OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[sum1lost]

Originally Posted by Sombre

Who is also a white man, who spent more money than the other guy, who himself was burdened with the legacy of an extremely unpopular president and a frightening VP.

He identifies as black, because the prevailing racial attitude in the majority of america classifies people of white+something else as simply something else.

[chrispedersen]

[quote=llamabeast;652267I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe while actually being not especially good at it. [/quote]

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

So, I did some thinking:

League of Nations.
United Nations
Nato
Breton Woods
World Bank
IMF
GATT
the Internet
the Marshall Plan
the Outer Space treaty (non militarization)
the Red Cross
Kosovo

And I could continue with quite a few more. These were all instituted either by American lead or with significant american participation.

And I think they showcase American idealism. Frankly, I think they stand as markedly superior to the examples set by Europe or Britain. Very rarely I think has any state been more generous in promoting the general welfare - or promoting institutions which might circumscribe its own power.

The idea that there should be a forum for countries to get together and discuss matters. America, following the example of our European forbears could have claimed the moon - but *did not*. The outright gift of billions of dollars in aid in Europe.

Consider the treaty of Versailles - Wilson had tried to insist upon a 'peace without victory' provision - it was *europe* that insisted on ruinous reparations. Considers Russias rush to claim the under ice seabed.

Perhaps I *am* being parochial llama. America was a world player oh probably since WWI - Call it 100 years. Show me a similiar pattern of disinterested generosity by the British over 100 years.

Also, bringing up the nazis is hardly fair. That is very much in the past and their behaviour is universally reviled, most especially in Germany.

it was you who said "I would say that Guantanamo is a horror inconceivable by most Western European countries".

Inconceivable is it when it occured in the lifetimes of many people still living?

Inconceivable when the East German secret police were some of the most feared and abusive secret police 30 years ago killing *thousands* of people - including people that whose only crime was trying to flee to a better land.

Italy gave us Fascism - and Yugoslavia's Tito murdered gypsies.

And in fact there were noted secret police in Rumania, Bulgaria and albania even later.

To roughly quote the Princess Bride.. are you sure that word means what you think it means?

Is guilt really assumed until proven innocent in France? That sounds very unlikely, but I confess I know nothing about it.

There are two primary standards for justice in western civilization. One based on the Anglo-American model and one based on the Roman model.

Serious crimes in the Roman model feature a remand (incarceration) until proven innocent - and it led to an inquisitorial style of court used in France and elsewhere.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjG...um=3&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

[atul]

Both of your linked sources discuss the situation in the 19th century. At the same time the Anglo-American system you praise didn't deem it necessary to provide a legal adviser to the defendant (read the wikipedia article). And last time I checked, it's 21st century now.

Innocent until proven guilty is de facto standard in civilized countries, and that puts the U.S. "war on terror" in such a bad light.

[llamabeast]

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

Well, I feel I should say sorry for that then. I'm recently fairly interested in politics (since the lead-up to the American election really), but I will admit to being dramatically ignorant, so I wouldn't want my opinions to upset anyone. My thoughts are more postulates than strongly held beliefs.

Although I still disagree with a fair bit of what you say, and think you do strange things with facts at times (e.g. the internet having been kindly set up by America? it was invented by a guy from my college in fact) it is very interesting to hear your point of view and I think you make some good points. I think if I was more knowledgeable I could come up with a similarly impressive list of America messing things up for other nations horribly on the basis of self-interest (e.g. Afghanistan, the first time), but I don't really have the background to say much with any confidence. I think such strong arguments could be made both for America being a very benevolent country and a malevolent one that it's hard to really know what to think.

If anyone would like an argument on statistical mechanics though, I'm all set

[lch]

Originally Posted by llamabeast

I [...] think you do strange things with facts at times (e.g. the internet having been kindly set up by America? it was invented by a guy from my college in fact)

Heh, what was missing in that list were those fast food chains popping up at every street corner around the world. No longer will humanity have to wait as long for their meals anymore.

[Boronx]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I agree with a lot you say here.

Don't agree much about this paragraph, interested in what mean by 'illegal operations'

Torture is illegal under US law and international law.

Unprovoked war is a crime against the peace for which we jailed or hanged many Nazis. It's also, IMHO, the second worst crime that can be committed after genocide. As to US law, Congress did pass approval for the invasion but there were conditions attached that the president had to convey to Congress his determinations about the threat of Iraqi WMD and links to terrorists. Given what we now know to be the state of evidence at the time (there wasn't any), Bush should now be burdened with explaining how he made those determinations. If he can't, he violated US law in addition to committing a crime against the peace.

Third, the Bush administration has detained US citizens on US soil with no charge for years, often in solitary confinement, which for that length of time is tantamount to torture.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

...why do you think he is something other than a regular POW at Gitmo?

Prisoners at Gitmo have been subjected to torture and general abuse. They've not enjoyed full access to the Red Cross. They are subject (like the grenade kid) to extra-legal rigged courts that don't allow the defendants to review evidence and admit testimony given under torture.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Federal courts as constituted don't have jurisdiction - this is one of the many reasons why the Nuremberg trials were convened for WWII.

Federal Courts do have jurisdiction to try charges of conspiracy to attack the US. One irony of Bush's illegal war on terror is that US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald on his own initiative sought and got indictments against Osama bin Laden, so that if he was ever captured, he might actually receive a fair trial, conviction and execution while his minions, real and mistaken, languish in prison forever with out charge.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Letting terrorists jump the queue for asylum in the US is a bad idea. And again, the US has more than 250 such individuals approved for release - but no country wishes to *take* them.

If they were acquitted, they're not terrorists as far as we know.

[Agema]

[quote=chrispedersen;652310]

Originally Posted by llamabeast;652267I think this is a pity. The US makes a far bigger deal about its history of freedom and equality than in Europe while actually being not especially good at it. [/quote

Llama, your post continue to bother me far after I had logged off.

So, I did some thinking...

Many of those are erroneous, a few examples... NATO is not a Human Rights organisation: It's a military defence pact founded to stop Communism. Although Woodrow Wilson worked hard on the League of Nations, the USA Senate actually declined to ratify it. The Red Cross was invented by some Swiss guy in the 19th century, and the founder signatories were only European nations.

Furthermore, American dominance and lead in many of these is not a reflection of American moral superiority, but a reflection of its economic, military and political dominance. Western European nations were just as enthusiastic for some of these endeavours. War-shattered nations of 5-60 million people don't take the lead over largely unscathed nations of 200+ million. Especially when the smaller owes the bigger a vast amount of money and needs more to rebuild.

Not only that, but "disinterested generosity" is not entirely true. Many were simple sensible or active self-interest. The UN was because of the importance of setting up a talking shop rather than risk another world war. The World Bank and IMF are very controversial organisations - you need to read up on the controversies and see why and how they've unwelcomely advanced capitalist ideologies that benefit the West, and in some cases have damaged nations. NATO was a mutual self-defence pact where all benefitted.

America has also done a lot of dark things. If funded guerrillas and coups, often against democratically elected leaders (eg. Chile). It propped up a lot of vicious dictators (Korea, Vietnam). Blacks only got the vote in the late 60s. It has invaded sovereign nations (eg. Panama, Grenada, bombed Yugoslavia as you mentioned earlier) when convenient, but not necessarily under UN rules. There's a lot more.

For all that, I think America does have a strong moral heart, in its population if not always its leaders. But there's a lot of worldwide cynicism about America, and there are an awful lot of cracks in any US claim of moral superiority.

[Tifone]

You continue to cast stones around but you ignore me. Sob, sob.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

League of Nations.
United Nations
Nato
Breton Woods
World Bank
IMF
GATT
the Internet
the Marshall Plan
the Outer Space treaty (non militarization)
the Red Cross
Kosovo

And I could continue with quite a few more. These were all instituted either by American lead or with significant american participation.

Woo! I wanna play this too!

In random order:

2 Nuclear Bombs on civil targets in Japan
1 near Bassora
One atrocius pointless war which costed the lives of an entire generation against a sovereign country, in which you used the Geneva-forbidden agent Orange (know the effects?)
Cluster Bombs
Bombardment of Tripoli and Bengasi
Bombardment of Amiria
Support to murderer dictators in Cile, Gautemala, Nicaragua
Among the few (only?) western democracies with death penalty
From 2001, refuting any treaty or convention for the control of war weapons (chimical, bacteriological, mines)
Ku Klux Klan

And of course this:

Sorry, you asked for this to come.

USA invented or were part of very idealistic, nice things. You've done great good. Europe owns you much. I'm sure the USA have a strong, moral heart.

But it's childish to play a "moral superiority game". Every nation has its dark points, and USA as well has very big ones.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

There are two primary standards for justice in western civilization. One based on the Anglo-American model and one based on the Roman model.

Serious crimes in the Roman model feature a remand (incarceration) until proven innocent - and it led to an inquisitorial style of court used in France and elsewhere.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yjG...um=3&ct=result

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code

Of course, wrong.

The Roman model which is the base of civil law has the presumption of innocence. Reverted in the dark ages due to the Inquisition, but Inquisition is surely not the base of modern civil codes.

The Napoleonic Code gave inspiration to the most of the European codes due to its high idealism (together with the German one, for its precision in framing cases into schemes). Anyway, it ended in 1890. Why you take it as example, is beyond my comprehension. In France there's, obviously, presumption of non-culpability.
Also, I wish to remind you that every code or jurisdictional system is son of the history, ideals and people of its nation. You should be much more careful than that in judging procedural laws and systems without deep knowledge. Common sense isn't enough.

[lch]

I'm soft-locking the thread because by now it has about zero to do with the election since a couple of pages already. Doesn't seem to lead anywhere, too.

Unless some other moderator or administrator decides that this thread should stay open longer for this off-topic discussion, I'd suggest that you find an appropriate political forum for your discussion.

[llamabeast]

Would anyone object to move the discussion to the Shrapnel Bar and Grill instead? It has the advantage over most political forums that most people here are pretty smart.