Fischkoepfin
-
Posts
1,540 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Partners
Immigration Wiki
Guides
Immigration Forms
Times
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Fischkoepfin
-
-
in summary, your whole arguments here in this thread about human rights violations is hereby debunked. until you have factual evidence that the US is sanctioning human rights violations....case closed
Now you're just talking out of your #######...
* At least 45 detainees died in U.S. custody due to suspected or confirmed criminal homicides.[1] At least eight people were tortured to death. At least 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan;[2]* At least 69 of the detainees died at locations other than Abu Ghraib;[3]
* At least 51 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004;[4]
* 12 deaths have led to punishments of U.S. personnel;[5]
* 0 CIA personnel have been charged with wrongdoing in connection with alleged involvement in at least 5 deaths;[6]
* As of November 2005, over 83,000 people have been held in U.S. custody, and about 30,000 of those were entered “into the system,” and assigned internment serial numbers in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan;[7]
* There have been nearly 600 criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse; each investigation tends to include more than one U.S. soldier, more than one instance of abuse, and more than one victim. Allegations against 250 Soldiers have been addressed in courts-martial, non-judicial punishments, and other adverse administrative punishments. The highest ranking military member judicially punished in connection with the death of a detainee is Marine Major Clarke Paulus, who was found guilty of maltreatment and dereliction of duty and dismissed from the service.[8]
* Reportedly 100-150 individuals have been rendered from U.S. custody to a foreign country known to torture prisoners, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan;[9]
* There are 6 main acknowledged U.S. detention facilities worldwide--3 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay;[10]
* There are approximately 25 transient facilities - field prisons designed to house detainees only for a short period until they can be released or transferred to a more permanent facility-in Afghanistan and Iraq;[11]
* There are believed to be at least 11 ‘secret’ detention locations used since September 2001. They are/were CIA facilities in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Poland, Romania, and Jordan, detention facilities in Alizai, Kohat and Peshawar in Pakistan, a facility on the U.S. Naval Base on the island of Diego-Garcia, and detentions of prisoners on U.S. ships, particularly the USS Peleliu and USS Bataan.[12]
* 36 prisoners are believed to be held in unknown locations;[14]
* At least 376 foreign fighters detained in Iraq to whom the Administration has asserted the Geneva Conventions do not apply;[15]
* There were up to 100 ghost detainees in Iraq;[16]
* The U.S. transferred at least one dozen prisoners out of Iraq for further interrogation in violation of the Geneva Conventions;[17]
* 5 percent of the 517 detainees held at Guantanamo were captured by the United States and the majority of those currently in custody were turned over by other parties during a time when the United States was offering large sums for captured prisoners.[19]
* At least 267 detainees have been released from Guantanamo Bay since January 2002. 187 were released out right, and 80 were transferred to their home countries for continued detention;[20]
* 38 detainees at Guantanamo determined not to be enemy combatants pursuant to CSRT and at least 23 detainees subsequently released; 558 CSRTS conducted in total[21]
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn...c/factsheet.htm
steve, i wonder if you ever really think things through or do you act strictly from emotion and feeling...the fact that these courts martials and prosecution are done is the proof that we don't sanction it
Can't see the forest in spite of the trees, yes? That many incidences occuring indicates that somebody in a position of authority is condoning torture. To suggest these are just rogue personnel acting out suggests we either have a major insubordinate problem in our military or those in authority have no real oversight. Time to stop passing the buck and assign responsability on those who are in positions to make sure it doesn't happen...period.
Also, and sorry to be repetitive, to pretend that only a "few bad apples" are torturing people overlooks the fact that they have been given the license to do so from the White House. The president can only say there is not torture because his definition of torture departs from international (and up to 2002 American law).
The prosecutions yoou discuss are of people at the lower end of the command chain, anyone not on the ground in the areas of combat has not been investigated let alone prosecuted.
-
So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.
Oh no I'm sure nobody in the government ever lies about anything to anyone! ROFLMAO!
Politicians lie compulsively, but Tenet is not a politician but the former head of a security agency. To insinuate he lied (presumably under oath) in a testemony to an independent comission is not like your typical government lie, but more like Clinton's famous act of perjury. It might be befitting your world view to assume that since he lied to protect Clinton, but not only is that highly unlikely given the circumstances of his testemony but also a serious accusation falling into the category of libel if you can't proof it.
-
So where's the NEWS in this -- like, when was economic ineqaulity on the WANE?
It is not news...it is a trend that a lot of us with a good amount of birthdays have noticed over a number of years. I attribute it to the unprecedented power of Corporate America and a government that caters to them. Bush is no friend of the American middle class and especially not the poor. Anybody that thinks that government policy doesn't affect the economy is delusional. For every action there is a reaction. It doesn't happen for no reason and the reasons are many and varied.
-
The fact that people have been released from guantanamo after being held 2 years without being charged is evidence enough for me.If thats not violating rights i dont know what is.I think if this were mmmbops family member he would feel different.Which brings us back to "its ok because it doesnt effect me".After all the canadian man i saw on the news talking about his ordeal was "muslim" so i guess that makes it ok!
throughout history prisoners of war are held and interogated for intelligence purposes. and that is what these detainees are. it's not the same as, say, a murder case here in the states. i'm all for due process of the alleged killer. but these detainees were not trying to perpetrate a crime against individuals, their goal is to make the USA no longer exist, and that is an act of war, not a criminal act. hence, holding them without charge, interogating is proper. some may have been detained that were later proven to be no threat and unfortunate for them, but this is a war and war is not perfect. thousands of pow's have been held and interogated in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam without ever being charged. They were held until the conflict was over and then released upon negotiation of a surrender or ceasefire. war is not perfect but it is real and we are in a real war now. if this were a member of my family i would not feel different, as long as they were not tortured. btw, it's possible, although we will never know, that holding and interogating these individuals may have saved the lives of some of your family members, of course just conjecture, but it is a possibility.
also, there has not been another attack on the USA homeland since 9/11, and that is precisely because we have declared war on terrorism, you can bet your bottom dollar that had al qaeda been able to, they would have by now. just thought i'd throw that in...
They are not prisoners of war, but enemy combatants. That is the official position of the US-government. That is why they don't have the same rights as prisoners of war.
Also, you claim that torture only happens in a few cases in these secret facilities, and that is only because of some "bad apples." This overlooks that there is actually a memo from the White House redefining the meaning of torture to exclude such things as water boarding, threatening people with dogs, keeping them awake for hours, and the like. According to the Geneva convention all these acts constitute torture under international law. By pretending that these acts don't constitute torture, the US not only violates the human rights of those imprisoned, but also hurts the legitmacy of American POWs of prior wars who portray themselves as victims of torture, like John McCain. Furthermore, the position threatens US-forces currently in combat who might become prisoners of war. You can't expect your enemy to play by the rules if you don't do so yourself.
-
Found this in the paper today, and while I normally refrain from sharing punditry, I thought this might be of interest.
September 8, 2006Op-Ed Columnist
Whining Over Discontent
By PAUL KRUGMAN
We are, finally, having a national discussion about inequality, and right-wing commentators are in full panic mode. Statistics, most of them irrelevant or misleading, are flying; straw men are under furious attack. It’s all very confusing — deliberately so. So let me offer a few clarifying comments.
First, why are we suddenly talking so much about inequality? Not because a few economists decided to make inequality an issue. It’s the public — not progressive pundits — that has been telling pollsters the economy is “only fair” or “poor,” even though the overall growth rate is O.K. by historical standards.
Political analysts tried all sorts of explanations for popular discontent with the “Bush boom” — it’s the price of gasoline; no, people are in a bad mood because of Iraq — before finally acknowledging that most Americans think it’s a bad economy because for them, it is. The lion’s share of the benefits from recent economic growth has gone to a small, wealthy minority, while most Americans were worse off in 2005 than they were in 2000.
Some conservatives whine that people didn’t complain as much about rising inequality when Bill Clinton was president. But most people were happy with the state of the economy in the late 1990’s, even though the rich were getting much richer, because the middle class and the poor were also making substantial progress. Now the rich are getting richer, but most working Americans are losing ground.
Second, notice the amount of time that inequality’s apologists spend attacking a claim nobody is making: that there has been a clear long-term decline in middle-class living standards. Yes, real median family income has risen since the late 1970’s (with the most convincing gains taking place during the Clinton years). But the rise was very small — small enough that other considerations, like increasing economic insecurity, make it unclear whether families are better or worse off. And that’s the point: the United States as a whole has grown a lot richer over the past generation, but the typical American family hasn’t.
Third, notice the desperate effort to find some number, any number, to support claims that increasing inequality is just a matter of a rising payoff to education and skill. Conservative commentators tell us about wage gains for one-eyed bearded men with 2.5 years of college, or whatever — and conveniently forget to adjust for inflation. In fact, the data refute any suggestion that education is a guarantee of income gains: once you adjust for inflation, you find that the income of a typical household headed by a college graduate was lower in 2005 than in 2000.
More broadly, right-wing commentators would like you to believe that the economy’s winners are a large group, like college graduates or people with agreeable personalities. But the winners’ circle is actually very small. Even households at the 95th percentile — that is, households richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — have seen their real income rise less than 1 percent a year since the late 1970’s. But the income of the richest 1 percent has roughly doubled, and the income of the top 0.01 percent — people with incomes of more than $5 million in 2004 — has risen by a factor of 5.
Finally, while we can have an interesting discussion about questions like the role of unions in wage inequality, or the role of lax regulation in exploding C.E.O. pay, there is no question that the policies of the current majority party — a party that has held a much-needed increase in the minimum wage hostage to large tax cuts for giant estates — have relentlessly favored the interests of a tiny, wealthy minority against everyone else.
According to new estimates by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the leading experts on long-term trends in inequality, the effective federal tax rate on the richest 0.01 percent has fallen from about 60 percent in 1980 to about 34 percent today. Meanwhile, the U.S. government — unlike any other government in the advanced world — does nothing as more and more working families find themselves unable to obtain health insurance.
The good news is that these concerns are finally breaking through into our political discourse. I’m sure that the usual suspects will come up with further efforts to confuse the issue. I say, bring ’em on: we’ve got the arguments, and the facts, to win this debate.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
-
This is no surprise. But I would be more concerned with the huge amounts of money that corporate America pours into the coffers of American political campaigns and parties. Of course...this money has no bearing on legislation or grants easier access to the ears of politicians or influences them in any way.
I find it odd that corporate America often has employees sign documents stating the stringent guidelines it requires in regards to dealing with vendors (i.e.: forbidding employees from taking any gifts from vendors). Those hunting trips, cases of booze at Christmas, business meetings at the titty bar, etc. might influence the the employee to act in a manner that might not be in the best interests of the company.
IMO money talks and bullsh*t walks...enough said. Which is a good reason to look a bit deeper under the surface for the true motives. Things aren't always what they seem to be.
That's what I thought, but whereas we're at least aware of corporations dumping lots of cash and trinkets into the hands of politicians, the funding of think tanks through corporate donations while seemingly obvious (they need to get money from somewhere) does not cross many people's minds.
September 8, 2006
Conservatives Help Wal-Mart, and Vice Versa
Last year, for instance, The Baltimore Sun published an op-ed article by Tim Kane, a research fellow at Heritage, in which he criticized Maryland’s efforts to require Wal-Mart to spend more on health care. He objected to the move on the grounds that it was undue government interference in the free market, a traditional concern of Heritage.
Well that was BS. The Maryland Democrat controlled legislator passed and overrode the Republican governor’s veto of a bill that was written to only affect Wal-Mart.
The fact that it only affects Walmart seems like a much bigger problem and you'd think that it also makes for a more convincing argument.
Government interference in the free market happens all the time, and has been a mainstay of American politics since the trust-busting (notably the work of a Republican president) of the early 20th century. While you could make an argument against it, in general, it has led for the most part to the uplift of American workers into the middle-class, something that 100 years ago seemed highly impossible.
-
I did get the story eventually. It quoted a letter not from Clinton himself.
"The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.
The movie is set to air on Sunday and Monday nights. Monday is the fifth anniversary of the attacks.
Based on the 9/11 commission's report, the miniseries is also being provided to high schools as a teaching aid - although ABC admits key scenes are dramatizations.
The letter, written by Bruce Lindsey, head of the Clinton Foundation, and Douglas Bond, a top lawyer in Clinton's office, accuses the ABC drama of "bias" and a "fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans."
Yeah, so if it is a letter from Clinton's top lawyer and head of his foundation what's the difference? It isn't any different than a letter from Clinton himself since he would have had to of directed his lawyer and his head of foundation to write the letter. They are both his employees after all.
So I guess you would rather blindly trust Clinton and his officials that they are telling the truth on this?Do you read what you provide links to?
ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes....
Berger is seen as refusing authorization for a proposed raid to capture bin Laden in spring 1998 to CIA operatives in Afghanistan who have the terrorist leader in their sights. A CIA operative sends a message: "We're ready to load the package. Repeat, do we have clearance to load the package?" Berger responds: "I don't have that authority."
Berger said that neither he nor Clinton ever rejected a CIA or military request to conduct an operation against bin Laden. The Sept. 11 commission said no CIA operatives were poised to attack; that Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance was not involved, as the film says; and that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet decided the plan would not work.
...and so on
Read what you post. It's not just Clinton's folks saying that much of the production is fabricated. It's the 9/11 commission saying the same thing. But you go ahead and keep on relying on Murdoch's rag...
Oh I read every word of it. Tell me something. If it is a dramatization and not a documentary what's the big deal. Why should anybody censor a dramatization? Do you beleive in censorship?
I'll tell you what I think went down. Tenet asked for authorization for the operation to capture Bin Laden. Neither Clinton nor Berger had the balls to authorize it. So they said "George you go ahead if you want, but if you do and the plan goes south it your ###" So none of them had the balls to do anything.
So, you're suggesting that Tenet was lying when he testified to the 9/11-commission? That's a serious accusation.
-
The NY Post. A tabloid rag. Rupert Murdoch. You take what they print seriously?
From Wikipedia:
When Rupert Murdoch once asked the chairman of Bloomingdale's why he wasn't buying ads in the [NY] Post, he was allegedly told "because, dear Rupert, your readers are my shoplifters."
:lol: -
First of all ,I DO NOT agree with everything the US Government does.
BUT-
when it comes to "the war on terror" yes I do in most cases.And by God I hope that they would /will also arrest suspects if they are WHITE.They should arrest EVERYBODY who supports terrorism against the United States (and of course other countries,but we are talking about the US here) .
I personally don't care at all what it takes to get information out of a prisoner,as long as they're sucsessful in avoiding another attack on America or Americans.
The Hijackers were Muslims thats a fact.I find it very sad that all Muslims are being looked at as Terrorists ,but it unfortunatley is the truth that them hijackers have not been white Christians.
Get real people.What IS the government supposed to do about terror sspects and how are they supposed to gather info when not from insiders????
Now think about it,you have a guy there and there's evidence that he knows about future terror attacks-would you NOT try everything to get info out of him to AVOID it from happening all over again????
As I said I dont agree with everything Bush says and does (like the war in Iraq) but trust me when it comes to that subject I would volunteer .....I would not have a single probelm with that as long as there IS ENOUGH evidence saying that the person being put in a secret prison inded has something to do with terrorists or terrorism itself.
Nat
Four words: Due...Process...Of...Law...!?
After all due process has worked against terrorism in the past. Employing terrorist/totalitarian tactics to extract information hasn't.
-
September 8, 2006
Conservatives Help Wal-Mart, and Vice Versa
By MICHAEL BARBARO and STEPHANIE STROM
As Wal-Mart Stores struggles to rebut criticism from unions and Democratic leaders, the company has discovered a reliable ally: prominent conservative research groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Manhattan Institute.
Top policy analysts at these groups have written newspaper opinion pieces around the country supporting Wal-Mart, defended the company in interviews with reporters and testified on its behalf before government committees in Washington.
But the groups — and their employees — have consistently failed to disclose a tie to the giant discount retailer: financing from the Walton Family Foundation, which is run by the Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton’s three children, who have a controlling stake in the company.
The groups said the donations from the foundation have no influence over their research, which is deliberately kept separate from their fund-raising activities. What’s more, the pro-business philosophies of these groups often dovetail with the interests of Wal-Mart.
But the financing, which totaled more than $2.5 million over the last six years, according to data compiled by GuideStar, a research organization, raises questions about what the research groups should disclose to newspaper editors, reporters or government officials. The Walton Family Foundation must disclose its annual donations in forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service, but research groups are under no such obligation.
Companies and such groups have long courted one another — one seeking influence, the other donations — and liberal policy groups receive significant financing from unions and left-leaning organizations without disclosing their financing.
But the Walton donations could prove risky for Wal-Mart, given its escalating public relations campaign. The company’s quiet outreach to bloggers, beginning last year, touched off a debate about what online writers should disclose to readers, and its financing to policy groups could do the same.
Asked about the donations yesterday, Mona Williams, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said, “The fact is that editorial pages and prominent columnists of all stripes write favorably about our company because they recognize the value we provide to working families, the job opportunities we create and the contributions we make to the community we serve.”
At least five research and advocacy groups that have received Walton Family Foundation donations are vocal advocates of the company.
The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, for example, has received more than $100,000 from the foundation in the last three years, a fraction of the more than $24 million it raised in 2004 alone.
Richard Vedder, a visiting scholar at the institute, wrote an opinion article for The Washington Times last month, extolling Wal-Mart’s benefits to the American economy. “There is enormous economic evidence that Wal-Mart has helped poor and middle-class consumers, in fact more than anyone else,” Mr. Vedder wrote in the article, which prominently identified his ties to institute.
But neither Mr. Vedder nor the newspaper mentioned American Enterprise Institute’s financial links to the Waltons. Mr. Vedder, a professor at Ohio University, said he might have disclosed the relationship had the American Enterprise Institute told him of it. “I always assumed that A.E.I. had no relationship or a modest, distant relationship with the company,” said Mr. Vedder, who has written a forthcoming book about the company. The book, he said in an interview yesterday, would eventually contain a disclosure about the Walton donations to the institute.
A spokesman for the Walton Family Foundation, Jay Allen, said there was no organized campaign to build support for Wal-Mart among research groups. All of the foundation’s giving, he said, is directed toward a handful of philanthropic issues, including school reform, the environment and the economy in Northwest Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is based. “That is the spirit and purpose of their giving,” Mr. Allen said.
Mr. Allen said the foundation, which had assets of $608.7 million in 2004, the last year for which data is available, has never asked the research groups to disclose the donations because “the family leaves it up to the individual organization to decide.”
Those groups, for the most part, say they have decided not to share the information with their analysts or the public.
For example, Sally C. Pipes, the president of the Pacific Research Institute, a free-market policy advocate, has written several opinion articles defending Wal-Mart in The Miami Herald and The San Francisco Examiner.
A month after a federal judge in California certified a sex discrimination lawsuit against the company as a class action in 2004, Ms. Pipes wrote an article in The Examiner criticizing the lawyers and the women behind the suit. “The case against Wal-Mart,” she wrote, “follows the standard feminist stereotype of women as victims, men as villains and large corporations as inherently evil.”
The article did not disclose that the Walton Family Foundation gave Pacific Research $175,000 from 1999 to 2004. Ms. Pipes was aware of the contributions, but said the money was earmarked for an education reform project and did not influence her thinking about the lawsuit. Asked why she typically did not disclose the donations to newspapers, she said: “It never occurs to me to put that out front unless I am asked. If newspapers ask, I am completely open about it.”
The lack of disclosure highlights the absence of a consistent policy at the nation’s newspapers about whether contributors must tell editors of potential conflicts of interest.
Juan M. Vasquez, the deputy editorial page editor of The Miami Herald, which ran an opinion article praising Wal-Mart by Ms. Pipes of Pacific Research, said his staff researches organizations that write opinion articles, including their financing. But that does not always require asking if the organization has received money from the subject of an article, he said.
The New York Times has a policy of asking outside contributors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including the financing for research groups.
Several of the research groups noted that their mission is to be an advocate for free market policies and less government intrusion in business. “Those aims are pro-business, so it’s not surprising that companies would be supporters of our work,” said Khristine Brookes, a spokeswoman for the Heritage Foundation.
Last year, for instance, The Baltimore Sun published an op-ed article by Tim Kane, a research fellow at Heritage, in which he criticized Maryland’s efforts to require Wal-Mart to spend more on health care. He objected to the move on the grounds that it was undue government interference in the free market, a traditional concern of Heritage.
“The existence of Wal-Mart dented the rise in overall inflation so much that Jerry Hausman, an economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is calling on the federal government to change the way it measures prices,” Mr. Kane wrote. “Translation: Wal-Mart is fighting poverty faster than government accountants can keep track.”
Ms. Brookes pointed out that the $20,000 Heritage has received from the Walton Family Foundation since 2000 amounts to less than 1 percent of its $40 million budget.
Ms. Brookes said it was unlikely that researchers and analysts at Heritage were even aware of the foundation’s contributions. “Nobody here would know that unless they walked upstairs and asked someone in development,” she said. “It’s just never discussed.”
She said Heritage did not accept money for specific research. “The money from the Walton Family Foundation has always been earmarked for our general operations,” she said. “They’ve never given us any funds saying do this paper or that paper.”
A spokeswoman for the American Enterprise Institute said the group did not comment on its donors. The group’s focus on Wal-Mart has been notable. In June, the editor in chief then of the group’s magazine, The American Enterprise, wrote a long essay defending Wal-Mart against critics. The editor, Karl Zinsmeister, now the chief domestic policy adviser at the White House, said the campaign against the company was “run by a clutch of political hacks.”
Conservative groups are not the only ones weighing in on the Wal-Mart debate. Ms. Williams of Wal-Mart noted labor unions have financed organizations that have been critical of Wal-Mart, like the Economic Policy Institute, which received $2.5 million from unions in 2005.
In response, Chris Kofinis, communications director for WakeUpWalmart.com, an arm of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that gives money to liberal research groups, said: "While we openly support the mission of economic justice, Wal-Mart and the Waltons put on a smiley face, hide the truth, all while supporting right-wing causes who are paid to defend Wal-Mart’s exploitative practices.”
The lack of a clear quid pro quo between research groups and corporations like Wal-Mart makes the issue murky, said Diana Aviv, chief executive of the Independent Sector, a trade organization representing nonprofits and foundations. “I don’t know how one proves what’s the chicken and what’s the egg,” she said.
Last year, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, a research and watchdog group, published a report, “The Waltons and Wal-Mart: Self-Interested Philanthropy,” that warned of the potential influence their vast wealth gives them.
But Rick Cohen, executive director of the group, said he was more concerned about the role the Walton foundation’s money might play in shaping public policy in areas like public education, where it has supported charter schools and voucher systems.
“These are certainly not organizations created and controlled by the corporation or the family and promoted as somehow authentic when they aren’t,” Mr. Cohen said. “More important, I think, is the disclosure of the funding in whatever’s written, a sort of disclaimer.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
-
[The Nazis were a right-wing party and proud of that. That's why the party name includes the word "national." The "socialist" part is to point out that they were populist, and that they believed in social welfare (well of those who were part of their narrow definition of nation).
Trying to hijack the thread with usual mazi propaganda???
NO COOL!!
I have no idea what a "mazi" is or what you're trying to say. And no, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, just offer some clarification.
-
NO. Hitler was Nazi, not a conservative.
Is there a difference?
Nazis were socialists.
The Nazis were a right-wing party and proud of that. That's why the party name includes the word "national." The "socialist" part is to point out that they were populist, and that they believed in social welfare (well of those who were part of their narrow definition of nation).
-
here we go again.......
the only comparison that was being made is that lenin, hitler, and obl are all evil men that openly espoused their beliefs. it has nothing to do with whether they have similar ideaologies or similar goals. you bush bashers should stop being so cerebral in trying to promote your indefensible argument.
hitler invaded poland to take over a country, we invaded iraq and liberated a country.
jews were more than mistreated in germany, they were murdered, gased, put in concentration camps at the order of hitler. muslims in the usa do not face this. are they victims of hate crime? sure, but these are done by a few hateful idiots. bush has never advocated anything other than tolerance and respect for any persons peaceful religious belief.
you do not do your political cause any good trying to compare bush to hitler. but i guess it makes you feel better.
i
If Bush makes a comparison that is historically inaccurate he is doing so not to point out parallels but to play on people's historical fears because he - or at least his speech writers know - that most people will not catch him.
By the way, and this is not meant as a comparison of Bush and Hitler, Hitler claimed to "liberate" Poland, and some other countries as well. Which shows that language if twisted the right way can say one thing and mean another.
Also, as to your comparison with the Holocaust, Hitler needed a few years (9 to be exact) before he had marginalized Jews enough to kill them on a grand scale. Currently Muslims are being marginalized in the US, which should give us a pause, even if so far they are only targeted "by a few hateful idiots." Bush and his crusader rhetoric do not help in this situation.
I can't remember anyone comparing Bush to Hitler (at least not in this thread), and I do think it's an ineffective comparison. Pointing out parallels, however, be it in terms of policies or legislation and the like, is jsut an expression of concern for the well-being of the nation.
-
Getting nervous is normal. Both my husband and I were extremely nervous during our wedding even though we'd lived together for 2 years at that point. And last year, when I finally got my visa, I was nervous as hell about moving together again. But it's all fine.
So, don't worry too much about being nervous. I would be more concerned if you weren't.
-
The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war, in fact the purpose of treaties is to lend legitimacy to a country's dealings with one another. So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action, its existence was really irrelevant - except to say that without treaties people would be running around doing whatever they want. Depends on the treaty of course - you might cite the Versailles treaty as a significant trigger for WW2, but it was far from the sole cause and took the nazi's rise to power in the preceding decades (itself the result of increasing nationalism and resentment at the allies treatment of germany post WW1) which effectively bankrupted the country and caused, among other things, widespread unemployment.
disagreement:
- The existence of the treaty wasn't the reason for the war....
- So while the breaking of the treaty prompted military action....
maybe it's just me but i see a conflict there. granted the start of it was between just a few countries, but the treaties in force at the time drug other countries into the conflict. the statement of "without treaties people would be running around doing whatever they want" i believe did just the opposite - i think the treaties emboldened them to do just that.
agreement:
yes, one could argue that the "dictat" of versailles was a trigger, as it bred resentment amongst the germans. and yes the nazi party capitalized on that and other issues to get in power (omg, i'm agreeing with you about something, mark that on your calendar).
All of the countries involved in the war did join the war because of treaties. That is true. What is also true is that the treaties forged awkward alliances, but that's why they were in existence in the first place. The treaties were more a convenient excuse for all parties that the actual cause.
The treaties themselves, however, were forged to guarantee stability on a continent historically unstable, an instablility that had become even more volatile after the Vienna Congress mandated a system of nation-states which many countries saw as a threat to their sovereignty. Hence, the nineteenth century is a long progression of wars between European nations vieing for territorial control over slabs of land. In order to end the wars, the German chancellor Bismarck had constructed a network of alliances, which while still in place in 1914 had been significantly undermined by later politicians, thus turning the network into a war-trap.
In a way, WWI is the logical outcome of the nineteenth century and its heightened sensibilities for nationalisms. Every nation involved in the war regarded it, particularly at the beginning, not only as a matter of honor, but also as a war for their brand of civilization. That's why most of the urban populations in Europe were all for the war, regardless of nationality. By the time Germany invaded Belgium, the dice had already been cast. Every nation had mobilized its troops, and war had been declared before this point in time. In a way, it was more the mobilization of armies and deployment timetables that led to declarations of war. By the time Germany declared war on France, they had alreay declared war on Russia because of the mobilization of the Russian army which followed in the wake of Austria declaring war on Serbia. In a way, once this processed had started there was no way to end it.
For a much more detailed account of the causes of and reasons for the war, have a look at Niall Ferguson's "The Pity of War."
One last word on the Versailles Treaty, part of the problem from the German perspective was the issue of being faulted for the war and having to shoulder the blame not only by admitting it but by also being bound to reparations for more than half a century. This had an enormous impact on the radicalization and polarization of German society in the 1920s because it increased social pressures which were already pretty high due to the impact of the war on the global economy. One could speculate that had it not been for the stock market crash and the global depression following in its wake that the Nazis could have never gained power. So, the Versailles Treaty is not just another treaty causing war but it shows how closely politics and economics are intertwined.
-
What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.
i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:
first use of chemical agents
first use of flame throwers
first use of tanks in battle
first mass use of airplanes
first war fought on 3 continents
and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.
No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.
it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.
First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.
Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.
Not to mention that collectively speaking, people have short memories and its easy to exaggerate the causative pressure of a particular event, rather than consider all the historical permutations surrounding it. Incidentally, which is exactly Bush was doing when making Lenin out to be some sort of "architect of evil".
Exactly, which is why it is for the most part pointless to draw historical parallels to justify current events. I do believe there's a lot to learn from history, but using history as a toolbox for stock-characters is not the same as learning from the past.
And yes, I am aware that I did repeatedly compare the Sarajevo incident to 9/11 in this thread. But I'm not saying they are the same or even similar just that they are being used in similar ways and even more importantly are often completely decontextualized.
-
What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.
i suppose it depends on what you consider in tranforming the world. ww1 saw many firsts:
first use of chemical agents
first use of flame throwers
first use of tanks in battle
first mass use of airplanes
first war fought on 3 continents
and given the political borders before and after, that conflict shaped the world at the time and set the stage for ww2.
No disagreement there. The issue is whether the assassination of one man directly caused all that. A contributing factor to be sure - but far from the only one; and its significance is somewhat contentious.
it shows the dangers of having treaties all over the place and especially with a nation just itching for a reason to go to war.
First of, when I said that the assassination didn't cause the war or transform the world, I did not mean that the war itself didn't change the world. The assassination-explanation is very convenient because it totally overlooks the historical context, in the same way as 9/11 as an explanation for AMerican intervention in the middle east forgets that there is a context prior to that event.
Second, there wasn't a single nation not gung-ho for war (at least in Europe) and that has nothing to do with treaties and the like. Why else do you think are historians still concerned with the question whether it is actually possible to point to a single nation (or even group of nations) causing the war.
-
Us Hoosiers are so phat.
Cass (bebop the great)Well down to 9 from 8. So, while Indiana is getting fatter, the rest of the country is even faster. Based on some people in my neighborhood, that's hard to believe.
-
So while isolated acts of terrorism are the major threat posed to the US and other developed nations, its extremely unlikely that the strategy with destabilise the government to any great degree. Again I can't think of any examples off-hand whereby a modern democratic government has been defeated solely by acts of terrorism. Someone mentioned Franz Ferdinand and WW1, but that is of course a similarly faulty comparison.
franz ferdinand and ww1 was faulty in comparison by the limits (democratic government) you put in your question
it still remains an example of terrorism that changed governments and indeed the world.Because the system of government it changed was unstable and fundamentally flawed. In fact, most of the governmental systems in continental Europe at that time were still monarchical in nature, bits and pieces of old empires, ruled by the aristocracy.
Might as well ask why JFK's assassination didn't provoke WW3.
As I said, Monarchy and Democracy are more than a turn of phrase. In fact, if you look at the middle-east, many of the countries in the region are monarchies or other, equivalent forms of tyrannical government. They are also the most unstable. Coincidence?
What is commonly overlooked in the comparison with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is that it did not cause WWI or transform the world. Rather it served as a welcome cause for Austria to act against Serbia, which has been a thorn in their side for a while. It can be easily compared to 9/11, however, because it was used to justify military action (on all sides). But (as in the invasion of Iraq) the causes of the war need to be sought somewhere else, such as the imperial competition between the world's superpowers at the time, social unrest (war always helps against that), and the like.
And I agree with you, monarchies and democracies (particularly the non-parliamentary kind) are very similar in that the power is invested in a single person which rules supported by a parliament. The Austrian government at the time was not unstable because it was a monarchy but because its subjects had discovered nationalism.
Finally, I can't think of a modern democracy overthrown exclusively by terrorism, unless you'd count the Nazis as a terrorist organization (they did after all beat up lots of people in the twenties and led to an increasing polarization of society). Yet, even they needed to be elected to gain power. It seems that if at al national terror organization could have a shot at overturning a national government, and even then it is usually because the government paves the way by relinquishing civil liberties first. International terror does not have that option...
-
Hitler-comparisons always work. Lenin is a new one and seems somewhat off-key when he could be talking about Stalin, the other dictator often brought up to expose the extent of tyranny in other nations.
Yet, the comparison has to be faulty because it is highly unlikely that Bush actually read either Hitler or Lenin. Otherwise he would realize that Lenin's writing while antithetical to capitalism does not encourage killing as a solution nor does it endorse religious hatred. Hitler comes closer to these points in his book, but noone actually read the book (save some Nazi of which there weren't that many in 1925).
And even if anyone (and I'm certain he's talking about Americans) had read the books when they were published and viewed them as a warning, nothing would have happened. Because Bush in his historical ignorance forgets that the US was so isolationist that they wouldn't even join the League of Nations...
Btw, what's the name of Bin Laden's book?
Thing is I'm sure Bush (and the people who put together his speeches) actually rely on the audience not understanding the distinction.
Lenin, as you say is a curious choice, rather striking because of the fact that while he was the founder of Soviet Communism, as ideas were strictly 'anti-capitalist' rather than endorsing killing and genocide (in fact I think Lenin actually campaigned against anti-semitism). Not to mention that his writings were subject to increasingly strict censorship after his death when the Soviet totalitarian elite (under Stalin) began for take shape - which exposed the real failure of communism - which was essentially a failure to understand human nature - that no man will want more than his share. But again to blame 100 years of Russian history on one guy is a little unfair.
Still Bush said a lot about "ideologies of terror", so I'm guessing he seized on Lenin as the sole visionary behind the Soviet Union (the last "great threat"), again its not exactly a fair or honest comparison. He's trying to suggest (rather too simply IMO) that all these threats are somehow equivalent - which is plainly ridiculous.
Yup. The motivations are clear, and of course given the dismal state of education (particularly in the humanities) he can rely on his listeners not picking up on his historical revisionism. But even from Bush's perspective, Lenin is a bad choice because his audience most likely hasn't heard of him. If people think Soviet Union (or as it is anachronistically called, "Russia"), they are prone to think Stalin, the epitomy of "communism" in the US since the early 1930s.
Yet, by invoking past threats he deludes his audience into believing that it's all the same even though Bin Laden is not a dictator nor is Al-Qaeda a country nor is terrorism an ideology. It seems so obvious...
-
I think what he was inplying is that the two are examples of hate filled leaders of a group of people who use religion as an excuse or deciding factor in their actions as satanists on earth.
Lenin used religion as an excuse in his deciding actions as a satanist?
Do you have any idea who Lenin is?
You could make a similar argument about Hitler who was decidedly non-religious although he had issues with people belonging to a religion or as he would put it race (a very non-religious term used for a reason).
I do think you'll either need to spend some time reading up on world history or refrain from defending comparisons made by someone else who also demonstrates a need to read up on the history of the twentieth century.
-
Hitler-comparisons always work. Lenin is a new one and seems somewhat off-key when he could be talking about Stalin, the other dictator often brought up to expose the extent of tyranny in other nations.
Yet, the comparison has to be faulty because it is highly unlikely that Bush actually read either Hitler or Lenin. Otherwise he would realize that Lenin's writing while antithetical to capitalism does not encourage killing as a solution nor does it endorse religious hatred. Hitler comes closer to these points in his book, but noone actually read the book (save some Nazi of which there weren't that many in 1925).
And even if anyone (and I'm certain he's talking about Americans) had read the books when they were published and viewed them as a warning, nothing would have happened. Because Bush in his historical ignorance forgets that the US was so isolationist that they wouldn't even join the League of Nations...
Btw, what's the name of Bin Laden's book?
-
There is a test tomorrow.
bwahahahahaha
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=engIs there an "Islam for Dumbies" book we can get to get a head start?!
Gee thanks Gupt!!!
Now I will have to stay up all night reading and learning Islam!!!
A test? I thought all we had to do was get in line.
Neither. Conversion will be take place over the TV-set. What faster way to convert Americans then to address them over their favorite pastime entertainment.
-
It's probably part of the propaganda effort to remind people that we're supposed to be grateful but live in fear.
But as long as our ports are almost free from security screenings, our chemical and nuclear plants are not protected, and our food supply is centralized, we will not be safe. Actually we're much less safe in these regards. And I'd be surprised if the report spent any significant time discussing these gaping holes...
This is not about actually discussing anything. It is, as your opening sentence says, about the fact that we need to know that the government is doing a heck of a job making us safer but that we still need to be afraid, very afraid. Which is why we still need this government to make us even safer. Doesn't that give you all the warm and fuzzies you need?
I wish.
I'll feel warm and fuzzy when the same people who are defending the governments track record in every aspect will start to realize that they've been had. And I will feel safer when there's a government not banking on fear...
Secret Prisons
in Off Topic
Posted
Maybe it was more prisitine in the past, but noone can rest on the laurels of having once fought a just war forever. "Being humane" on a regular basis takes a lot of work on a regular basis. To be more specific, the people in the Middle East who are currently suffering as a result of US-interventions give a rat's a$$ about whether the US got rid of Hitler because first of all they did not benefit from it and second of all it does not undo present injustice.
No, but you gave the Nazis a fair trial and prosecuted them for crimes against humanity. The interesting thing in regard to these trials is that there were two rules governing the prosecutions in Nuremberg. 1) Ignorance doesn't protect from prosecution and 2) Being not directly involved in the crime because you're higher up in the chain of command doesn't protect from prosecution either.
The point was to show the world that the best way to show extreme injustice is to counter it with a display of justice and law. And not in the way you suggest, which implies that injustice should be answered with injustice.
Right, because you disagree with me you resort to personal attacks. Always a good way to win an argument isn't it.
My evidence has been in the news for the last 4 years. Marc and Olga posted it earlier in this thread.
I do not want to believe this is true. I'd actually prefer if it weren't true. I grew up believing in the moral superiority of America, viewing America as a liberator. But the more I learn about the country, especially since 2001, the less it appears to resemble that image.