ALL politics is left V right I'd very much disagree with this. Not only does it fail to consider that two way debates do not have to be left versus right, it also assumes that a single topic can label a person and it fails to consider that politics is usually much broader than two with as many opinions
Actually I think 10 years is about right for his crime. While has been found guilty this must be balanced against other crimes and potential crimes. What he did is certainly less that the cases where prisoners have been murdered. Likewise his methods and the level of torture applied was not as severe as could have occurred. Some would argue a black and white case for full 15 years or nothing, but I believe that there are varying levels or tor
Looking excellent Brad. Good luck with the San Fran demos next week! Paul.
GC1, only those transports needed to win the battel were used up. Paul.
I think the politics forum suffers from to much left v right mentality. If only those two words were banned from JU! Paul.
There's a difference between deviants in a society commiting abuses, and the government itself functioning at a level of human rights abuse with total ambivilance and unapologetic zeal This is very true. There will always be abuses in any country. What has been happening under US controlled prisons howe
Is there *anything* that *would* satisfy you? A repeal of US legislation that allows for the human right abuse that is Guantanemo Bay. Luckily the US supreme court seems to be agreeing with me on that issue though and has twice ruled against the government on this issue. The government is now being forc
Yeah lets do. Your opinion or theirs? Sorry Drmiler, I don't understand you comment so can't respond. I'm assuming you're asking who defines what is an acceptable level of pain or suffering. That's a very dangerous and slippery road to follow. It's like trying to determine what's an acceptable level of
Moderateman, look at article 1 of my post #127. It defines what is considered torture and have been agreed and ratified by the US. Most of the items you listed will inflict mental or physical suffering and hence are defined as torture. They don't have to inflict pain, just suffering. There are always those that will try to argue as to what is an acceptable level of suffering, but the fact is that it's wrong. You may not like the fact that
have to do Y. You also then have the whole weekend to muse over the problems before the crunch meetings where you need to suggest solutions. Paul.
Excellent work! Paul.
ologies/wonders you deside to implement should help determine the government. Paul.
Drmiler, lets look at one of the Human right treaties the US has actually ratified. The 1984 "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment". Article 1 1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, w
quote]then if the united states are viewed as such monsters where did this come from? Did you see me claim the US is viewed as monsters? You are the one argueing that you should be allowed to practice torture on people because you see it as torture light. No one is saying the US is not a great country, just that it has serious problems in regard to human right abuse. The two are not mutually exclusive. paul.
Drmiller, yes I did read the whole thing and linked so that others could as well. It's a huge document though and I chose to focus on the US human right abuses not on Dafur or the countless other issues highlighted in the report. This is my blog and I have the right to write about what I desire. Feel free to start your own article on how great the US human right record is due to it's efforts in Darfur. To balance the critism of the US, I also in
As stated, all of them KNEW saddam had WMD (before 2003). They knew how much he had. They knew what had been accouted for. They just did the math and presumed he still had the missing quantity. In 2003 however there was no proof. The Fench president for example stated that he had seen nothing from his intelligence agency showing that Saddam currently had WMD (in 2003). Paul.
kelpiejethro, if you read the earlier replies to this article you'll see that the original Geneva conventions failed to include a number of categories of humans. Spies, special forces, terrorists, non nation combatants, and even children were not properly defined or covered. In later decades these loopholes were closed through further protocols to the Geneva
Yesterday the US based Human Rights Watch released there 2005 Human Rights report. In a report that gives a very detailed overview of human right abuses acorss the world, the US in particular was singled out as a major factor in eroding global Human Rights. It's opening paragraph on the US paints the proud history of human rights that the US used to stand for
Parated2k, Iraq did provide a detailed 70,000 page document complying with resolution 1441, and allowed the required inspections (including immediate inspection of presidential sites). They did therefore comply with resolution 1441. The fact that the US could not find any proof of WMD in the document or with the further inspections just increased the US's belief that Iraq was hiding WMD. France and Russia disagreed, suggesting that maybe WMD wer
French (or Gaul) is not a race. It is a nationality. While technically true, it's a bit pedantic. French is a culture (as well as a nationality) and therefore protected by the same anti racism laws as a race is (most anti racism laws also protect colour, culture and creed). If it's unacceptable to make
no one doubted they were there Not true. Many did doubt they were there (UN France, Russia), that was the problem the US had. Everyone knew Saddam once had WMD, knew their was no concrete proof that it had all been dsetroyed, but were not sure he still had any. The US could not convince countries like F
The US is free to implement whatever laws it desires, but these laws only apply to the US. Internationally accepted laws on human rights (whether the US ratified them or not) apply for the rest of the planet. Therefore, should the US want to torture it's citizens or terrorists captured for offenses on US soil then it can do so. They cannot however treat terrorists abroard with the same attitude. So terrorists captured in Iraq or in Afganistan come unde
r> Only at the very very hardest levels. This was more a maso-challenge behaviour in GC1 than a change across all the difficulty levels. Paul.
ficulty could be set by changing the difficulty of the game (modifiers, effects) seperately from the difficulty of the AI. paul.
JoeUser Forums
GalCiv2 Forums