philothea Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759060' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:10 AM']Frankly I don't care how the U.S is viewed abroad. Why should I care about the opinions of people who can't even run their own countries?[/quote] How about how the U.S. is viewed by God?
Saint Therese Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) What about it? Edited January 23, 2009 by Saint Therese
kujo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759060' date='Jan 23 2009, 02:10 AM']Frankly I don't care how the U.S is viewed abroad. Why should I care about the opinions of people who can't even run their own countries?[/quote] Even though we are only an hour and a half into this brand new day, I'm willing to bet that this will be one of the most ignorant comments made on Phatmass today. Edited January 23, 2009 by kujo
Saint Therese Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I can't think of anything more ridiculous that basing our gov't policies on the opinion of foreign nations.
kujo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759076' date='Jan 23 2009, 02:36 AM']I can't think of anything more ridiculous that basing our gov't policies on the opinion of foreign nations.[/quote] No one is saying that we should "base" our government policies on the opinions of foreign nations. But we should be mindful of the effects our policies have on other countries and how we are perceived abroad. In this day in age, it is vital that we avoid unilateralism as often as possible, instead leaning on multilateralism and building consensuses whenever possible. Furthermore, we ought to look at coalition efforts as a means towards conserving the amount of money and manpower we must put forth in a given scenario. To go at it alone would yield similar results to the blunder of the War in Iraq.
Saint Therese Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I don't know how you could call a war we've won a blunder. Of course it is the most under reported and misrepresented war in modern history.
kujo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759082' date='Jan 23 2009, 02:46 AM']I don't know how you could call a war we've won a blunder. Of course it is the most under reported and misrepresented war in modern history.[/quote] The war was won. The occupation was a blunder, a fiasco, a catastrophe, a clusterf....you get the point. Edited January 23, 2009 by kujo
kujo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759103' date='Jan 23 2009, 03:04 AM']I get your point but I don't agree.[/quote] That's cool.
philothea Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759060' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:10 AM']Frankly I don't care how the U.S is viewed abroad. Why should I care about the opinions of people who can't even run their own countries?[/quote] [quote name='philothea' post='1759064' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:14 AM']How about how the U.S. is viewed by God?[/quote] [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1759065' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:19 AM']What about it?[/quote] Do you think God cares about nations obeying laws and honoring treaties? Treaties not about something unjust -- warmongering, or power-grabbing, but about how human prisoners should be held? But... nevermind. I realize there's no point in this. You give no indication that you're remotely interested in any point of view but your own. I won't bother you again; I apologize.
Ash Wednesday Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I don't have a problem with the U.S. government addressing whatever human rights abuses were taking place at Gitmo...but wouldn't it have been better to have some sort of plan laid out regarding where they are going to put the detainess before closing the base? I mean, they were there for a reason...
kujo Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1759284' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:42 PM']I don't have a problem with the U.S. government addressing whatever human rights abuses were taking place at Gitmo...but wouldn't it have been better to have some sort of plan laid out regarding where they are going to put the detainess before closing the base? I mean, they were there for a reason...[/quote] That's why they're not going to "close" the PRISON (NOT THE BASE) for at least a year. This will give them ample time to deal with everyone there.
Ash Wednesday Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='kujo' post='1759286' date='Jan 23 2009, 01:44 PM']That's why they're not going to "close" the PRISON (NOT THE BASE) for at least a year. This will give them ample time to deal with everyone there.[/quote] Maybe. As someone who has worked for a state institution for almost a decade, I can't say I really trust the bureaucratic concept of time and competence.
Hassan Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1758970' date='Jan 23 2009, 12:04 AM']The conventions only protects combatants in uniform.[/quote] categorically false
Hassan Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1759005' date='Jan 23 2009, 12:53 AM']Mine is practicality. They are soldiers more than criminals and they are not citizens. You've created a straw man--I've not advocated anarchy. I have made the point that these are neither citizens nor mere criminals. Thus they should not be treated the same as other criminals.[/quote] Except the ones who wern't criminals.
Saint Therese Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='philothea' post='1759238' date='Jan 23 2009, 11:05 AM']Do you think God cares about nations obeying laws and honoring treaties? Treaties not about something unjust -- warmongering, or power-grabbing, but about how human prisoners should be held? But... nevermind. I realize there's no point in this. You give no indication that you're remotely interested in any point of view but your own. I won't bother you again; I apologize.[/quote] Ohh kay.
Tinkerlina Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1758970' date='Jan 23 2009, 12:04 AM']The conventions only protects combatants in uniform. Also, all combatants according to the Geneva Conventions are members of military of governments, which terrorists are not. Perhaps YOU should do some research.[/quote] Actually the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Gitmo were protected under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld[/url] -Katie
Saint Therese Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) Just because they rule something doesn't make it so. Edited January 24, 2009 by Saint Therese
Tinkerlina Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 [quote name='Saint Therese' post='1760004' date='Jan 24 2009, 02:00 AM']Just because they rule something doesn't make it so.[/quote] If the Supreme Court of the US rules this, however, its citizens are obliged to abide by it. -Katie
Saint Therese Posted January 24, 2009 Posted January 24, 2009 Yes just like another great decision of theirs, abortion. I for one choose to question the validity of their decisions.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now