| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Wilko The EU had European advisors standing around who were supporting the parties doing the ethnic cleansing? As a matter of fact, yes, at least in the case of Croatia, the UN and NATO did have observers in the area and allowed the explusion of the Serbian population. That's stretching wording beyond their breaking point Larry: there's a huge difference between advisors who lead and fight and observers who observe. Personally I think the EU and NATO were at least partially responsible for the situation in the Balkans for waiting so long before acting, but that's not nearly the same as getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities... NATO was not directly involved? Didn't NATO bomb the Serbians in both Bosnia,Yugoslavia and Kosovo? That's pretty direct involvement. Or are you saying that the atrocities were only committed by the Serbian militias and the rest behaved in a civil manner? Read what I wrote Larry: I said "getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities..." Taking a direct stance by sending in troops (or by patrolling the air space) is not the same as sending in "advisors". Still, I think NATO and the UN did too little at first and too much later on (Kosovo). But that was not the point here. U.S. support of the Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan has direct negative effects on the U.S. troops there now. We are actually back to supporting groups that we supported during the Soviet occupation. The Taliban was the late comers and really didn't take much part ing the actual combat during that time. You conveniently forget to mention that many of the Taliban were just locals who had their first fighting experiences with the Mudjahedeen and other fighters before joining the Taliban forces well over a decade later. Most of the U.S. support during the Soviet occupation came in through the south of Afghanistan, that's exactly where the Taliban had its origins. The Mudjahedeen in the north couldn't expect all of that to reach them if they didn't ally with the ones in the south. So what are all of those Taliban *and* civilian prisoners in Guantanamo doing there, being tortured, not being allowed legal aid, not being given a reason for being held there? You aren't keeping up with things. Taliban members were extended the protection of the Geneva Convention shortly after it became a issue. Some have even been released back to Afganistan. The "Civilian" prisoners are a differenct matter. So it's okay that those people were held there like that untill it became an issue? For a country that repeatedly knocks itself on the chest for being about freedom and equal rights, it's a bit bizar to see that it measures with two measurements. Either the U.S. stands for justice and fair treatment of everyone, or it's just as bad as the terrorists because it doesn't treat others with the standards it expects to be treated by itself. Which one is it? -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
Threaded Mode
