Bush: "We do not torture"
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
What a laughable statement, ironsides.
The United States of America, even if statements of torture turn out to be untrue, has held citizens of its own nation and others without charge or due process for years—and that is completely and entirely unacceptable. No civil nation should be able to turn its back on the principles of fundamental justice, even in the face of a vicious enemy. As soon as a nation, and its people, are so ready to abandon those principles, they are no longer ‘fundamental’—they are a privilege only to some humans, and not others. That is what causes a nation to lose its spirit—that ‘something’ that makes a nation more than just a collection of people clawing at one another.
I hope that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States, forces the immediate return of uncharged prisoners to their home nations so that they can be charged and tried under proper judicial procedures, and that allegations of torture are taken seriously and are investigated promptly and thoroughly by the president’s administration. As a Canadian, I hope that Mr. Obama can polish the tarnish away from the United States’ terribly-declining image on the world stage—it would do much for not only the United States, but for Canada–United States relations.
The United States of America, even if statements of torture turn out to be untrue, has held citizens of its own nation and others without charge or due process for years—and that is completely and entirely unacceptable. No civil nation should be able to turn its back on the principles of fundamental justice, even in the face of a vicious enemy. As soon as a nation, and its people, are so ready to abandon those principles, they are no longer ‘fundamental’—they are a privilege only to some humans, and not others. That is what causes a nation to lose its spirit—that ‘something’ that makes a nation more than just a collection of people clawing at one another.
I hope that His Excellency the Honourable Barack Obama, President of the United States, forces the immediate return of uncharged prisoners to their home nations so that they can be charged and tried under proper judicial procedures, and that allegations of torture are taken seriously and are investigated promptly and thoroughly by the president’s administration. As a Canadian, I hope that Mr. Obama can polish the tarnish away from the United States’ terribly-declining image on the world stage—it would do much for not only the United States, but for Canada–United States relations.
And I find that sad Iron. You know I'm no Yankee hater. I merely call'em like I see'em.
US foreign policy is the US's worst enemy.
Should the US let global opinion shape her policy? I would say no. Should the facts that the US's foreign policy has been one of grotesque greed and formulated on the back of the supposed long dead premise of Manifest Destiny? Yes.
Does the US owe some people an apology? Yes, most definitely yes.
What is this Manifest Destiny, boy still biting you guys. 
We haven't taken any land from any country since the late 1800's using Manifest Destiny.
Manifest Destiny is a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained, to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. Sometimes Manifest Destiny was interpreted so broadly as to include the eventual absorption of all North America: Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only ethical but that it was readily apparent ("manifest") and inexorable ("destiny"). Although initially used as a catch phrase to inspire the United States' expansion across the North American continent, the 19th century phrase eventually became a standard historical term.
The term, which first appeared in print in 1839, was used in 1845 by a New York journalist, John L. O'Sullivan, to urge for the annexation of Texas.[2] Thereafter, it was used to encourage American settlement of European colonial and Indian lands in the Great Plains and the west. It was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators (Journalists, the news media continues to push the term) believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.
Seriously we had a bad President with Bush, the people got rid of his party for a while. Now some would like an apology on top of that, isn't Obama doing just that when he visits other countries, the world is getting their apoloyy. Most American's do not want anything to do with the old philosphy of spreading democracy everywhere anymore. Personally I would just clean up Mexico (because their war cross's our border) and revert back to being sort of isolationist again. What Liberals here want is revenge.
We haven't taken any land from any country since the late 1800's using Manifest Destiny.Manifest Destiny is a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained, to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. Sometimes Manifest Destiny was interpreted so broadly as to include the eventual absorption of all North America: Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. Advocates of Manifest Destiny believed that expansion was not only ethical but that it was readily apparent ("manifest") and inexorable ("destiny"). Although initially used as a catch phrase to inspire the United States' expansion across the North American continent, the 19th century phrase eventually became a standard historical term.
The term, which first appeared in print in 1839, was used in 1845 by a New York journalist, John L. O'Sullivan, to urge for the annexation of Texas.[2] Thereafter, it was used to encourage American settlement of European colonial and Indian lands in the Great Plains and the west. It was revived in the 1890s, this time with Republican supporters, as a theoretical justification for U.S. expansion outside of North America. The term fell out of usage by U.S. policy makers early in the 20th century, but some commentators (Journalists, the news media continues to push the term) believe that aspects of Manifest Destiny, particularly the belief in an American "mission" to promote and defend democracy throughout the world, continues to have an influence on American political ideology.
Seriously we had a bad President with Bush, the people got rid of his party for a while. Now some would like an apology on top of that, isn't Obama doing just that when he visits other countries, the world is getting their apoloyy. Most American's do not want anything to do with the old philosphy of spreading democracy everywhere anymore. Personally I would just clean up Mexico (because their war cross's our border) and revert back to being sort of isolationist again. What Liberals here want is revenge.
:lol: OK, so you don't actually make everyone on the land you grab automatic Americans, but you certainly Americanize the joint.What is this Manifest Destiny, boy still biting you guys.
I'm well aware of what it is, and when it was supposedly ended.
I agree, I won't condone it, but I can understand them.
I don't believe most Americans share your viewpoint. I hope not. I suspect that's one reason why Americans elected Obama.
From my viewpoint and the majority of the world, we don't see Bush as all that different from Hussein. Here are some similarities:
1) Both authorized the death penalty for capital crimes.
2) Both won questionable/allegedly fraudulent elections.
3) Both authorized detaining people indefinitely without due process.
4) Both institutionalized abduction/disappearances, torture and assassination.
5) Both institutionalized spying on their own citizens.
6) Both authorized research which violated the NPT.
Ignoring the U.S.'s "Bad Atoms"
7) Both launched unprovoked unjustified wars on about the same scale, although Bush is responsible for a few more American deaths, Hussein a few more Iraqi and Iranian deaths.
8 ) Both ordered the destruction of entire cities, knowing full well most of the casaulties would be civilians.
9) Both authorized the use of CW agents against civilians. (International treaties consider WP and other napalm-like incendiaries to be CWs.)
Reference: The Hidden Massacre of Fallujah
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES OF CIVILIANS KILLED BY AMERICAN CWs
The Hidden Massacre of Fallujah
There are probably many other similarities between Bush and Hussein.
If a Canadian leader did the same things as either Hussein or Bush, I would not unquestioningly support them. I would not demand the world stop complaining about Canadian leaders escaping justice. As a patriotic Canadian, I would feel obligated to work towards holding people, who abused their authority to commit evil acts and tarnish Canada's international reputation, accountable for their actions.
...and there in lies the major differences between Canadians and Americans - we believe in justice and don't believe our country in infallible.
What Justice, as I said before Liberals are more interested in Revenge than justice. Bush is out of office go get him charged with something, stop all these accusations. Unless of course your laws are different than ours "that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". No one said our country was infallible. Go find a court that has jurisdiction and file charges. Geez
Holding people accountable for their illegal actions is about justice not revenge.
Starting a war without just cause is a war crime. Since every justification the US gave for invading Iraq were false, that makes someone guilty. You would think patriotic Americans like yourself would want to know who is responsible for this crime and others during the Bush Presidency.
You are right that Bush is innocent until proven guilty. Since Bush declared war, I'd say he is probably guilty, but that's not proven. He could be just an innocent fool surrounded by criminals.
At a minimum, serious crimes have been committed and patriotic Americans who love their country should demand an thorough and impartial investigation.
Starting a war without just cause is a war crime. Since every justification the US gave for invading Iraq were false, that makes someone guilty. You would think patriotic Americans like yourself would want to know who is responsible for this crime and others during the Bush Presidency.
You are right that Bush is innocent until proven guilty. Since Bush declared war, I'd say he is probably guilty, but that's not proven. He could be just an innocent fool surrounded by criminals.
At a minimum, serious crimes have been committed and patriotic Americans who love their country should demand an thorough and impartial investigation.
No, I am not interested in finding out who really caused the war to happen. It was not a sneak attack, Iraq had plenty of time to respond to demands before anything happened. At the least they were ignoring the no fly zone. Ignored U.N. inspectors access to check out these so called WMD's. WMD's centaury to what some would like to believe was not the main reason we went into Iraq. Iraq was defying the world as Iran is now and the U.N. refused to act as usual so we did. It has been mentioned before, sometimes we do things we think is best without world approval. Now to what you would like to see happen. First, where do you find a impartial investigator? There are only those out for revenge and those who want to move on. No one in between.
What demands? That Iraq reveal the location of their non-existant WMD stockpiles? How is that possible?
No UN resolution ever approved the "no fly" zones. They were purely a US, UK and French invention based on their "interpretation" of a UN resolution. (One which no other UNSC member shared.) Later on the French dropped out and tried to distance themselves from what the UN Secretary General described as illegal actions which violated Iraq's airspace.
The American public were duped into believing these no fly zones were legal and UN authorized. I see some suckers still believe the old lies.
Iraqi no-fly zones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iraq did not have to allow UN weapon inspectors into Iraq. UN weapon inspections are voluntary. The motivation was to get the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq lifted. The deal was that as soon as the UN weapon inspectors declared Iraq WMD free, the sanctions would be lifted.
In 1998, Iraq discovered that US and UK spies were among the UN weapon inspectors.
FAIR ACTION ALERT: Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation
Iraq also figured out that no matter what the UN weapon inspectors reported, the US intended to use its UNSC veto to keep the economic sanctions in place. In 1998, the US advised UN weapon inspectors to leave, before bombing Iraq from one end to the other. Most of the intel on Iraq's legal weapon systems came from their UN WMD inspector spies. After the bombing, Iraq justifiably refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into Iraq.
In 2002-2003, Iraq decided to allow UN weapon inspector into Iraq in order to get the sanctions lifted and avoid war. The inspectors reported that after a few initial problems, Iraq was actively and proactively cooperating with them and that all remaining WMD issues would be resolved within a few months.
Security Council 7 March 2003
Hnas Blix is an example of an impartial investigator.
You say the UN refused to act. OK, explain what they were supposed to act against? All the US had was unproven allegations and some very thin circumstancial evidence. The UNSC decided (correctly) that the US failed to make their case for war.
IS, your country justified starting a war with Iraq for three reasons:
1) Iraq was a WMD threat
2) Iraq was linked to the events of 9-11
3) The Iraqi people were suffering a grave humanitarian disaster.
Justification 1 and 2 were unproven at the time of the invasion and later proven false. In fact at the time of the invasion, the balance of evidence did not support US allegations regarding justification 1 and 2. Justification 3 was provably false before the invasion.
Bump for Ironsides. See previous post.
Please explain how Iraq could meet US demands to reveal the location of their WMD stockpiles.
Also please prove the justifications for the US led invasion or admit your country started an illegal unprovoked war.
Ball is in your court IS.
Please explain how Iraq could meet US demands to reveal the location of their WMD stockpiles.
Also please prove the justifications for the US led invasion or admit your country started an illegal unprovoked war.
Ball is in your court IS.
Last edited:
The question of whether torture took place and what that means is separate from the argument about whether the Iraq war was legitimate and necessary. Let's get back to torture, because that is an ongoing question of policy not just in the States but in Canada, which is what this forum is supposed to be about.
We are still supporting a war in Afghanistan where suspects are being held and interrogated. President Obama hasn't done nearly enough to change the policies from the Bush era, and in Canada even the Liberals have Michael "Lesser Evils" Ignatieff trying to represent us. (And I usually vote Liberal!)
Update: the link wasn't working... go to YouTube and add /watch?v=_uFbREDNfvE to the end. Saw this vid on a blog yesterday.
Nobody is really stepping up to stop these practices. If Canada wants to keep its reputation as a human rights leader, it needs to start making demands and drawing a clear line in the sand about what we stand for. We shouldn't go down the same slippery slope that the Americans did.
That said, to earth_as_one: the hyperbole about Bush and Saddam Hussein being the same is going too far. We should be able to distinguish between someone who used gas attacks to purposefully ethnically cleanse civilians from an army that uses WP sometimes. Calling WP a chemical weapon, while it fits a technical definition, doesn't make it anything close to sarin or mustard gas or VX. If we try comparing the worst stuff to the merely bad stuff that probably won't lead to the worst, then people won't take us seriously when we raise the alarm.
We are still supporting a war in Afghanistan where suspects are being held and interrogated. President Obama hasn't done nearly enough to change the policies from the Bush era, and in Canada even the Liberals have Michael "Lesser Evils" Ignatieff trying to represent us. (And I usually vote Liberal!)
Update: the link wasn't working... go to YouTube and add /watch?v=_uFbREDNfvE to the end. Saw this vid on a blog yesterday.
Nobody is really stepping up to stop these practices. If Canada wants to keep its reputation as a human rights leader, it needs to start making demands and drawing a clear line in the sand about what we stand for. We shouldn't go down the same slippery slope that the Americans did.
That said, to earth_as_one: the hyperbole about Bush and Saddam Hussein being the same is going too far. We should be able to distinguish between someone who used gas attacks to purposefully ethnically cleanse civilians from an army that uses WP sometimes. Calling WP a chemical weapon, while it fits a technical definition, doesn't make it anything close to sarin or mustard gas or VX. If we try comparing the worst stuff to the merely bad stuff that probably won't lead to the worst, then people won't take us seriously when we raise the alarm.
Last edited:
CC,
We are in the international politics section, but I don't mind discussing any subject.
Are you aware of this information:
Also:
William Blum: Chemical Weapons, the US, Iraq and the New York Times
You should probably read this too:
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I honestly don't see Bush as that much more moral than Hussein. I've been against Hussein since the 1980's. I wasn't against Bush until he started doing some of the same things as Hussein.
Both men started unprovoked wars and therefore commited war crimes.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/introductions/86461-hello-screwed-up-usa-2.html#post1148215
WP is a CW when used against people. Under Bush's authority, American soldiers used WP indiscriminately against both the Iraqi resistance and civilians.
You can follow the links in this wiki article:
White phosphorus use in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compare the estimated number of casualties resulting from Bush's unprovoked war:
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
with Hussein's unprovoked war:
Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scale of death and destruction between these two unprovoked war are comparable. Also the Iraq war isn't over yet.
Then Bush's support of torture:
Psychological Torture and the Bush Administration | Human Rights Watch
Domestic Spying:
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying - washingtonpost.com
and the indefinite detention of people without trial, some of whom have never been charged and not guilty of any crime.
USA - Amnesty International Report 2008 Human Rights | Reports, News Articles & Campaigns | Amnesty International
Can you explain why you believe that comparisons between Bush and Hussein are "hyperbole".
We are in the international politics section, but I don't mind discussing any subject.
Are you aware of this information:
Also:
William Blum: Chemical Weapons, the US, Iraq and the New York Times
You should probably read this too:
United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I honestly don't see Bush as that much more moral than Hussein. I've been against Hussein since the 1980's. I wasn't against Bush until he started doing some of the same things as Hussein.
Both men started unprovoked wars and therefore commited war crimes.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/introductions/86461-hello-screwed-up-usa-2.html#post1148215
WP is a CW when used against people. Under Bush's authority, American soldiers used WP indiscriminately against both the Iraqi resistance and civilians.
You can follow the links in this wiki article:
White phosphorus use in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Compare the estimated number of casualties resulting from Bush's unprovoked war:
Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
with Hussein's unprovoked war:
Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The scale of death and destruction between these two unprovoked war are comparable. Also the Iraq war isn't over yet.
Then Bush's support of torture:
Psychological Torture and the Bush Administration | Human Rights Watch
Domestic Spying:
Bush Authorized Domestic Spying - washingtonpost.com
and the indefinite detention of people without trial, some of whom have never been charged and not guilty of any crime.
USA - Amnesty International Report 2008 Human Rights | Reports, News Articles & Campaigns | Amnesty International
Can you explain why you believe that comparisons between Bush and Hussein are "hyperbole".
