PDA

View Full Version : RE: Geneva Convention



Bluebird
29-01-2005, 20:42
Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken...But, here Koba might be right - the US is not "TECHNICALLY" breaking any conventions, concerning the detention of those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq...Why?

Wasn't Guantamo Bay chosen, because its geographic location, which (conveniently) falls outside the reach of the Geneva Convention, regarding detainees - and/or Cuba was never a signatory to the convention....???

I seem to remember that it was chosen, with the utmost care (and there was an international outcry about it, at the time), and it also, wouldn't be in either the UK's or America's immediate back yard...I.e on home soil too...And, well away from prying eyes, to boot...Wonder why? Wonder Why?

Claude Bottom
29-01-2005, 21:26
Well said, chief. :D Of course, the answer is that these "terrorists" - not that anyone knows if they are or not - "innocent until proven guilty" being ignored - are simply too dangerous to be conveniently held in the US....... dear me, better put them in some forgotten corner where international law doesn't apply. Even if they aren't guilty - or it can't be savaged out of them with a Dobermann - then they'll be forgotten about in time.

I should think that the detractors to this thread are.... a certain kind of American. However. Right and wrong is not a question of nationality.

J.D.
29-01-2005, 21:32
Not even close. The US feels free to ignore international conventions when it suits it.
Cuba was chosen becuase it is, (so they hope), outside of US law.
US law being slightly harder for the American government to ignore.

Claude Bottom
29-01-2005, 21:48
I'd say that given the only difference of what law the US is ignoring, JD, it's close enough..... thanks for the rational argument, anyway.

Bluebird
29-01-2005, 22:20
Originally posted by J.D.
Not even close. The US feels free to ignore international conventions when it suits it.
Cuba was chosen becuase it is, (so they hope), outside of US law.
US law being slightly harder for the American government to ignore. Is that outside (only) American law and NOT international law?

Whatever JD, I feel you make a very real and valid point here...the invation of Iraq, was deemed illegal, by the British House of Lords, to the best of my knowledge...

What happened in Iraq is/was tantamout America saying, we don't like YOUR president, and we're going to remove him, and put in a more friendly and controllable (to America), leader...

Was it not J. Bush Snr's admistration, which funded Hussain, when he was busy gassing a few thousand people...Rumsfield even presented him with a golden pair of horseshoes, in behalf of J. Bush Snr, in the 80's.

Who supplied Hussain with the where-with-all to develop the gas, and WMD (which were long gone, in the event) in the first place...??? Not that I'm an expert, but, it's surely rather difficult to make these things from sand, I'd imagine?

I can just imagine the reaction, of Bush saying that Putin has WMD, and we gotta take him out...

However, on that very point though; N. Korea's made no pretence of the fact that they've got all kinds of weapons + million or so combat-ready army men.

Bush put N.Korea, in his "Axis of Evil" speech...Why doesn't America pay N. Korea a courtesy visit with a battle fleet...??? WMD aplenty to be found there, for sure

And, with a $25, 000, 000 bounty on his head...dead or alive, why hasn't Bin Laden been caught? I know, they've not got a good Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson, anymore with a poncho and cigar to do the job ...:)

rosieredwood
30-01-2005, 04:34
...to this point have been sacrificed to draft, re-draft, re-re-draft, re-re-re-draft, Xerox, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-draft, aaaaaand sign (with the exception of the UK and several other countries) the EU constipation, er, constitution...

koba65
30-01-2005, 06:59
Originally posted by Bluebird
Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken...But, here Koba might be right - the US is not "TECHNICALLY" breaking any conventions, concerning the detention of those captured in Afghanistan and Iraq...Why?

Wasn't Guantamo Bay chosen, because its geographic location, which (conveniently) falls outside the reach of the Geneva Convention, regarding detainees - and/or Cuba was never a signatory to the convention....???

I seem to remember that it was chosen, with the utmost care (and there was an international outcry about it, at the time), and it also, wouldn't be in either the UK's or America's immediate back yard...I.e on home soil too...And, well away from prying eyes, to boot...Wonder why? Wonder Why?

That's not why they're technically not in breach of the convention - but those reasons have been spelled out ad naseum. However, if the GC was applicable fully to Camp X-Ray at GITMO it would not be affected by the location of the camp. The US is the owner of the camp, the captor nation, GITMO is considered US "property" and therefore, as a signatory/ratifier it would still have to follow the GC (if the inmates fell into the categories as described in Art. IV of the GC - which they don't).

I think the reason for the location is not to have them on US soil, but on a military facility where dependents do not reside, in a place where escape was fairly impossible, as well as "rescue" attempts.

http://www.moaa.org/magazine/July2002/f_xray.asp

koba65
30-01-2005, 07:16
Originally posted by J.D.
Not even close. The US feels free to ignore international conventions when it suits it.
Cuba was chosen becuase it is, (so they hope), outside of US law.
US law being slightly harder for the American government to ignore.

The US is bound by US law regardless of the location of its forces. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is applicable to those who are assigned to this camp and, as detailed in previous posts, has been used to charge those who have violated the UCMJ when dealing with the detainees.

koba65
30-01-2005, 07:51
"Is that outside (only) American law and NOT international law?

Whatever JD, I feel you make a very real and valid point here...the invation of Iraq, was deemed illegal, by the British House of Lords, to the best of my knowledge..."

It would be interesting to know why they claimed it was illegal. Saddam's regime was in violation of the following UN Resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

In addition to the UK and the US, France, China and Russia (Germany, etc) voted for these resolutions. Several of these resolutions authorized the use of force for non-compliance to the resolutions. The UNSC reported several times that Saddam's regime was in breach of the 17 listed resolutions. France, China, Russia, and others who voted to authorize use of force when they approved the language in these resolutions expressed utter dismay when the resolutions were enforced by the means that they were authorized to be enforced by. Hmmm. Hey, we approved it, but we really didn't mean it. Of course, you'll note that the UN Oil for Food debacle may explain why some of those countries were against Saddam's regime being replaced... Vot gde sobaka zaryta.


"Was it not J. Bush Snr's admistration, which funded Hussain, when he was busy gassing a few thousand people...Rumsfield even presented him with a golden pair of horseshoes, in behalf of J. Bush Snr, in the 80's.

Who supplied Hussain with the where-with-all to develop the gas, and WMD (which were long gone, in the event) in the first place...??? Not that I'm an expert, but, it's surely rather difficult to make these things from sand, I'd imagine?"

Maybe this is where they received thier funding:
"As for the UK, ten days after the Foreign Office verbally condemned the Halabja massacre, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rewarded Iraq by extending £400 million worth of credits to trade with Iraq."

"I can just imagine the reaction, of Bush saying that Putin has WMD, and we gotta take him out..."

That' d be kind of weird since the US has bi-lateral destruction agreements with the Russian Federation and both countries appear to be adhering to the conditions set forth in said treaties. The US and RF are also key signatories and ratifiers of the CWC and BWC. The US assists the Russian Federation with destroying WMDs and converting former WMD production facilities into facilities producing peaceful products. Of note, Saddam's regime was offered the same deal - via the CWC and other treaties that they refused to sign and ratify. As to the argument of no WMD found, must point out that CW and BW agents are very transportable and can be moved, hidden, and destroyed quickly. It's highly unlikely that Saddam would have left their stockpiles in place prior to an invasion he knew was coming. Have we forgotten the Bathist regime in Syria? Perhaps it didn't happen, but it is possible.

"However, on that very point though; N. Korea's made no pretence of the fact that they've got all kinds of weapons + million or so combat-ready army men.

Bush put N.Korea, in his "Axis of Evil" speech...Why doesn't America pay N. Korea a courtesy visit with a battle fleet...??? WMD aplenty to be found there, for sure."

So far diplomacy still has a chance to work with N. Korea. If one studies their approach to negotiations it's a lot of bluff, a lot of threats, and a lot of posturing, before they sit down and make concessions. We'll see what the future holds for that region.

"And, with a $25, 000, 000 bounty on his head...dead or alive, why hasn't Bin Laden been caught? I know, they've not got a good Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson, anymore with a poncho and cigar to do the job ...:)"

Hasn't been caught, but has been reduced to sending out grainy videotapes, or scratchy audio tapes. Thus far, Al Qaeda has not been able to strike the US and has only been able to strike at other countries using proxy terrorist groups. Remember this is the man, Bin Laden, who has said several times post-9/11 that the streets of America would run red with blood and that they would be victorious over the infidels.

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 10:01
Originally posted by koba65
"Is that outside (only) American law and NOT international law?

Whatever JD, I feel you make a very real and valid point here...the invation of Iraq, was deemed illegal, by the British House of Lords, to the best of my knowledge..."

It would be interesting to know why they claimed it was illegal. Saddam's regime was in violation of the following UN Resolutions:
UNSCR 1441 - November 8, 2002
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

In addition to the UK and the US, France, China and Russia (Germany, etc) voted for these resolutions. Several of these resolutions authorized the use of force for non-compliance to the resolutions. The UNSC reported several times that Saddam's regime was in breach of the 17 listed resolutions. France, China, Russia, and others who voted to authorize use of force when they approved the language in these resolutions expressed utter dismay when the resolutions were enforced by the means that they were authorized to be enforced by. Hmmm. Hey, we approved it, but we really didn't mean it. Of course, you'll note that the UN Oil for Food debacle may explain why some of those countries were against Saddam's regime being replaced... Vot gde sobaka zaryta.


"Was it not J. Bush Snr's admistration, which funded Hussain, when he was busy gassing a few thousand people...Rumsfield even presented him with a golden pair of horseshoes, in behalf of J. Bush Snr, in the 80's.

Who supplied Hussain with the where-with-all to develop the gas, and WMD (which were long gone, in the event) in the first place...??? Not that I'm an expert, but, it's surely rather difficult to make these things from sand, I'd imagine?"

Maybe this is where they received thier funding:
"As for the UK, ten days after the Foreign Office verbally condemned the Halabja massacre, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rewarded Iraq by extending £400 million worth of credits to trade with Iraq."

"I can just imagine the reaction, of Bush saying that Putin has WMD, and we gotta take him out..."

That' d be kind of weird since the US has bi-lateral destruction agreements with the Russian Federation and both countries appear to be adhering to the conditions set forth in said treaties. The US and RF are also key signatories and ratifiers of the CWC and BWC. The US assists the Russian Federation with destroying WMDs and converting former WMD production facilities into facilities producing peaceful products. Of note, Saddam's regime was offered the same deal - via the CWC and other treaties that they refused to sign and ratify. As to the argument of no WMD found, must point out that CW and BW agents are very transportable and can be moved, hidden, and destroyed quickly. It's highly unlikely that Saddam would have left their stockpiles in place prior to an invasion he knew was coming. Have we forgotten the Bathist regime in Syria? Perhaps it didn't happen, but it is possible.

"However, on that very point though; N. Korea's made no pretence of the fact that they've got all kinds of weapons + million or so combat-ready army men.

Bush put N.Korea, in his "Axis of Evil" speech...Why doesn't America pay N. Korea a courtesy visit with a battle fleet...??? WMD aplenty to be found there, for sure."

So far diplomacy still has a chance to work with N. Korea. If one studies their approach to negotiations it's a lot of bluff, a lot of threats, and a lot of posturing, before they sit down and make concessions. We'll see what the future holds for that region.

"And, with a $25, 000, 000 bounty on his head...dead or alive, why hasn't Bin Laden been caught? I know, they've not got a good Clint Eastwood or Charles Bronson, anymore with a poncho and cigar to do the job ...:)"

Hasn't been caught, but has been reduced to sending out grainy videotapes, or scratchy audio tapes. Thus far, Al Qaeda has not been able to strike the US and has only been able to strike at other countries using proxy terrorist groups. Remember this is the man, Bin Laden, who has said several times post-9/11 that the streets of America would run red with blood and that they would be victorious over the infidels. Koba, since when, has the current administration ever listened to the UN and/or taken it even remotely seriously. The US, is also the UN's biggest debtor too, they haven't paid the membership bill for quite a while and have even made noises about clipping its wings, in certain areas.

Regarding the UN, here we have we an organisation, which effectively has no teeth, and the reason for that is, because the Bush admisitration has reduced it to just that...An organisition without teeth.

When the Blix report, on Iraq, was finally submitted for reading, why did the White House nick it - saying that we've got better copiers? Hard to believe, that UN's copiers are old, hand-cranked machines, even though the US hasn't paid its luncheon bill there - yet.

Yet Cofti Annan still whizzez around in his own (UN) jet and nice suits....Air miles all paid for....and never a stressed frown on his face....I'm not quite sure how he justifies his salary + expenses?

But, he's another subject for another day...In the meantime, he's gotta be ultra nice to Bushy - cozy up to him a little - to get a few handouts, and hopefully get the (US's) debt paid, in full, one day...Oh, and maybe get Bushy & Co to "actually" abide to one or two resolutions, just for good measure...

Talking of Blix, he was just used (poor man) as a smoke-screen, for Bush to be seen to be doing something "lawfully," and/or to be "seen" to be abiding to UN resolutions; before daring to open the Pandora's Box that is Iraq...

By the way, why has the US, denied access to being the subject of an investigation for WMD itself? Any answers on that one, out there?

Blair too, I'm sorry to say, was an active participant to that grand illusion - not to mention Spain...David Copperfield couldn't have performed that act of illusion better himself...

Man, how those spin doctors, went into a spin, they never had it so good...Interesting that some of these peeps had to either, eventually, leave or resign their posts...All expendable...In the name of a good and "just" cause...

About Bin Laden, he might be reduced to making grainy vids, of himself. But, the fact remains, that he's still a free man, despite the fact that there's a colossal bounty on his head.

That kinda tells you something...And, despite the most advanced electronic gadgetry - no one can still locate him...If the film Enemy of the State, was anything to go by - the CIA should've found him in no time at all...

Guess he doesn't use mobile phones though...Or maybe it's just not in the "political" interest to pull him in - at least just yet...He's (perhaps) still got a role to play..

After 9/11, when all flights were immediatly grounded, why was the Bin Laden family quietly flown out of US territory...??? They'd have been the first peeps that I'd want to be having a chat with - concerning their son, ol' Bin...

J.D.
30-01-2005, 10:20
Military personel are never out of the military's law. I was referring to the prisoners. The Bush administration has denied them rights as enemy solidiers which they should recieve under the Geneva Convention and then by holding them outside of the United States they seek to deny them the rights given to accused criminals. Law suits are in process right now in the US to try to give these people one of the two clasifications.

Personally I don't know which they should have but I definitely think that they should have one or the other.

koba65
30-01-2005, 11:14
Originally posted by J.D.
Military personel are never out of the military's law. I was referring to the prisoners. The Bush administration has denied them rights as enemy solidiers which they should recieve under the Geneva Convention and then by holding them outside of the United States they seek to deny them the rights given to accused criminals. Law suits are in process right now in the US to try to give these people one of the two clasifications.

Personally I don't know which they should have but I definitely think that they should have one or the other.

If they're declared enemy soldiers, i.e., Prisoners of War, then they cannot legally be tried and can be held until the end of the "War on Terror." (unless accused of war crimes - which a lot of these guys have, however, they didn't belong to a military organization)

If they are considered as enemy combatants then they should be tried under international and/or US law (more than likely US law since they're in US custody) - me thinks they'll get the legal representation, but not in the US criminal or civil court system, it will be in the military court system (which, btw, all guilty verdicts are automatically appealed to the next higher court [US Military Appelate Court], appeals after that go directly to the US Supreme Court).

Most of the confusion comes from most people not really understanding what the GC says. They want these people (who, for the umpteenth time I must say do NOT fall under Art IV of the 3rd GC) to be considered prisoners of war. This is from the same people who don't want them to be kept indefinitely. These two "desires" contradict each other. If POWs they'll be there until the US declares the War on Terror over - something that won't be over until the terrorists captitulate. Anybody foresee Osama, Zarkawi, and the one-eyed Mullah suing for peace?

Must also point out that this is the first time in the world's history that a captured enemy has had the right to have lawsuits on their future heard in the captor nation's court systems. With the exception of the UK (and probably Australia, Canada, NZ) I doubt any other captor nation would afford the captured such a right.

koba65
30-01-2005, 11:54
"Koba, since when, has the current administration ever listened to the UN and/or taken it even remotely seriously. The US, is also the UN's biggest debtor too, they haven't paid the membership bill for quite a while and have even made noises about clipping its wings, in certain areas."

That's definitely another debate, and one could argue there are reasons the US is the biggest "debtor," but the US also pays the most dues, and finances other countries' UN payments, as well as still pays out financial aid to Western European countries, who then turn around and criticize the US for not paying UN dues. And, with the on-going scandals at the UN (Oil for Food, Congo Sex Scandals, UN New York sex scandals, misappropriation, etc), I'm glad our Congress is thinking twice before handing over blank checks to that organization before it undergoes serious reformation. Having said that, it's always interesting to hear the criticism of alleged US stinginess in foreign aid/UN payments when the US donates (GIVES AWAY) 15 billion in aid annually (the next highest country is the UK with 6 billion in aid). Added to that is the private US donations (once again, donations, not loans) that are given annually:
Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion:
International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000

Add to that US military assisting in natural disasters, etc., and I think it's fair to say we pull well more than our fair share of helping out the disadvantaged. Personally, I'd rather see more of our money used at home to help out our own people with problems.

It's also hard to take the UN seriously when they vote for resolutions they have no intention of enforcing. And when asked to enforce the resolutions they balk. Or, they vote countries like Lybia and the Sudan to the Human Rights Commission. Countries the UN has declared in violation of UN Human Rights resolutions. Furthermore, the UN has shown time and again that they are not the impartial body their charter says they are to be. For example, everytime Israel attacks the Palestinians or strikes terrorist camps in Lebanon the UN issues a condemnation. When Palestinian terrorists strike Israel - SILENCE.

I also note that you're silent on the unpaid UN bills to New York city - the millions (some say approx 1.5 billion) that the UN owes for various charges that their diplomats incur in NY.

I guess if we want to make everyone happy we should pay our dues and only our UN dues. Perhaps we should leave the financial aid to others. France sure does give a lot (HA! not even in the top 15 of donors).

"Regarding the UN, here we have we an organisation, which effectively has no teeth, and the reason for that is, because the Bush admisitration has reduced it to just that...An organisition without teeth."

The organization is without teeth because it has become an unwieldy bureaucratic organization rife with corruption and graf, and basically ruderless under the "leadership" of Kofi Anann - whose son grew quite rich in the Oil for Food program.

"When the Blix report, on Iraq, was finally submitted for reading, why did the White House nick it - saying that we've got better copiers? Hard to believe, that UN's copiers are old, hand-cranked machines, even though the US hasn't paid its luncheon bill there - yet. "
Good question. Have no idea.

"Yet Cofti Annan still whizzez around in his own (UN) jet and nice suits....Air miles all paid for....and never a stressed frown on his face....I'm not quite sure how he justifies his salary + expenses?"
Yes, good question.

"But, he's another subject for another day...In the meantime, he's gotta be ultra nice to Bushy - cozy up to him a little - to get a few handouts, and hopefully get the (US's) debt paid, in full, one day...Oh, and maybe get Bushy & Co to "actually" abide to one or two resolutions, just for good measure..."
If declaring the war in Iraq "illegal" and making anti-Bush statements and pro-Kerry statements during the US presidential election campaign is considered cozying up to Bush, I'd like to know what Kofi's anti-Bush actions would be.

"Talking of Blix, he was just used (poor man) as a smoke-screen, for Bush to be seen to be doing something "lawfully," and/or to be "seen" to be abiding to UN resolutions; before daring to open the Pandora's Box that is Iraq..."

The Iraq violations of UN resolution pre-date Blix, also happened with prior inspectors, and continued under Blix's watch - and even before Bush took office. So, perhaps this was some Bush Sr-Clinton-Bush Jr. conspiracy (sarcasm).

"By the way, why has the US, denied access to being the subject of an investigation for WMD itself? Any answers on that one, out there?"

Here are the answers: The US is a signatory/ratifier of the CWC and has frequent inspections carried out at its declared sites by inspectors from the UN's Office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) located at the Hague. At no time has the Technical Secretariat at the OPCW declared the US in breach of the CWC. Other WMD treaties are also being followed by the US -inspections are conducted, either by international teams, or by the Russians depending on whether the treaty is multinational or bilateral. For a list of which treaties and about the inspections refer to: http://www.dtra.mil/Toolbox/ac.cfm The answers you seek are there.

"About Bin Laden, he might be reduced to making grainy vids, of himself. But, the fact remains, that he's still a free man, despite the fact that there's a colossal bounty on his head. "

Geronimo was roaming "free" for years after the bounty was placed on his head as well, but his terrorizing of the terrority he was driven from ceased.

"That kinda tells you something...And, despite the most advanced electronic gadgetry - no one can still locate him...If the film Enemy of the State, was anything to go by - the CIA should've found him in no time at all..."
Yes, of course, if Hollywood shows fancy gadgets in movies then they really must exist. Currently in the States they call the willingness of people to take for granted what they see on tv the "CSI Effect" - CSI, a popular crime show that shows fancy gadgets used to solve crimes (and these gadgets don't exist in real life), has actually been blamed for the lower conviction rates in criminal trials since they juries have said, "the prosecution couldn't prove their case because they didn't have the proper level of proof [as shown on the CSI shows]).

"After 9/11, when all flights were immediatly grounded, why was the Bin Laden family quietly flown out of US territory...??? They'd have been the first peeps that I'd want to be having a chat with - concerning their son, ol' Bin..."
Are you Bluebird, or Michael Moore? The person who gave the Bin Laden family permission to fly out was a Clinton appointee and has publicly refuted Moore's claims about Bush in F- 9/11. The appointee is no fan of Bush and has written a scathing book about his time in the Administration - i.e., no reason to testify in Bush's favor. He has testified before Congress about this. Also, Osama Bin Laden has been estranged from his family for years, so I don't think he'd be calling them up and saying "Haji, don't go to to NY, I'm going to destroy it." Therefore, the value of that family would have been low. It was mainly done for their own protection and to assauge Saudi sensitivities (something that I really disagree with - would've rather seen them held and questioned just to make them uncomfortable).

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 12:40
Originally posted by koba65
"Koba, since when, has the current administration ever listened to the UN and/or taken it even remotely seriously. The US, is also the UN's biggest debtor too, they haven't paid the membership bill for quite a while and have even made noises about clipping its wings, in certain areas."

That's definitely another debate, and one could argue there are reasons the US is the biggest "debtor," but the US also pays the most dues, and finances other countries' UN payments, as well as still pays out financial aid to Western European countries, who then turn around and criticize the US for not paying UN dues. Well, I'm not sure I agree with all of that statement - but yes there are reasons, as to why the US is the biggest debtor...And,
it's definately another dabate too...

And, with the on-going scandals at the UN (Oil for Food, Congo Sex Scandals, UN New York sex scandals, misappropriation, etc), I'm glad our Congress is thinking twice before handing over blank checks to that organization before it undergoes serious reformation. I totally agree with that point too!

Having said that, it's always interesting to hear the criticism of alleged US stinginess in foreign aid/UN payments when the US donates (GIVES AWAY) 15 billion in aid annually (the next highest country is the UK with 6 billion in aid). Added to that is the private US donations (once again, donations, not loans) that are given annually:

I've never said, and I connot recall, anyone on this site, at least, ver accusing the Americans of being "stingy," with foreign aid. Regarding foreign aid though, maybe a bit mis-spent, and/or not well-thought out.

Look at the money that was thrown at Russia, after the collapse of the USSR, without any thought-out plan...And, look where and where NOT, that pile of dosh went to, too...A big black hole!

Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of $15 billion:
International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000

Add to that US military assisting in natural disasters, etc., and I think it's fair to say we pull well more than our fair share of helping out the disadvantaged. Personally, I'd rather see more of our money used at home to help out our own people with problems.

On the second point, I agree with you you 100%...On the first, i believe that this is aptly called, "Earthquake Diplomacy." Amazing how Greece and Turkey used the chance to settle old scores, when Turkey was hit by a massive quake, and the Greeks went to their immediate assistance....Result...They've laid to rest old scores and sores, and become model (well almost) nieghbours...

It's also hard to take the UN seriously when they vote for resolutions they have no intention of enforcing. And when asked to enforce the resolutions they balk. Or, they vote countries like Lybia and the Sudan to the Human Rights Commission. Countries the UN has declared in violation of UN Human Rights resolutions. Furthermore, the UN has shown time and again that they are not the impartial body their charter says they are to be. For example, everytime Israel attacks the Palestinians or strikes terrorist camps in Lebanon the UN issues a condemnation. When Palestinian terrorists strike Israel - SILENCE.

This point's also debateable, I feel...

I also note that you're silent on the unpaid UN bills to New York city - the millions (some say approx 1.5 billion) that the UN owes for various charges that their diplomats incur in NY.

I didn't know about that one!

I guess if we want to make everyone happy we should pay our dues and only our UN dues. Perhaps we should leave the financial aid to others. France sure does give a lot (HA! not even in the top 15 of donors).

True...

"Regarding the UN, here we have we an organisation, which effectively has no teeth, and the reason for that is, because the Bush admisitration has reduced it to just that...An organisition without teeth."

The organization is without teeth because it has become an unwieldy bureaucratic organization rife with corruption and graf, and basically ruderless under the "leadership" of Kofi Anann - whose son grew quite rich in the Oil for Food program.

About Anan's son, I never knew that either...About the bureaucratic structure and corruption and graft, I've no doubt you're right on track with that one..

"When the Blix report, on Iraq, was finally submitted for reading, why did the White House nick it - saying that we've got better copiers? Hard to believe, that UN's copiers are old, hand-cranked machines, even though the US hasn't paid its luncheon bill there - yet. "
Good question. Have no idea.

"Yet Cofti Annan still whizzez around in his own (UN) jet and nice suits....Air miles all paid for....and never a stressed frown on his face....I'm not quite sure how he justifies his salary + expenses?"
Yes, good question.

"But, he's another subject for another day...In the meantime, he's gotta be ultra nice to Bushy - cozy up to him a little - to get a few handouts, and hopefully get the (US's) debt paid, in full, one day...Oh, and maybe get Bushy & Co to "actually" abide to one or two resolutions, just for good measure..."
If declaring the war in Iraq "illegal" and making anti-Bush statements and pro-Kerry statements during the US presidential election campaign is considered cozying up to Bush, I'd like to know what Kofi's anti-Bush actions would be.

Me too...Maybe just making a solid and logical argument, for some of the UN's action's, and/or inaction's would be a good start!

"Talking of Blix, he was just used (poor man) as a smoke-screen, for Bush to be seen to be doing something "lawfully," and/or to be "seen" to be abiding to UN resolutions; before daring to open the Pandora's Box that is Iraq..."

The Iraq violations of UN resolution pre-date Blix, also happened with prior inspectors, and continued under Blix's watch - and even before Bush took office. So, perhaps this was some Bush Sr-Clinton-Bush Jr. conspiracy (sarcasm).

"By the way, why has the US, denied access to being the subject of an investigation for WMD itself? Any answers on that one, out there?"

Here are the answers: The US is a signatory/ratifier of the CWC and has frequent inspections carried out at its declared sites by inspectors from the UN's Office for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) located at the Hague. At no time has the Technical Secretariat at the OPCW declared the US in breach of the CWC. Other WMD treaties are also being followed by the US -inspections are conducted, either by international teams, or by the Russians depending on whether the treaty is multinational or bilateral. For a list of which treaties and about the inspections refer to: http://www.dtra.mil/Toolbox/ac.cfm The answers you seek are there.

"About Bin Laden, he might be reduced to making grainy vids, of himself. But, the fact remains, that he's still a free man, despite the fact that there's a colossal bounty on his head. "

Geronimo was roaming "free" for years after the bounty was placed on his head as well, but his terrorizing of the terrority he was driven from ceased.

"That kinda tells you something...And, despite the most advanced electronic gadgetry - no one can still locate him...If the film Enemy of the State, was anything to go by - the CIA should've found him in no time at all..."
Yes, of course, if Hollywood shows fancy gadgets in movies then they really must exist. Currently in the States they call the willingness of people to take for granted what they see on tv the "CSI Effect" - CSI, a popular crime show that shows fancy gadgets used to solve crimes (and these gadgets don't exist in real life), has actually been blamed for the lower conviction rates in criminal trials since they juries have said, "the prosecution couldn't prove their case because they didn't have the proper level of proof [as shown on the CSI shows]).

"After 9/11, when all flights were immediatly grounded, why was the Bin Laden family quietly flown out of US territory...??? They'd have been the first peeps that I'd want to be having a chat with - concerning their son, ol' Bin..."
Are you Bluebird, or Michael Moore? The person who gave the Bin Laden family permission to fly out was a Clinton appointee and has publicly refuted Moore's claims about Bush in F- 9/11. The appointee is no fan of Bush and has written a scathing book about his time in the Administration - i.e., no reason to testify in Bush's favor. He has testified before Congress about this. Also, Osama Bin Laden has been estranged from his family for years, so I don't think he'd be calling them up and saying "Haji, don't go to to NY, I'm going to destroy it." Therefore, the value of that family would have been low. It was mainly done for their own protection and to assauge Saudi sensitivities (something that I really disagree with - would've rather seen them held and questioned just to make them uncomfortable). Well, I'm not Mr. M. Moore, but even he's made a neat pile outta the tragedy, and his (very public) views...If I was Moore, I wouldn't be sitting here and writing right now...Could you kindly give me the name of this book - I might like to look it up on Amazon, and even buy it...

Thanks....

koba65
30-01-2005, 12:44
Originally posted by Bluebird
Well, I'm not Mr. M. Moore, but even he's made a neat pile outta the tragedy, and his (very public) views...If I was Moore, I wouldn't be sitting here and writing right now...Could you kindly give me the name of this book - I might like to look it up on Amazon, and even buy it...

Thanks....

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
by Richard A. Clarke

This book is, naturally, controversial. He makes claims in his book that contradict his sworn testimony in Congress. So, either he perjured himself, or lied in the book.

FYI: "Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001"

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 12:49
Originally posted by koba65
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
by Richard A. Clarke

This book is, naturally, controversial. He makes claims in his book that contradict his sworn testimony in Congress. So, either he perjured himself, or lied in the book.

FYI: "Richard Clarke, who served as President Bush’s chief of counterterrorism, has claimed sole responsibility for approving flights of Saudi Arabian citizens, including members of Osama bin Laden’s family, from the United States immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" Cheers Koba, Just as an aside - from the current debate...Have you actually read the book? Could you droop (ooopppsss) "drop" me a PM, please on that question?

koba65
30-01-2005, 12:58
Originally posted by Bluebird
Cheers Koba, Just as an aside - from the current debate...Have you actually read the book? Could you droop (ooopppsss) "drop" me a PM, please on that question?

PM sent.

yankee@moscow
30-01-2005, 13:41
I think that ALL of the prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq are lucky to have been POWs to begin with. How many US prisoners did either of them take? Better yet, how many US POWs (the few that there were) lived to tell about it?

When Russia was in Afghanistan, their soldiers mostly went down fighting because they knew being captured would be worse and eventually lead to death anyway. Comparatively, the US prison camps are a resort area.

How many people in Iraq have been captured and beheaded on film? They'd love to be in Cuba right now! And don't you dare tell me, "Oh those are terrrorists." Those are the enemy in a war!

I'm first to admit that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you guys are complaining about a fly in the butter when the other side took a crap in it. I think that ALL of the US prisoners that were captured would have loved to have been in a camp like the one in Cuba as compared to where they were. If I could choose, I know which place I'd rather have been.

If you want to make it your life's mission to fix things in prison camps, there are a lot more haneous places to start than Guantanemo Bay. Or do you just feel self-righteous pointing out every single flaw that you find with the USA because you disagree with what she's doing and war in general?

I could sit here and pick apart a thousand things that other countries are doing and have done. Why don't I? Basically, it's not my country; it's not my business, and really, I don't care what those countries are doing. It's their business. Hell, I live in Russia and don't ever post a word about changes that affect my everyday life here. I'm a visitor here and act as such. Why are you guys ALWAYS so interested to criticize what America does no matter what it is? Is your own country so boring that you've got to keep an eye on other countries?

Do you wonder why the American government might stop paying attention to what others say? When all you hear is crap like this and people begging for money, you'd stop listening too. I applaud our diplomats for having the patience to endure the endless rants that are plastered on them. I wouldn't have the patience for it, and neither would most of you!

Have a nice day.:)

J.D.
30-01-2005, 14:46
All true Yankee

but irrelavent.

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 16:43
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I think that ALL of the prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq are lucky to have been POWs to begin with. How many US prisoners did either of them take? Better yet, how many US POWs (the few that there were) lived to tell about it?

When Russia was in Afghanistan, their soldiers mostly went down fighting because they knew being captured would be worse and eventually lead to death anyway. Comparatively, the US prison camps are a resort area.

How many people in Iraq have been captured and beheaded on film? They'd love to be in Cuba right now! And don't you dare tell me, "Oh those are terrrorists." Those are the enemy in a war!

I'm first to admit that 2 wrongs don't make a right, but you guys are complaining about a fly in the butter when the other side took a crap in it. I think that ALL of the US prisoners that were captured would have loved to have been in a camp like the one in Cuba as compared to where they were. If I could choose, I know which place I'd rather have been.

If you want to make it your life's mission to fix things in prison camps, there are a lot more haneous places to start than Guantanemo Bay. Or do you just feel self-righteous pointing out every single flaw that you find with the USA because you disagree with what she's doing and war in general?

I could sit here and pick apart a thousand things that other countries are doing and have done. Why don't I? Basically, it's not my country; it's not my business, and really, I don't care what those countries are doing. It's their business. Hell, I live in Russia and don't ever post a word about changes that affect my everyday life here. I'm a visitor here and act as such. Why are you guys ALWAYS so interested to criticize what America does no matter what it is? Is your own country so boring that you've got to keep an eye on other countries?

Do you wonder why the American government might stop paying attention to what others say? When all you hear is crap like this and people begging for money, you'd stop listening too. I applaud our diplomats for having the patience to endure the endless rants that are plastered on them. I wouldn't have the patience for it, and neither would most of you!

Have a nice day.:) So, presumably, all the thousands of Brits, who took to the streets, in the UK, to protest about the looming was with Iraq (and to complain against their own governments actions), were just going on an early Christmas shopping trip then - not to mention the people of....What was it Rumsfield said...Oh yes, "Old Europe."

By the way, there were more than enough Americans complaining and actively demonstrating against this fly and crap in the butter, in the US too. But I guess these people are called, "Flip Floppers," by the Bush admistration and his Republican army.

Bush has returned to power with very low ratings (the lowest for any re-elected, American, president, in history, I believe); and has a lot of work to do, to repair much of the international relationships, America once enjoyed, with "Old and New Europe."

And that it includes the way it's behaving with its anti-dumping tarrifs on steel (amongst other things, including: banana's; and trying to impose on Europe, genetically modified crop-growing, technology).

European plants spent (painful to many workers and mangers, who lost their jobs), years of streamlining and restructuring its steel business for a viable future...America should do the same, instead of crying foul, and reaching for the anti-dumping and trade tariff buttons, against European, and other countries...

These "protectionist" methods are seriously flawed, fly in the face of freedom of trade and competion, and do more harm to the American economy, in the long term, than good. What they do, do, though, is win votes from the workers...That's in the short term...

Have a nice day too :)

yankee@moscow
30-01-2005, 18:53
What does any of that have to do with Guantanamo Bay and POWs? Or is this just another"Reasons I don't like George Bush thread"? I realize that there are tons of reasons that non-Americans don't like old "W". He's definitely a president that non-Americans aren't going to love. Of course, there weren't any non-Americans that voted for him or Carey either. George Bush is supported by the people that voted for him. Apparently that was enough to put him in office. The people that didn't vote for him probably feel the same way you do. That's for another thread though.

Bluebird
30-01-2005, 19:15
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
What does any of that have to do with Guantanamo Bay and POWs? Or is this just another"Reasons I don't like George Bush thread"? I realize that there are tons of reasons that non-Americans don't like old "W". He's definitely a president that non-Americans aren't going to love. Of course, there weren't any non-Americans that voted for him or Carey either. George Bush is supported by the people that voted for him. Apparently that was enough to put him in office. The people that didn't vote for him probably feel the same way you do. That's for another thread though. I totally agree...In actual fact....But, I was just making the point, that most (level-headed) people don't whinge without a reason, and that I am in no way anti-American - not at all...Moreover, neither are many Brits...We spend a lot of time and money in your country, and yes, you're right...American's are generous with their hospitality - even to a fault...

The last part of my statement is for another thread, another, time..I just felt that your statement, was a little "over-the-top, and not sticking to the facts, of the converstion too....

As JD had already answered you..."All true Yankee, but irrelevent."

What you wrote (I, for one, felt) was an over-gerneralization, of a much deeper issue - mixed with a (seemingly) little bit of "wounded pride"...However, I may well be wrong, but that was just my opinion.

But, you're right on another thing too - two wrongs don't make a right...

And, once again, I agree that there are other things up for dabate, in what I wrote, in another thread, another time...:)

koba65
30-01-2005, 21:11
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
When Russia was in Afghanistan, their soldiers mostly went down fighting because they knew being captured would be worse and eventually lead to death anyway. Comparatively, the US prison camps are a resort area.

In the first years of the war almost all Soviet POWs were executed by the Mohajadeen. At some point the strongest leader of the Mohajadeen (Masood), was convinced that Soviet POWs would be of value to their forces as a bargaining chip, and he stopped executing them. They were also regularly reminded by American operatives in Pakistan that humane treatment of the POWs was required (See: "The Main Enemy" by Bearden).

The Soviet POWs' "life" was definitely not ideal. They were used as slaves, beat, etc. All the regular horrors of winding up in the hands of someone who hates you.

(Masood, btw, was the Northern Alliance leader who allied with Russia when the Taliban took power, and is the guy who was killed by Al Qaeda operatives posing as journalists on 9 September 2001). Any of y'all who go to La Katina may actually have imbibed with a former Soviet POW from the Afghanistan War... Talk about some "war stories"!

There are currently 193 missing-in-action Soviet soldiers. It is quite possible that a good portion of these men may actually still be alive. The Russians do know that a handful stayed behind voluntarily after the war ended. They are the ones who converted to Islam, married, and now have families there. Some of these men have refused to return home. A couple did come home and received free apartments. What isn't known is what happened to the almost 200 hundred who were last known to be alive and then no word. Russian veterans' organizations such as the one headed by Gen.-Lt. (ret) Ruslan Aushev (former Ingushetiya president) are working this issue hard. Let's hope with the US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan, that the Russians (Ukrainians, and Belarusians) will be able to account for their missing men.

And to keep the debate on track: knowing who has been captured is, of course, very important to families. That's why, contrary to the current "myth," internees at Camp X-Ray are known to the countries of origin and are allowed to communicate with their families. That they are "unknown" to us, the general public, is a good thing and is required by that GC that everyone seems to be an expert on. (The GC forbids captor nations from releasing the names of POWs without their permission, captor nations are required to make known the list of PWs to their country of origin - which has been done at Camp X-Ray).