Russia tests world's biggest bomb

[9202]

Poor and quite poor. So what's the reason why the US was so eager to elevate China out of its 3rd world country status for FTA negotiations? In any case, the poors in the slums of Harlem and New Orleans aren't much better.

Actually, Harlem has been revitalized, but your point is well taken.

I guess the thing that urks me is when people bash other countries without even really seeing them or experiencing the people and resort to formulating an opinion based on the media propaganda, and for the record, the US media is just as bad as any other.

Rhetoric aside, here in the US we also hear that our freedoms are disolving, we hear that Bush wanted to take Iraq's oil, we hear that we are getting fat, we hear that there is no democracy because of the government. This is all propaganda and over reaction to elicit a reaction by the media.

I am in my 50's, I travel extensively both in the US and abroad and have grown to be quite aware of the world situation. I find that probably 75% of what I read in the media (all media worldwide) is not factual and slanted to make a point one way or the other.

I will say one thing, there are criminals, psychopaths and sociopaths in all countries and all walks of life, each country has varying laws on how they deal with prisioner. Sometimes here in the uS people are unjustly accused or arrested, but the process of law requires that they be treated innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Eventually people like our friend the sheriff will be prosecuted, they will be held accountable.

I will also say that I have not lost one single freedom that I have had due to the resulting 911 changes. The Patriot Act which has received such widespread publicity is not well understood. It has had some tenuous and perhaps illegal clauses, but there is a congressional oversight committee that reviews all Patriot Act cases monthly. The Supreme Court has ruled soem provisions unconstitutional and changes have been made.

My point is, the US system of government is not perfect. It is a federal republic the believes in democratic prncipals and not a democracy as such. A federal republic that has checks and balances designed to correct abuses if not prevent them. The US as also airs it's laundry publily in front of the world, and opens itself up to criticism. Let's not misunderstand or confuse the actions of a few criminals or renegade law enforcement officials for human rights abuses.

 

[sogood]

My point is, the US system of government is not perfect. It is a federal republic the believes in democratic prncipals and not a democracy as such. A federal republic that has checks and balances designed to correct abuses if not prevent them. The US as also airs it's laundry publily in front of the world, and opens itself up to criticism. Let's not misunderstand or confuse the actions of a few criminals or renegade law enforcement officials for human rights abuses.

There's something seriously wrong with that system when there's authorized invasion of a sovereign nation with mass killing, all without regard for international law. These are not the problem of a few criminals or renegade law enforcement officials. This is state sanctioned human rights abuse.

 

[ndbiker]

It's the arrogant style of the current US administration isn't it?

Just watched a documentary "Showdown with Iran" <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/> and exactly the same was presented with Iran. Iran assisted the US before and during the war in Afghanistan. Instead of rewarding Iran for their assistance, they were labeled as the Axis of Evil. Further, the US denied the assistance of Iran in the occupation of Iraq and used the occupation there to add additional geopolitical pressure on the country. All in all, deliberately turning Iran into an enemy and undermining the pro-Western Iranian leaders of that time. One has to wonder just what the US was thinking? Just who is the real war monger?

Both Afghanistan (the Taliban) and Sadam were enemies of Iran. Iran was essentially surrounded on two sides by enemies. Iran did not help the US because of any affinity for the US it helped them because they were seeing the opportunity to have an enemy destroyed, something they would likely pay dearly for if they attempted it themselves. Iran spent 10 years fighting Iraq in a war in which we assisted Iraq. I can hardly see us inviting them to be part of the solution. It would be like inviting the fox in the hen house after shooting the vicious guard dog. I don't notice any other Arab government wanting to "help" in Iraq. Could it be that they never had an interest there? I agree that the US is acting in its own self interest and so is and was Iran.

 

[sogood]

I can hardly see us inviting them to be part of the solution.

Take a look at that documentary first.

Enemies don't last for ever. The US missed an opportunity to make up with Iran and potentially have an easier time in Iraq compared with right now. Obviously time will tell. But the deliberate labeling of Axis of Evil was so childish and was just set for further troubles. Looking at the Bush years, the admin was just bent on keeping some enemies somewhere to pick a fight. First was China but soon had Al Qaeda to replace that focus. Then it was Iran and N Korea. Definitely not a peace nor God loving administration.

 

[Carrera]

That ain't my avatar. It's just the face of an athlete.

How old are you Carrera? I just got a feeling your avatar is a bluff and you're in your early to mid-twenties.

 

[Carrera]

I don't really have much time for Iran but admit I believe before we go down the path of war, there are ways and means to seek peace. The snag is Iran must fear the kind of chaos in Iraq spilling over into their borders, in the same way Turkey fears a Kurdish alliance. So, both Turkey and Iran have a basic right to fear for their internal security.
If it were up to me, I'd try and strike a solid deal with Iran. Guarantees of security and possible renewed trade if Iran keeps itself to itself and doesn't try to create a Shia stronghold across the Middle East. Plus, plutonium enrichment outside of their borders, maybe Russia. So long as Iran feels threatened and cornered, it will try to seek a nuclear weapon but remove the threat and maybe there can be a peaceful solution.
The trouble is the U.S. has become super paranoid after 9/11 since it was New York, not Moscow or Bejing, that was targeted. There's a real fear that a group of religious nutters could set off a small nuclear device or dirty bomb in a major U.S. city so the Administration is very wary. However, Russia has had some nasty terrorist attacks too and, believe it or not, the new vacuum bomb is designed to hit terrorists, not Europe or the U.S. For some reason, unlike the U.S., Russia just doesn't feel there's too close a threat from Iran at this stage to get into a state of panic.
Above all, it's not countries that pose the threat but bands of fanatics who live beyond designated borders. That's how I see it.

It's the arrogant style of the current US administration isn't it?

Just watched a documentary "Showdown with Iran" <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/> and exactly the same was presented with Iran. Iran assisted the US before and during the war in Afghanistan. Instead of rewarding Iran for their assistance, they were labeled as the Axis of Evil. Further, the US denied the assistance of Iran in the occupation of Iraq and used the occupation there to add additional geopolitical pressure on the country. All in all, deliberately turning Iran into an enemy and undermining the pro-Western Iranian leaders of that time. One has to wonder just what the US was thinking? Just who is the real war monger?

 

[Carrera]

There are all sorts of problems in Europe too but let me explain why I figure the U.S. has taken a bit of a knocking lately:
For me (and also a lot of liberals), it's to do with the abuses within Iraq for a start where sometimes innocent people have been displaced or treated badly. The Lyndie England scandal for one caused outright shock and even American politicians stated the abuses had been carried out purely for kicks. Indeed, one of the abusers had already been guilty of ill-treating people in American jails before he went to Iraq. True, as you say, he was brought to justice which is something.
Then there's the FBI pulling suspects of the street, sending them to Egypt where they've been abused and forced into making confessions. One of these victims was a Canadian businessman of Middle Eastern origen but totally respectable and not a terrorist at all. He never had a fair trial to prove his innocence.
Guantanamo was also suspect. Many of the assumed terrorists had been simply rounded up by Afghans who wanted dollars to deliver so-called Al Quaida militants. Some of these people were indeed guilty but others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So, this is what needs to be sorted out if things are to get better. There has to be justice and fair play or we'll wind up back in the days of Salem, crying "There's a terrorist!", instead of, "There's a witch!"
Personally I don't have a problem with hitting terrorists hard so long as you know you have the right people and the same law and order prevails as was the case with Nazi war criminals (who at least got a decent trial).
Maybe if Schwarzenegger gets in, he may be the one to sort some of this stuff out but we shall see.

Actually, Harlem has been revitalized, but your point is well taken.

I guess the thing that urks me is when people bash other countries without even really seeing them or experiencing the people and resort to formulating an opinion based on the media propaganda, and for the record, the US media is just as bad as any other.

Rhetoric aside, here in the US we also hear that our freedoms are disolving, we hear that Bush wanted to take Iraq's oil, we hear that we are getting fat, we hear that there is no democracy because of the government. This is all propaganda and over reaction to elicit a reaction by the media.

I am in my 50's, I travel extensively both in the US and abroad and have grown to be quite aware of the world situation. I find that probably 75% of what I read in the media (all media worldwide) is not factual and slanted to make a point one way or the other.

I will say one thing, there are criminals, psychopaths and sociopaths in all countries and all walks of life, each country has varying laws on how they deal with prisioner. Sometimes here in the uS people are unjustly accused or arrested, but the process of law requires that they be treated innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers. Eventually people like our friend the sheriff will be prosecuted, they will be held accountable.

I will also say that I have not lost one single freedom that I have had due to the resulting 911 changes. The Patriot Act which has received such widespread publicity is not well understood. It has had some tenuous and perhaps illegal clauses, but there is a congressional oversight committee that reviews all Patriot Act cases monthly. The Supreme Court has ruled soem provisions unconstitutional and changes have been made.

My point is, the US system of government is not perfect. It is a federal republic the believes in democratic prncipals and not a democracy as such. A federal republic that has checks and balances designed to correct abuses if not prevent them. The US as also airs it's laundry publily in front of the world, and opens itself up to criticism. Let's not misunderstand or confuse the actions of a few criminals or renegade law enforcement officials for human rights abuses.

 

[sogood]

So, this is what needs to be sorted out if things are to get better. There has to be justice and fair play or we'll wind up back in the days of Salem, crying "There's a terrorist!", instead of, "There's a witch!"
Personally I don't have a problem with hitting terrorists hard so long as you know you have the right people and the same law and order prevails as was the case with Nazi war criminals (who at least got a decent trial).

This hunt for domestic terrorist is turning to be a bit of a joke here and there. In the UK, there's that execution of that innocent young man in the subway by the Metropolitan Police. In Australia, there's the bungled arrest and prosecution of two suspected terrorists by ASIO/Fed Police. As much as all these politicians wanting to demonstrate the dangers of domestic terrorism, they are screwing up badly. No wonder there'll be terrorist cells when there's such incompetency.

 

[ndbiker]

There are all sorts of problems in Europe too but let me explain why I figure the U.S. has taken a bit of a knocking lately:
For me (and also a lot of liberals), it's to do with the abuses within Iraq for a start where sometimes innocent people have been displaced or treated badly. The Lyndie England scandal for one caused outright shock and even American politicians stated the abuses had been carried out purely for kicks. Indeed, one of the abusers had already been guilty of ill-treating people in American jails before he went to Iraq. True, as you say, he was brought to justice which is something.
Then there's the FBI pulling suspects of the street, sending them to Egypt where they've been abused and forced into making confessions. One of these victims was a Canadian businessman of Middle Eastern origen but totally respectable and not a terrorist at all. He never had a fair trial to prove his innocence.
Guantanamo was also suspect. Many of the assumed terrorists had been simply rounded up by Afghans who wanted dollars to deliver so-called Al Quaida militants. Some of these people were indeed guilty but others were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
So, this is what needs to be sorted out if things are to get better. There has to be justice and fair play or we'll wind up back in the days of Salem, crying "There's a terrorist!", instead of, "There's a witch!"
Personally I don't have a problem with hitting terrorists hard so long as you know you have the right people and the same law and order prevails as was the case with Nazi war criminals (who at least got a decent trial).
Maybe if Schwarzenegger gets in, he may be the one to sort some of this stuff out but we shall see.

In the age of videotaped beheadings I won't argue that we are still somehow morally superior. Bad girl that Lindy. I do disagree with the reason the world got so in an uproar when America invaded Iraq. In all other instances where the US involved itself in a conflict there was always an antagonist, whether it was Germany, the USSR, Japan, China or even Iraq in 1990. In Korea and Viet Nam we were fighting against communist expansion. So long as the US didn't use it's military might except in response to a threat to itself or one of it's allies (minor conflicts excepted) we were given a pass and still seen to a degree to be the protector of freedom in the world. What the world saw when we invaded Iraq was that we were willing to invade a sovereign nation (regardless of the reason) that had not first provoked us or our allies. However right our president sees that course of action we have proved ourselves someone to fear not admire. We hear little of civil rights abuses in Afghanistan even though our methods are probably the same. The world in my opinion judges Afghanistan to be a just use of our power. It will be interesting some 40 years hence to watch some documentary concerning the Iraq War and the state of the USA. That said I am proud to be an American and to live in the USA.

 

[Biker Joe]

There's something seriously wrong with that system when there's authorized invasion of a sovereign nation with mass killing, all without regard for international law. These are not the problem of a few criminals or renegade law enforcement officials. This is state sanctioned human rights abuse.

Ah, so here we perpetuate another effort to redefine history? Assuming that this argument has validity, please cite the rule of law you refer to, paragraph and verse. In addition, please cite the international court that found the action illegal?

Stating something or regurgitating media rhetoric does not make it so. You seem much to bright and intelligent to offer such unsubstantiated rhetoric.

The fact remains, the UN imposed sanction on Iraq based upon their own inspection efforts. The action of the US and it's coalition NEVER has been found to be illegal....NEVER, except in the media.

Now, if you have facts to present to the contrary, I am all ears. Otherwise, I contend that the effort to portray the Iraq war as illegal is irrelevant.

 

[sogood]

Ah, so here we perpetuate another effort to redefine history? Assuming that this argument has validity, please cite the rule of law you refer to, paragraph and verse. In addition, please cite the international court that found the action illegal?

Yep, another ardent Bush supporter.

The key evidences presented by the US to the UN were false, effective lies perpetrated all the way from the White House. QED

 

[Carrera]

"I do disagree with the reason the world got so in an uproar when America invaded Iraq."

Why Iraq, though? It's kind of ironic that a British teacher has just been arrested in Sudan and facing 50 lashes because one of the children in her class named a teddy bear "Muhammad". You know, I honestly don't think that would have happened in Iraq under S. Hussein. Bad as Hussein may have been, there was still more tolerance of Christians and minority groups (women included) than in places like Sudan.
As for Afghanistan, not so many people were opposed to going in due to the Taliban and their repression of women. In the case of Afghanistan, there was a rational explanation behind intervention but in the case of Iraq, it was a breach of international law. That's my view anyway.
"In Korea and Viet Nam we were fighting against communist expansion."
Yet you didn't really heed the lessons of that war and learn by it. This view was echoed by a top U.S. general recently who stated the lesson of Vietnam was never to get into a situation where you provoke a nationalist backlash because that's a hard war to win.
The latest thing I hear is Iraq has now supposed to have stabilised but, to be honest, I still see this situation dragging on, although time will tell.
"However right our president sees that course of action we have proved ourselves someone to fear not admire."
I guess I beg to differ. The Iraq war seems to me to have been badly planned from the military perspective as well as with regard to rebuilding the country. What happened was troops entered the country while the opposition chose to melt into the background and remian in the shadows. The borders weren't sealed off and became wide open, the army was disbanded so potential Iraqi allies were alienated and the country was plunged into chaos. The reason why Bush is in so much trouble at the moment is even folks who did support his war believe he screwed it up big time. Even many generals think that. And many of these now wish they'd never got involved in such a quagmire.
"The world in my opinion judges Afghanistan to be a just use of our power."
Agreed. It was Iraq that caused the divide.
"That said I am proud to be an American and to live in the USA."
I don't think Europeans dislike Americans or that there aren't many positive things about America. I think America was a good ally in WW2 and I concede they made a good job rebuilding Germany and Japan. Generally, though, I figure the U.S. should stick to what it's good at (global economics) as opposed to trying to force modern values on countries that are slow to develop.

In the age of videotaped beheadings I won't argue that we are still somehow morally superior. Bad girl that Lindy. I do disagree with the reason the world got so in an uproar when America invaded Iraq. In all other instances where the US involved itself in a conflict there was always an antagonist, whether it was Germany, the USSR, Japan, China or even Iraq in 1990. In Korea and Viet Nam we were fighting against communist expansion. So long as the US didn't use it's military might except in response to a threat to itself or one of it's allies (minor conflicts excepted) we were given a pass and still seen to a degree to be the protector of freedom in the world. What the world saw when we invaded Iraq was that we were willing to invade a sovereign nation (regardless of the reason) that had not first provoked us or our allies. However right our president sees that course of action we have proved ourselves someone to fear not admire. We hear little of civil rights abuses in Afghanistan even though our methods are probably the same. The world in my opinion judges Afghanistan to be a just use of our power. It will be interesting some 40 years hence to watch some documentary concerning the Iraq War and the state of the USA. That said I am proud to be an American and to live in the USA.

 

[Carrera]

The many American posters I encounter on different websites seem pleasant enough but very many seem to be riding a wave of patriotism based on God, flag and President and beneath the surface are other Americans who are liberal and feel uncomfortable by the whole situation.
I have friends in the U.S. who share the same views as some of these folks (pro Iraq war e.t.c.) and, to be honest, it doesn't really cause too much friction. Sometimes, I try to be tactful and have been known to back off when hitting a raw nerve.
On this site, I figure we're all adult enough to slug it out, so to speak, so I'll voice my opposition (with valour )
I think Bush exploited peoples' fears and anxieties a bit like the emperor Nero blamed the fire on Christians and used them as a scapegoat. Bush's scapegoat was Iraq and nationalist sentiment was manipulated to gain some support for what many see as a misguided venture.

Yep, another ardent Bush supporter.

The key evidences presented by the US to the UN were false, effective lies perpetrated all the way from the White House. QED

 

[limerickman]

Yep, another ardent Bush supporter.

The key evidences presented by the US to the UN were false, effective lies perpetrated all the way from the White House. QED

Agreed.

Those who support the invasion of Iraq mistakenly suggest the legality for the invasion of Iraq is conferred under UN resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 does not authorise the invasion of Iraq.
No UN Resolution authorised the invasion of Iraq.
Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegal and the resulting occupation is also illegal.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

 

[Carrera]

By the way, just diverging, have you been to northern Spain since? I confess I haven't been there for some years and would probably miss the old pesetas ( a coffee used to be about 100 pts).

Agreed.

Those who support the invasion of Iraq mistakenly suggest the legality for the invasion of Iraq is conferred under UN resolution 1441.

UN Resolution 1441 does not authorise the invasion of Iraq.
No UN Resolution authorised the invasion of Iraq.
Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was illegal and the resulting occupation is also illegal.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

 

[limerickman]

I've been back to Southern France/Northern Spain since my trip three years.
I was in San Sebastian/Pamplona in 2006 : second time visiting there.
Superb spot.

By the way, just diverging, have you been to northern Spain since? I confess I haven't been there for some years and would probably miss the old pesetas ( a coffee used to be about 100 pts).

 

[9202]

Yep, another ardent Bush supporter.

The key evidences presented by the US to the UN were false, effective lies perpetrated all the way from the White House. QED

Nope, not a Bush supporter....I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. Easy for you to avoid the question isn't it?

Please answer my question, you assert that the invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal, please provide your evidence and documentation supporting your position. Again, say something over and over regurgitating what is said in the media does not make it so.

Why was the US invasion of Iraq illegal?
Sogood, you must have legal ground under which to make such a statement?

John

 

[Carrera]

I always passed through Pamplona on the bus from London. In fact, once I stayed a night in Pamplona in the Old Town. Zaragoza used to be cheaper and maybe still is.

I've been back to Southern France/Northern Spain since my trip three years.
I was in San Sebastian/Pamplona in 2006 : second time visiting there.
Superb spot.

 

[Carrera]

Seems like Australians have rejected the Iraq war with those latest elections which John Howard lost. There is still some support for it in Poland and Romania perhaps but it seems to me as support is fading elsewhere.
Having said that, I'll admit violence in Baghdad has lessened but, seeing as I'm no expert on Iraq, I'm not sure what's behind it. The Shia militias have faded away and local Sunnis have allied with American troops.
But I just have a gut feeling some sort of a deal must have been struck. Even the papers hinted there have been meetings between Sunnis and the U.S. top brass.

 

[limerickman]

Nope, not a Bush supporter....I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. Easy for you to avoid the question isn't it?

Please answer my question, you assert that the invasion of Iraq was in fact illegal, please provide your evidence and documentation supporting your position. Again, say something over and over regurgitating what is said in the media does not make it so.

Why was the US invasion of Iraq illegal?
Sogood, you must have legal ground under which to make such a statement?

John

You saying that the invasion was legal?