Amnes. Intern. finds United States to be Morally Abject

Plain Old Jane · 05-26-2005, 12:35 AM

"the United States has betrayed a very fundamental principle that this country stands for." says a spokesman for Amnesty Internation in a strong worded statement, a plea for attention to be brought to the forefront of global politics.

Most notably was the events that took place at Abu Gharaib this year to the detainees. Amnesty International believes that the Bush administration did not commit enough resources to the investigation and even aided in a downplay to cover the collective asses of all high ranking officials involved.

This raises serious questions about the compassion and morals of the "moral" "compassionate conservatives" that currently rule our country. What kind of example is the Bush administration setting for both America AND the rest of the nations. How is the US supposed to demand that other countries give up information and people on moral basis if our moral base is abject as it appears to be. Not to mention the long lasting effects of the war itself and its even longer lasting effects on the countries conquered.

From the very start of the war on terror, there has constantly been severe backlash from the international community about the reasons and goings-on of the war. From Afghanistan to Iraq, the United has dealt serious crippling blows to the economy of bodied politic that is the middle east, blows that will keep the middle east on its knees for decades.

A lot of Americans do not realize this, but wars seriously effect a country for countless years before the effect clears up. A lot of people I've interviewed at my liberal arts college (24 in all, 3 questions, all of them hanging out in the student lounge, lazy fucks. 2 people played hooky to talk to me.) believed the transition of powers would be swift and the long lasting effects subdued. But if you look throughout time, you'll see that the conquering of other nations had curious effects on the conquered throughout the ages.

The end of World War I brought about the collapse of the whole Germany-Austria-Hungary empire thing, and through them into economic turmoil that made a power hungry madman rise from the ashes and exact revenge on an innocent people to bolster morale and make Germany back into a world power. World War 2 brought about many many years of starvation and economic turmoil for Japan, however the effect was lessened in germany as the world powers actually stayed in Berlin to squabble over who gets the biggest piece of the pie. On the plus side, as a result of the death of hundreds of thousands (due to starvation and famine) and the economic downfall of Japan, Ramen noodles were invented as a quick and high caloric way to feed many many people. Ramen has since become WILDLY popular all over, and saved the lives of countless thousands of starving college kids.

Lets go farther back, the end of the roman era, when similarly, the romans followed suit of the nazis and enslaved millions to feed their masses (but damn can they make a fine tomato sauce.) they spread over half of europe. The strongest military and economic force on the planet at the time, the downfall however was that their economic status was entirely built on the fact that they were superior, which is the "get rich quick" scheme of capitalism, and sadly, how the United States is set up at the moment. Then ironically, the Romans made the mistake of pissing off the Germanic tribes up north off, and the tribes came in and fucked them ALL up bad. Whoa, yea... Did I mention they fought naked (in the case of the romans, in skirts)?

Lets go even farther back, to a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. When the Mandalorian clans of the outer rims started pissing off the border worlds of the Galactic Republic, at first there was no response from the Republic OR the Jedi. But soon, after the conquering of Onderon and its moon Dxun, the Republic took action. Thus began the Mandalorian Wars. The wars took quite a few years, and the Jedi did not fight at first. But then the Jedi's Revan and Malak joinned the fray against the wishes of the counsel and turned the tide of the war in favor of the Republic. But at the cost of countless worlds. First Telos was laid waste by the Sith fleet led by Saul Careth. Then as a final strike, the Republic fleet led by Revan brought about the fall of Malachor V with weapons of mass destruction, and destroyed the Mandalorian people in a death that would take thousands of years. The Republic won the War, but the cost may have been too much. As a result of the wastes of so many worlds, the economic structure collapsed and the Republic nearly ended, were it not for the exploits of a certain General and veteran of the Mandalorian wars. Obviously the Republic survived to fight again, merely four thousand years later, Anakin Skywalker was born.

Moral of the story: Dont be a fuckhead and torture prisoners, no matter the reason. Eat lots of Ramen. Wear Skirts or nothing at all when you fight. And play Knights of the Old Republic 2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/in...26amnesty.html

(if you need to login to see it, use mine: jeperel/vagina)

raublekick · 05-27-2005, 10:34 AM

good ending! i'm not too certain about the length of the after effects of this war. the last major war we were involved in was in the 60's. things have changed drastically so as far as physically rebuilding a country it might not be too bad. the politics will never end though.

Plain Old Jane · 05-28-2005, 01:43 AM

if you are refering to the vietnam war, it has still felt the effects of that war.
Thanks to the war, new land boundries were set up and there is no longer a central vietnam, just south (taking up two thirds of the land) and north vietnam. They call that war, the American war. And thanks to the use of Agent Orange, much of the peoples inhabiting those areas have a higher incedence of cancer. Although friendly and a genuinely open atmosphere, the war is something talked about with a great deal of... reservation.

So because of the scary communist machine, thousands of people, including americans, suffer from the after effects of Agent Orange, and Vietnam still suffers the same stigma it suffered then.

(on communism: USSR couldnt even feed its own people much less present a political rival, the problem with it is that its economic system was based on the fact that it MIGHT have been better then America, that is to everyone else, people who lived there KNEW it was shitty. Which kind of rings true now, theres lots of dissidents in America and a lot of other countries think we're great, and thats the basis for our entire economic system.)

Unless one learns from a war, then the fighting has been for nothing. We used Saddam to get at Syria... now we're using other countries to get at Iraq. We used Osama to get at the russians... now we're using the british, the austrailians, and the germans to get at Osama. Unless we learn to keep our heads level and make smart and rational and WELL THOUGHT OUT decisions, we will be doomed to repeating this war over and over...

raublekick · 05-28-2005, 10:06 AM

no, no, i'm saying that the effects of the vietnam war are still felt, but that was the last major war we've been involved in. the world has changed so much since then that maybe, just maybe, the effects of war won't last as long.

fighting today on our side is a lot cleaner, much more tactical. just look how easily we took out saddam compared to past wars. the political after effects will be felt for ages, but as far as completely decimating a country, we just don't do it like that anymore.

Plain Old Jane · 05-28-2005, 12:57 PM

i hope your right ^_^

thecreeper · 05-28-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raublekick

no, no, i'm saying that the effects of the vietnam war are still felt, but that was the last major war we've been involved in. the world has changed so much since then that maybe, just maybe, the effects of war won't last as long.

fighting today on our side is a lot cleaner, much more tactical. just look how easily we took out saddam compared to past wars. the political after effects will be felt for ages, but as far as completely decimating a country, we just don't do it like that anymore.

i love how some fucking idiots wonder "why we didn't just nuke them towelheads? GITTURDUN KNOWWHATIMSAYIN?"

i had to listen to a charming conversation along those lines before i left school this semester.

Mike · 05-28-2005, 11:21 PM

Amnesty International referred to Gitmo as "the gulag of our time." Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Somebody remind AI that 30 - 50 million people died in the Gulags, hundreds of thousands were tortured without dying ... and many of them innocent of any crime.

Amnesty International also hates the United States... their harshest words are usually for the United States just to get interest. Nobody will care if they focus on the man-made famine in North Korea where people have resorted to canibalism because food is being purposefully withheld from the public. They won't focus on the ethnic genocide in the Darfur. They didn't focus on the ethnic Genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, or the Balkins ... until after the United States stepped in. I assume they figure that everybody knows what's going on in the Darfur, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia ... the tens of thousands killed for little reason. But, I guess, few people know about the "mishandling of the Qur'an," in Gitmo and Guantanamo Bay... so they can spend their resources covering that.

Mike · 05-28-2005, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plain Old Jane

(on communism: USSR couldnt even feed its own people much less present a political rival, the problem with it is that its economic system was based on the fact that it MIGHT have been better then America, that is to everyone else, people who lived there KNEW it was shitty. Which kind of rings true now, theres lots of dissidents in America and a lot of other countries think we're great, and thats the basis for our entire economic system.)

Uhh. No.

The economic system of the USSR, say Soviet Communism was not even remotely 'based' on the pressumption (not fact) that it was "better" than America's economic system because the United States, in February and October, was not a world power. Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Norway, and Russia were more involved in international economics than the United States... and the United States did not stand at the forefront of Capitalism. If you were to think of THE capitalist country in the 1870s and 1880s, the US would be behind at least a half dozen other countries... And this is roughly the same in 1917, with the US succeeding Belgium and one or two other countries.

Even if you fast-forward to the American war in South East Asia ... it wasn't a choice between the economic models of Soviet Communism and American capitalism. Rarely in revolting countries was the battle over economics.

The idea that the United States is anywhere even comparable to the situation in Soviet Russia is absolutely ridiculous... In that there are dissidents in the US and there were dissidents in the USSR. The dissidence in the USSR was shut down... because those who were against the system were arrested and imprisoned... Politicians, commoners, workers, anybody. If you were starving in Soviet Russia, you were arrested. Why? Because you were starving. If you were not sick in Soviet Russia, you were arrested. Why? Because you must be hoarding food to avoid starvation. If you fought on the front lines in World War II, were captured and were a prisoner of war ... when you returned to Soviet Russia, you were arrested. Dissidence in America is celebrated... people make careers out of it. I know that your analogy was not to say that the American judicial system and Soviet judicial system are the same, but you were drawing a comparison between people within the Soviet Union who knew that the situation was aweful, and people outside of the Soviet Union who were attracted to Communism; and then, those who live in the US who complain, and those who are attracted to Capitalism outside of the US. This is erroneous at bottom ... for many reasons... most of which I'd expect you to argue (the idea that Soviet Communism does not equal Communism as a whole... half of the Communist apologetic movement).

Iraq, also, is not Vietnam. People like to draw comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, trying to argue that like Vietnam... the US is getting into the middle of a civil war that we should not be involved in. However, calling the Iraqi pre-2003 situation a civil war is like saying that the Nazis and Jews fought a civil war between 1941 and 1945. Not quite.

Plain Old Jane · 05-29-2005, 01:26 PM

You are probably right about the real economic status in the USSR, but the phenomenon of the country viewed as divine from the exterior and hellish on the interior is real and certainly helps. But thats not really my point. My point is not so much the economic status of communist countries, but the after effects of ANY war, they are long lasting and the last effect of our clandestine war with russia was the empowering of Osama bin laden, and the empowering of Saddam/Iraq to get at the other middle eastern countries before they turned their guns on us. Unless we want to keep creating these conflicts that madmen rise from, we'd better be more careful in our military dealings and maybe develop other diplomatic policys.

btw, lol at the jewish civil war (although its more like jewish, catholic, and gypsy civil war in germany.)

Mr Biglesworth · 05-29-2005, 01:54 PM

Mike, this is something i've always wondered about and maybe you could cast light on. At what point did America (particularly) begin to actually feel threatened by the communist economic model and its spread? What was the nature of this antipathy? I've never fully understood why America would so venemously opposed to an alternative, perhaps untested economic model?
As far as i've understood it, the ideological war on communism was mostly a veil for a more real and straightforward battle for global dominance between the US and USSR. Was the fight against communism really just a fight against the spread and fruition of soviet influence? To what degree was the Cold War actually ideological? (you don't need to get into identity politics to answer that one)

Mike · 05-29-2005, 02:07 PM

I don't know who really viewed the Soviet Union as divine from the exterior ... because out of the four East Asian countries to have battles with Communism (Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos), none of them were looking to resemble Soviet Communism. Most of the elites who led the revolutions were educated in France, towards more of an egalitarian socialism ... that was impossible to be implemented, unfortunately, for the hundreds of thousands who starved and were eaten because of it. China was the only prominant Asian country who seeked to capture Soviet Communism, on account of Mao's fascination with Stalin. But, by the time of the second Great Leap Forward, and Stalin had been replaced and villianized by Kruschev, so they went on their own path. Mao, continued though, to use failed Stalinist agricultural and economic models ... for whatever reason.

There's also a slight myth with how the United States aided Osama Bin Laden... and I don't fault you at this because it's often overlooked when information sources cite how we aided Bin Laden and encouraged the 70's and 80's Jihad movement. We sent most of the money to Pakistan who then funnelled it to the Mujadideen (sp?)... The Pakistanis had most of the control as to who got more money, and considering that Bin Laden and what would later form the widest terrorist network in the world were the most effective at defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan... Pakistan funnelled more towards those sources.

We're looking at this, though, in a retrospect that sees the Soviet Union for what they were. We view the Gorbachev years as after Pandora's Box had been opened ... and it seems like it was an inevitability, but at the time it wasn't. You didn't know what could have happened ... Gorbachev could have been replaced, the coup in 1991 (or 1990, I forget) could have been a success... And they could have been run by a military oligarchy. And, even today, facing the terrorist threat that the world faces, the Soviet Union was more a threat to global stability than terrorism is. When ever one of the largest arrays of nuclear weapons is at the disposal of any unstable government, it is a great risk. Finally, the weapons that Bin Laden is using now are mostly weapons that they've bought long after the funelled money from the US ran dry... from former Soviet bloc countries, funded by majoritively Middle Eastern (but some Western) networks.

05-26-2005, 12:35 AM	#1
Plain Old Jane i hate vagina Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 841	Amnes. Intern. finds United States to be Morally Abject "the United States has betrayed a very fundamental principle that this country stands for." says a spokesman for Amnesty Internation in a strong worded statement, a plea for attention to be brought to the forefront of global politics. Most notably was the events that took place at Abu Gharaib this year to the detainees. Amnesty International believes that the Bush administration did not commit enough resources to the investigation and even aided in a downplay to cover the collective asses of all high ranking officials involved. This raises serious questions about the compassion and morals of the "moral" "compassionate conservatives" that currently rule our country. What kind of example is the Bush administration setting for both America AND the rest of the nations. How is the US supposed to demand that other countries give up information and people on moral basis if our moral base is abject as it appears to be. Not to mention the long lasting effects of the war itself and its even longer lasting effects on the countries conquered. From the very start of the war on terror, there has constantly been severe backlash from the international community about the reasons and goings-on of the war. From Afghanistan to Iraq, the United has dealt serious crippling blows to the economy of bodied politic that is the middle east, blows that will keep the middle east on its knees for decades. A lot of Americans do not realize this, but wars seriously effect a country for countless years before the effect clears up. A lot of people I've interviewed at my liberal arts college (24 in all, 3 questions, all of them hanging out in the student lounge, lazy fucks. 2 people played hooky to talk to me.) believed the transition of powers would be swift and the long lasting effects subdued. But if you look throughout time, you'll see that the conquering of other nations had curious effects on the conquered throughout the ages. The end of World War I brought about the collapse of the whole Germany-Austria-Hungary empire thing, and through them into economic turmoil that made a power hungry madman rise from the ashes and exact revenge on an innocent people to bolster morale and make Germany back into a world power. World War 2 brought about many many years of starvation and economic turmoil for Japan, however the effect was lessened in germany as the world powers actually stayed in Berlin to squabble over who gets the biggest piece of the pie. On the plus side, as a result of the death of hundreds of thousands (due to starvation and famine) and the economic downfall of Japan, Ramen noodles were invented as a quick and high caloric way to feed many many people. Ramen has since become WILDLY popular all over, and saved the lives of countless thousands of starving college kids. Lets go farther back, the end of the roman era, when similarly, the romans followed suit of the nazis and enslaved millions to feed their masses (but damn can they make a fine tomato sauce.) they spread over half of europe. The strongest military and economic force on the planet at the time, the downfall however was that their economic status was entirely built on the fact that they were superior, which is the "get rich quick" scheme of capitalism, and sadly, how the United States is set up at the moment. Then ironically, the Romans made the mistake of pissing off the Germanic tribes up north off, and the tribes came in and fucked them ALL up bad. Whoa, yea... Did I mention they fought naked (in the case of the romans, in skirts)? Lets go even farther back, to a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. When the Mandalorian clans of the outer rims started pissing off the border worlds of the Galactic Republic, at first there was no response from the Republic OR the Jedi. But soon, after the conquering of Onderon and its moon Dxun, the Republic took action. Thus began the Mandalorian Wars. The wars took quite a few years, and the Jedi did not fight at first. But then the Jedi's Revan and Malak joinned the fray against the wishes of the counsel and turned the tide of the war in favor of the Republic. But at the cost of countless worlds. First Telos was laid waste by the Sith fleet led by Saul Careth. Then as a final strike, the Republic fleet led by Revan brought about the fall of Malachor V with weapons of mass destruction, and destroyed the Mandalorian people in a death that would take thousands of years. The Republic won the War, but the cost may have been too much. As a result of the wastes of so many worlds, the economic structure collapsed and the Republic nearly ended, were it not for the exploits of a certain General and veteran of the Mandalorian wars. Obviously the Republic survived to fight again, merely four thousand years later, Anakin Skywalker was born. Moral of the story: Dont be a fuckhead and torture prisoners, no matter the reason. Eat lots of Ramen. Wear Skirts or nothing at all when you fight. And play Knights of the Old Republic 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/in...26amnesty.html (if you need to login to see it, use mine: jeperel/vagina) Last edited by Plain Old Jane : 05-28-2005 at 01:54 AM.

05-27-2005, 10:34 AM	#2
raublekick Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lancastuh, PA Posts: 1,678	good ending! i'm not too certain about the length of the after effects of this war. the last major war we were involved in was in the 60's. things have changed drastically so as far as physically rebuilding a country it might not be too bad. the politics will never end though. __________________ http://www.good-evil.net slap that bitch, sell her coke

05-28-2005, 01:43 AM	#3
Plain Old Jane i hate vagina Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 841	if you are refering to the vietnam war, it has still felt the effects of that war. Thanks to the war, new land boundries were set up and there is no longer a central vietnam, just south (taking up two thirds of the land) and north vietnam. They call that war, the American war. And thanks to the use of Agent Orange, much of the peoples inhabiting those areas have a higher incedence of cancer. Although friendly and a genuinely open atmosphere, the war is something talked about with a great deal of... reservation. So because of the scary communist machine, thousands of people, including americans, suffer from the after effects of Agent Orange, and Vietnam still suffers the same stigma it suffered then. (on communism: USSR couldnt even feed its own people much less present a political rival, the problem with it is that its economic system was based on the fact that it MIGHT have been better then America, that is to everyone else, people who lived there KNEW it was shitty. Which kind of rings true now, theres lots of dissidents in America and a lot of other countries think we're great, and thats the basis for our entire economic system.) Unless one learns from a war, then the fighting has been for nothing. We used Saddam to get at Syria... now we're using other countries to get at Iraq. We used Osama to get at the russians... now we're using the british, the austrailians, and the germans to get at Osama. Unless we learn to keep our heads level and make smart and rational and WELL THOUGHT OUT decisions, we will be doomed to repeating this war over and over... __________________ Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites.

05-28-2005, 10:06 AM	#4
raublekick Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Lancastuh, PA Posts: 1,678	no, no, i'm saying that the effects of the vietnam war are still felt, but that was the last major war we've been involved in. the world has changed so much since then that maybe, just maybe, the effects of war won't last as long. fighting today on our side is a lot cleaner, much more tactical. just look how easily we took out saddam compared to past wars. the political after effects will be felt for ages, but as far as completely decimating a country, we just don't do it like that anymore. __________________ http://www.good-evil.net slap that bitch, sell her coke

05-28-2005, 12:57 PM	#5
Plain Old Jane i hate vagina Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 841	i hope your right ^_^ __________________ Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites.

05-28-2005, 11:21 PM	#7
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	Amnesty International referred to Gitmo as "the gulag of our time." Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Somebody remind AI that 30 - 50 million people died in the Gulags, hundreds of thousands were tortured without dying ... and many of them innocent of any crime. Amnesty International also hates the United States... their harshest words are usually for the United States just to get interest. Nobody will care if they focus on the man-made famine in North Korea where people have resorted to canibalism because food is being purposefully withheld from the public. They won't focus on the ethnic genocide in the Darfur. They didn't focus on the ethnic Genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, or the Balkins ... until after the United States stepped in. I assume they figure that everybody knows what's going on in the Darfur, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia ... the tens of thousands killed for little reason. But, I guess, few people know about the "mishandling of the Qur'an," in Gitmo and Guantanamo Bay... so they can spend their resources covering that.

05-29-2005, 01:26 PM	#9
Plain Old Jane i hate vagina Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 841	You are probably right about the real economic status in the USSR, but the phenomenon of the country viewed as divine from the exterior and hellish on the interior is real and certainly helps. But thats not really my point. My point is not so much the economic status of communist countries, but the after effects of ANY war, they are long lasting and the last effect of our clandestine war with russia was the empowering of Osama bin laden, and the empowering of Saddam/Iraq to get at the other middle eastern countries before they turned their guns on us. Unless we want to keep creating these conflicts that madmen rise from, we'd better be more careful in our military dealings and maybe develop other diplomatic policys. btw, lol at the jewish civil war (although its more like jewish, catholic, and gypsy civil war in germany.) __________________ Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites.

05-29-2005, 01:54 PM	#10
Mr Biglesworth Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: I live in London Posts: 862	Mike, this is something i've always wondered about and maybe you could cast light on. At what point did America (particularly) begin to actually feel threatened by the communist economic model and its spread? What was the nature of this antipathy? I've never fully understood why America would so venemously opposed to an alternative, perhaps untested economic model? As far as i've understood it, the ideological war on communism was mostly a veil for a more real and straightforward battle for global dominance between the US and USSR. Was the fight against communism really just a fight against the spread and fruition of soviet influence? To what degree was the Cold War actually ideological? (you don't need to get into identity politics to answer that one)

05-29-2005, 02:07 PM	#11
Mike Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 489	I don't know who really viewed the Soviet Union as divine from the exterior ... because out of the four East Asian countries to have battles with Communism (Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos), none of them were looking to resemble Soviet Communism. Most of the elites who led the revolutions were educated in France, towards more of an egalitarian socialism ... that was impossible to be implemented, unfortunately, for the hundreds of thousands who starved and were eaten because of it. China was the only prominant Asian country who seeked to capture Soviet Communism, on account of Mao's fascination with Stalin. But, by the time of the second Great Leap Forward, and Stalin had been replaced and villianized by Kruschev, so they went on their own path. Mao, continued though, to use failed Stalinist agricultural and economic models ... for whatever reason. There's also a slight myth with how the United States aided Osama Bin Laden... and I don't fault you at this because it's often overlooked when information sources cite how we aided Bin Laden and encouraged the 70's and 80's Jihad movement. We sent most of the money to Pakistan who then funnelled it to the Mujadideen (sp?)... The Pakistanis had most of the control as to who got more money, and considering that Bin Laden and what would later form the widest terrorist network in the world were the most effective at defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan... Pakistan funnelled more towards those sources. We're looking at this, though, in a retrospect that sees the Soviet Union for what they were. We view the Gorbachev years as after Pandora's Box had been opened ... and it seems like it was an inevitability, but at the time it wasn't. You didn't know what could have happened ... Gorbachev could have been replaced, the coup in 1991 (or 1990, I forget) could have been a success... And they could have been run by a military oligarchy. And, even today, facing the terrorist threat that the world faces, the Soviet Union was more a threat to global stability than terrorism is. When ever one of the largest arrays of nuclear weapons is at the disposal of any unstable government, it is a great risk. Finally, the weapons that Bin Laden is using now are mostly weapons that they've bought long after the funelled money from the US ran dry... from former Soviet bloc countries, funded by majoritively Middle Eastern (but some Western) networks.