationally except in the case of political interest rising to the level of being a motivating factor.

As far as that goes, I think you'll find the vast majority of international maneuvering by any country is similarly motivated.

Your discovery of this tendency, and urge to define it as "exceptional" in the case of the U.S., marks you as a bit of deductive neophyte.

The reasons you finally give are neither new nor enlightening, Billy.

Oh, well.

My hopes weren't high.

[AussieSheila]

Originally posted by ilw@15 September 2003 - 13:23
i'm now of the opinion that its nothing i wasn't aware of, all very sad, but irrelevant.

A little like your attitude, Ian.

I don't get why you're philosophizing while people are dying.

[Billy_Dean]

The U.S. commit, with all haste, genocide upon itself, as we are infidels, and Islam, as viewed by Osama, cannot countenance our continued existence.

I'm glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn't care less, what's best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don't understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

Just for us American thickos, why don't you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

That deserved a long answer did it? It happened because of the underhanded, uneven, biased, couldn't care less attitude of the United States in dealing with Muslim countries. Have you a different opinion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And now ... a few j2k4-isms, to ponder...

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance' sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

The U.S. has suffered the slings and arrows it has precisely because we have cared-it is my contention the process would be better served if we did not care.

Make up your mind about what you DO actually think before you post, j2. If the US does not CARE, why should anyone CARE what happens to the US?

As for your hopes j2k4, just what are they? You seem very deft at avoiding getting your toes wet. You answer what suits you, and are often proved wrong. We are still waiting for your response to the replies to your idiotic pronouncement that the IRA didn't export terrorism. Puts a dint in your arguments about not negotiating with terrorists doesn't it?

But keep up with the holier-than-thou attitude, you give a real insight into the mind of America.



B)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@15 September 2003 - 23:01


But keep up with the holier-than-thou attitude, you give a real insight into the mind of America.



B)

Am I to assume then, that you, Billy Dean, are providing "real insight" into the mind of Australia?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@16 September 2003 - 01:01

The U.S. commit, with all haste, genocide upon itself, as we are infidels, and Islam, as viewed by Osama, cannot countenance our continued existence.

I'm glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn't care less, what's best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don't understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

Just for us American thickos, why don't you tell us, in very precise and exact terms, why 9/11 "happened"?

That deserved a long answer did it? It happened because of the underhanded, uneven, biased, couldn't care less attitude of the United States in dealing with Muslim countries. Have you a different opinion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And now ... a few j2k4-isms, to ponder...

As to accusations of "double-standards", again; SO WHAT?

The U.S. has pretended to "care" what other countries thought about us and our motivations.

I believe we should cease this "caring for appearance' sake".

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

The U.S. has suffered the slings and arrows it has precisely because we have cared-it is my contention the process would be better served if we did not care.

Make up your mind about what you DO actually think before you post, j2. If the US does not CARE, why should anyone CARE what happens to the US?

As for your hopes j2k4, just what are they? You seem very deft at avoiding getting your toes wet. You answer what suits you, and are often proved wrong. We are still waiting for your response to the replies to your idiotic pronouncement that the IRA didn't export terrorism. Puts a dint in your arguments about not negotiating with terrorists doesn't it?

But keep up with the holier-than-thou attitude, you give a real insight into the mind of America.



B)

Billy-

Your post is inane, confusing, off-point, and an all-'round poor effort at escaping responsibility for providing what you promised; you would make a good American liberal-full of emptiness.

Your quotes are unattributed, so I will indicate to others (who shouldn't have to be bothered to back-track in order to un-ravel your sloppiness) that the first and third quotes in the first section are mine; the other is yours.

The first is my response to your query as to what Osama would require of the U.S., were he and Dubya to sit down at the negotiating table.

The third is my response to your accusation of ignorance as to the "reason(s)" we were attacked on 9/11; it is nothing more than a request that you provide for us all your specially enlightened views as to Osama's motivations.

In response, you parroted the standard line.

Your second section of quotes are accurate, although their meaning and nuance might be clearer if you had managed to included your statements which indicated them.

Since you have not seen fit to do so, I will try to provide context without the boring quotes:

My statements were given in response to Billy Dean's whining responses to my views on U.S. foreign policy and the political situation in the mideast.

As he rejects my views and opinions on their face, without any accompanying analysis or refutation (and, no Billy, I'm not talking about my "I.R.A." remark, which statement you also mis-interpreted), he is left with nothing, from a tactical point-of-view, other than comments in the vein of, "ARE WE THERE YET?", IS THAT YOUR BEST SHOT?", "YOUR IGNORANCE/ARROGANCE ARE TYPICALLY AMERICAN!"

By now we know if Billy can't google it, he can't know it, as he trusts the propaganda of "links" and the rhetoric of the "other-wise uninformed" more than he trusts (or can trust) his ability to suss things for himself, or to flesh out an opinion, of which he has only one: The U.S.A. sucks.

[Rat Faced]

The U.S.A. sucks.

Thats anti-americanism, implying the people.

It was obvious to me that he has been attacking US foreign policy, not the people in general....... although he was very inarticulate with his choice of words at one point, which detracted from his arguments in my opinion...

I'm glad you lot are posting on here, America has a reputation in the world of an arrogant, couldn't care less, what's best for the US is best for the world attitude. So much so, you still don't understand, two years later, why 911 happened.

The overall tone has been about Policy, not people.


As has been pointed out: Anti-American is a nonsense to any educated person.

Every country in the world has its mirror in the America's, the cultures are too varied there to "Generalise" that way.

[Billy_Dean]

You just don't get it do you?

Tell me this ... have you ever said the reason for 911 was to do with US policy overseas? Have you ever said Osama bin Laden had political motives? Maybe you should give us your views again, just to clear things up. Better read back first tho' you wouldn't want to make any more boobs like this ....

j2k4

The U.S. has suffered the slings and arrows it has precisely because we have cared-it is my contention the process would be better served if we did not care.

j2k4

I did not mean to imply the U.S. actually cared about other countries; as we all know, this is simply not true.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From j2k4

(and, no Billy, I'm not talking about my "I.R.A." remark, which statement you also mis-interpreted)

Also from j2k4

As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it as has Osama; I trust you see the difference.

Well, err .. no.. I don't see the difference. A clear statement; *As to the I.R.A., while they practiced terrorism, they did not export it... * They DID export it, and, again, you're wrong.


Are we there yet?


Edit:

Clocko

Am I to assume then, that you, Billy Dean, are providing "real insight" into the mind of Australia?

I'm actually English Clocko, I live in Australia.

But I like you, so sorry if my remark upset you. Here's a nice pic of someone else who is English, and also lives in Australia.
She is much nicer than me, by all accounts.





B)