J F: USA "a dangerous wild country that must be stopped"
From: Nomen Nescio (nobody_at_dizum.com)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: Is this still RTA????????"
- Previous message: Nomen Nescio: "J F: Bush knows he is a criminal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:00:07 +0100 (CET)
JF Mezei <jfmezei@vaxination.ca> trolled:
>Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>> If you think the U.S. is bad as far as it treats visitors, how do you
>> rate the many countries that you'll find in the Middle East where all
>> visitors regardless of origins have to confirm to religious and other
>> customs?
>
>The USA brags about being a defendor or human rights. That is why there is
>criticism for the double standars where the USA tells other countries to
>respect human rights, but abuses them inside its own country.
>
>> more rights than visitors to other countries get. If you get jailed in
>> America, regardless of your citizenship, you have the same rights
>> unless you're classified as an enemy combatant or are convicted of
>> spying, etc.
>
>Or you're a canadian with full working papers in the USA who shows up late to
>renew a form and are sent to a jail in another state, without any charges,
>without any access to lawyers and without th eimmigration departmnet allowing
>you to contact your family or employer to tell them that you won't make it to
>the morning staff meeting (or any meetings for an indeterminape period). And
>of course, you can't tell anyone they'll stuff you in aone cell with 12 people
>in it and lights on 24 hours a day.
>
>Or unless you're a grand mother from a scandinavian country vising her
>daughter and grandchildren in the USA and gets arrested because of some
>paperwork issue and sent to jail and then sent back to her home country as a
>criminal with shackles and police guard in front of all other passengers.
>(instead of simply accompanying her to the flight back to where she came from,
>as is accepted practice worldwide when you refuse entry).
>
>Cosnider the case of that guy who lives in CDG in a state of limbo. He may
>have been refused entry, but he wasn't sent to jail.
>
>The problem in the USA is that "enemy combattant" or "suspected terrorist" do
>not have any formal definitions and any law enforcement officer can find a way
>to decide anyone can fit that description, at which point they have no rights
>anymore, no right to a lawyer, can be detained indefinitely without charge etc
>etc. And yes, this has happened to USA citizens too, but usuallty just to non
>citizens because the Bush regime argues the USA constitution applies only to
>citizens (even though, the constitution referes to "people" noty "citizens"
>when it defines legal rights.
>
>> Let's get real: the number of true friends the U.S. has hasn't changed
>> much over the years.
>
>You are dead wrong on this one. The USA is now seen as a dangerous wild
>country that must be stopped. It is still seen as the big economic bully that
>you are forced to listen to and be polite to because your own economy depends
>on trade with the USA. This was very evident when poor nations signed up to
>the Bush illegal invasion of Iraq because of arm twisting and bribing done by
>Bush/Powell to get anyone to support his illegal and unwarranted destroction
>of Iraq.
>
>The USA has lost a lot of friends. It is distrusted and people now laugh at
>statements made by the USA making wild claims about country X having dangerous
>weapons etc etc.
>
>If the USA didn't have veto in the security council, you can bet that there
>would have been resolutions sanctioning the USA for its war crimes committed
>against Iraq.
>
>
>> Yes, people supposedly rallied around us after
>> 9/11,
>
>Supposedly ??????
>
>Geez man, your media really didn't show you what really happened. Even Bush
>had to apoligise for having forgotten that Canada had provide so much help on
>9-11 and in the fight against terrorism. (In 2001, Bush had purposefully
>ignored Canad's invitation to visit, traditionally the first intl visit for a
>new president of the USA and instead went to Mexico, and after 9-11, Bush
>purposefully omitted Canada from a long list of countries which had porvided
>moral support for the USA after 9-11, even tough Canada was the one that had
>provided the most help (by far) and suffered the most (we lost airlines
>because of that).
>
>Despite these very serious diplomatic insults, Canada was one of the first
>ones to commit to sending troups to Afghanistan, and Canada didn't widthdraw
>its troups to Afghanistan despite the fact that your drugged military fired on
>canadian troups. And Canada inscreased its presenced in Afghanistan to allow
>USA to move troups to Iraq.
>
>France and Germany made similar moves. You had a lot of friends for the war on
>terrorism. You have lost them becayuse you shifted the focus from battling
>terrorism to invading other countries to impose your own ideology on the
>middle east, whcih will motivate the formation of even more terrorism.
>
>We can't stop the USA from driving drunk because the USA is too big a bully.
>But we sure aren't going to help it get into a car and start destroying the
>world any more than it has already done.
>
>Remember that while you almost impeached some guy for getting a blow job, you
>elected a guy who got arrested for drunk driving, so the analogy to drunk
>drivers is very good.
>
>> Many of the countries in Europe that are railing against Iraq supposed
>> Saddam during his reign.
>
>OK, Lets take France as an example. Your supposed enemy number 1. It is the
>USA that made France an ennemy. Not the other way around. Secondly, yes,
>France had trade relations with Iraq, so did MANY countries. Weeks before the
>USA destrouction of Iraq began, there was a large international trade
>fair in Iraq.
>
>What you don't understand is that the sanctions against Iraq were not
>"complete". There were banned products. Iraq could not import anything that
>could be used to make banned weapons. Chlorine for instance was banned, which
>prevented its use in water purification plants. But it did not prevent Iraq
>from importing cars, machinery, steel etc etc etc.
>
>So the accusations made by US pooliticians to stain the UN are only listened
>to by gullible americans who can't take a few minutes to read about the oil
>for food programme on the UN web site.
>
>Just because France sold cars to Iraqis doesn't mean in any way that France
>was involved in corrupting the OFF programme. And in fact, as some foreign
>newspapers pointed out, the IOFF programme wasn't driven by Kofi Anan, it was
>driven by the security council where the USA played an important role in
>approving all purchases.
>
>Also, if you read the OFF reports carefully, you will see that at one point,
>the price of oil was too low to generate sufficient funds to feed Iraqis. The
>UN decided to take some of the money generated by OFF to purchase oil
>production equipment to fixup the Iraqi oil production in the hopes of
>increasing production and thus increasing revenus. So the purchases of
>non-food products with oil money was fully approved by the security council
>and fully documented.
>
>Where there was corruption is in Hussein stealing oil from the UN and shipping
>it covertly to neighbours and keeping the proceeds of those sales to himself.
>
>But compared to the current corruption, this was peanuts. Right now, the USA
>is stealing all the oil and using it to pay Haliburton and other contractors
>working to protect troups in Iraq, instead of hiring local Iraqis to rebuild
>their country. (which, in any event, should be fully paid for by theinvading
>country, not with oil belonging to the invaded country).
Why don't you volunteer to go and help rebuild Iraq, since you care
about it so much?
And, let's face it, you got nothing else to do.......
- Next message: Nomen Nescio: "Re: Is this still RTA????????"
- Previous message: Nomen Nescio: "J F: Bush knows he is a criminal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
