You are not logged in.
You have to understand that a Koran is not like a Bible, it's more like a sacred object, it is even forbidden to trash old, unreadable/whatever Korans etc. They are all kept.
If we Westerners would , say, unintentionally spill coffee on a bible, we'd be sorry for having ruined a *book*, but not feeling we desecrated a religious object, (though you might *feel* a bit bad, irreverend about it, depending how devout you are, I suppose...)
Muslems would feel like they had made a serious sin.
So this is -again- a clash of cultures/religions/ways of looking at things.
*Hi Rik. I didn't know that.
However, there are some fundamentalist Christian sects (l was raised in one) which consider the Bible to be a holy object...never to be discarded, mishandled in any way, etc. The old ones are kept -- indefinitely. It's unthinkable to part with them or (especially) to discard them.
My father once became very angry with me for putting a book on top of a Bible. We weren't allowed to put anything on top of a Bible. The Bible had to be displayed at all times, had to be visible and on top of whatever surface it rested on.
My parents also had separate areas in bookshelves for their Bibles.
Of course not all Christians are that vehemently protective of their holy book...but some are. :-\
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
It's a book, something made of paper. The ideas are what's important.
If people see the Koran or bible as works of art, then fine, but they are missing the whole point. I would say they haven't understood what those books are trying to teach. God warned us not to glorify books, or images, rings, crosses, gold, money...
It's the same as burning the American flag. It's just a piece of cloth died with red, white, and blue coloring. You can burn it all you want but it changes nothing about me or my country because we are so much more than dye'd cloth and God is still the Creator of the universe regardless of what some mortal does to a book.
Offline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050604/ap_ … iring]John Bolton dis-respected a man who is now Brazil's ambassador in London.
Is he really best we can do?
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
It's no coincidence that the advent of modern sound motion pictures (able to record the actual horrors of war for the revulsion of later generations, without having to experience the real thing themselves) happens to span the years you mention. May it be ever thus, at least for the prevention of so-called World Wars. The increasing awareness by movie-goers, in the depressed parts of the world, to see through the propaganda of warlords and wannabe dictators before they are able to take power, could contribute greatly to this in the coming years.
Offline
Still under the EU many countries who where the most bitterest of enemies have extended the hand of friendship we have had no war between countries in europe since 1945 and this has been the single longest period of peace Europe has ever had. Maybe we have grown, maybe we can get along, But whatever happens one of the reasons is that we have the ability to cooperate and the EU has pride of place in having made that happen.
Yes, you are right, Grypd, I hope the level of cooperation will increase even more with time. But I think the EU will have to become more closely connected to the people for that, so that "NO" against a constitution written by and for members of the bureocratic elite could even turn out to be a step in the right direction, away from a 19th century pentarchy like state to a true common identity.
Plus we have really better things to do ahead, like colonizing Mars for example, than fighting each other.
It's no coincidence that the advent of modern sound motion pictures (able to record the actual horrors of war for the revulsion of later generations, without having to experience the real thing themselves) happen to span the years you mention. May it be ever thus, at least for the prevention of so-called World Wars. The increasing awareness by movie-goers, in the depressed parts of the world, to see through the propaganda of warlords and wannabe dictators before they are able to take power, could contribute greatly to this in the coming years.
Hmm might be, although the same motion pictures have been used extensively for propagande in their early days. Just recognized the movie theater in town, where Star Wars Episode 3 is playing now, it was originally built in 1938.
So the subject hasn't really changed, just now it's fantasy.
Offline
We the Europeans have been at war with each other as far as recorded history goes.
So have everybody else.
Not only that but we are extremely effective at designing more efficient means to do so and we designed our societies around the means to make it happen.
Is it our fault that we are clever and so much more creative than the rest?
Much of our science and technology was learned as means to be more effective killers and we made terrific advances. Even in non direct military advances we learned to make ourselves more competitive or effective in production so that we could be more effective.
Really, and what elements of advanced technology have been endorsed in say, Africa? The ability to buy howitzers and pull the trigger of an AK-47, that's what. The one who masters it is the biggest badass gangstarapper on his turf, while the rest of population live in straw huts and starve to death.
If we did not invent a technology the chances are we warped it into weapons or improved it. Frankly we are scary.
No, by comparison we are no worse than anyone else. Frankly, we are most likely better. Who came up with the laws of conduct in war? We did. Who instituted the principle of seperating civilians from combatants? We did, because we had already separated the individual from the the political order and the political order from religion. In what part of the world did the Red Cross emerge or where was the guiding principle at the height of our civilization always to save women and children at the expense of the males? In Islamistan not bloody likely.
Still under the EU many countries who where the most bitterest of enemies have extended the hand of friendship we have had no war between countries in europe since 1945 and this has been the single longest period of peace Europe has ever had.
Only because one of the factions finally won and was able to shape the world in its image, since that was its intention. Negative marginal utility of conducting war in advanced industrial settings with technology of unheard of destructivess took care of the rest.
Maybe we have grown, maybe we can get along, But whatever happens one of the reasons is that we have the ability to cooperate and the EU has pride of place in having made that happen.
Sure, we can cooperate, no problem referring to the above. Yet one should always watch out for one's back. Western civilisation has grown, but it has been doing so for many centuries with origins and roots of conduct dating back to the Middle Ages and Antiquity, not particularly only during the last 60 years. And rot always starts from within.
Offline
I'm referring to archival sound and colour motion pictures, which can be researched, and used to teach factual history of modern warfare and related atrocities, unembellished as entertainment. Witness the changes in styles of dress from1880 to 1930, during the evolution of motion picture newsreels, compared with almost no change from 1930 right up to now, since synchronized sound on film (and later colour) was perfected. Silent films from that earlier era, projected at sound speed, appear ludicrous and jerkily unrealistic today. WWI battle scenes, for instance. WWII scenes, and now genocide massacres, are almost unbearable to see and not be disgusted and ashamed. Only until such realism is available to everyone, will takeovers by small numbers of terrorizing would-be warlords be countered by the much greater masses of people, in time to prevent being taken over.
Offline
We the Europeans have been at war with each other as far as recorded history goes.
So have everybody else.
Actually but when it comes to war Europeans and in particular western europeans have more or less conquered every other culture we have come across. We shared out Africa, South America and even China. When we where not doing that we where fighting each other. For all intents there have been more than 2 world wars but all of them happened in Europe.
Not only that but we are extremely effective at designing more efficient means to do so and we designed our societies around the means to make it happen.
Is it our fault that we are clever and so much more creative than the rest?
Hardly but you may have seen that war is the great improviser when it comes down to it we may well have advanced so fast just to make ourselves more effective in a fight.
Much of our science and technology was learned as means to be more effective killers and we made terrific advances. Even in non direct military advances we learned to make ourselves more competitive or effective in production so that we could be more effective.
Really, and what elements of advanced technology have been endorsed in say, Africa? The ability to buy howitzers and pull the trigger of an AK-47, that's what. The one who masters it is the biggest badass gangstarapper on his turf, while the rest of population live in straw huts and starve to death.
What has Africa invented that is high technology, The lateen sail for an example. It allowed sailing ships to sail so close to the wind that deep sea trade exploded. Except the Africans did not use it but for anything except local trading and fishing. Added to the large hulls that we created for war purposes and we had Galleons. Iron working was also invented seperatly in Africa but it took a long time to disperse itself. There had been inter tribal disputes but no real large wars until the Zulu invented there system of the Impi and became a military society. Still they managed to make a large empire until they ran into Boer and British armed with firearms.
It seems to be as there was no pressing need to create new weapons science and advances came slow.
If we did not invent a technology the chances are we warped it into weapons or improved it. Frankly we are scary.
No, by comparison we are no worse than anyone else. Frankly, we are most better. Who came up with the laws of conduct in war? We did.
Actually many societies had laws of conduct in war from the south americans attempt to capture soldiers alive for religous purposes. Laws of conduct are relative and it depends on what context they are used or abused.
Who instituted the principle of seperating civilians from combatants? We did, because we had already seperated the individual from the political order and the political order from religion.
Do you understand just how recent this idea is. In the case of the geneva conventions the first was in 1864. But it really only came into force in 1899 and 1925. But it can only be seen that it was considered as defacto in the last half of the 20th century. For most of history civilians where fair game and even in world war 2 our capacity to kill civilians expanded incredibly. It was the incredible attrocities that where perpetrated that encouraged more adherence by the western societies. Still they are often flouted.
In what part of the world did the red cross emerge
It was created by a swiss man horrified at the suffering of people in the Italian wars and in particular the sack of soleferino. The effect of seeing 40000 men dieing after that major battle without any medical aid is what caused the red cross and crescent to form.
or where was the guiding principle at the height of our civilization always to save women and children at the expense of the males? In Islamistan not bloody likely.
Your going to love this, what you describe is part of a code of Chivalry and our first example of this was by the Sassanid persians, Yes the Emporer of Iran and not Iran. As Zorastrian fire worshippers they believed it was there holy duty and since they where always having small petty fights between each other being a great horse people it kept them strong. With the Arab conversion to Islam this empire fell but the idea travelled with the Arabs as they invaded Europe. Till stopped by Charlemaigne who had to invent a country and to copy some techniques so that he could stop them. That is how Chivalry spread into Europe.
So for western Europe the EU has been a good thing countries that had been at war for millenia of and on have became willing to allow each others citizens to move around unmolested and to actually settle there. We are not pointing weapons at each other and are willing to take our difficulties to the table rather than a battlefield.
But to bring us back on topic the EU.
Maybe we have grown up but it has to be said that the EU helped to bring this about.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Britain has postponed its decision to hold the referendum. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw so no point in persueing plans for the referendum or in even setting a date to hold it. France's, Jacque Chirac and Germany's Gerhard Schroder wanted the ratification proces to continue but with the UK's decision and the increased "No" votes appearing across Europe and with other countries wavering in there plans to have referendums it seems the Constitution is sinking fast.
On June the 16th the EU's leaders meet originally to decide on the next 3 year budget for the EU but more likely now is to find a way out of the crisis.
Options are for the leaders.
1) Continue with the ratification process but continue in an education programme to the peoples of Europe and Nay sayers to be given another chance to vote "later". But there is a lot of opposition to this as leaders are finding it hard to push the constitution as it is. There is also the possibility wanted by the French to drop the free trade sections of the treaty which are opposed in France. This though will be bitterly opposed by Britain and the Eastern countries of the EU.
2) A two speed approach with countries like Germany and France gaining more political union with expectations that the rest of the EU will catch up in there own time. This would be sponsored amongst the original 5 members but has taken an early set back as the Dutch have expressed no interest in joining such a group as a very junior partner. There is also very little support amongst the EU commisioners at this route either.
3) The so called economic route would be to increase free trade amongst the EU. More countries could join easily as it will be come more like the commen market model the EU was in its inception. The constitution would be dropped in its entirity. This route is bitterly opposed by the French and Germans as there economies are in a weak position and there electorates fundamentally against it.
4) The constitution is reformed keeping the better bits and the options that will increase efficiency in the EU. Streamline the voting procedure and reduce veto powers. Also the parts that open the EU to more public perception with an elected president and its own foreign affairs minister. A basic charter of rights is formed that in a single A4 page describes what the treaty will give the electorate. a "peoples charter".
With the Euro being seen as one of the causes of the economic downturn that has happened to Europe some countries have privatly been considering dropping the Euro and returning to old currencies. The German finance minister Hans Eichel was at a meeting where withdrawing from the EURO was openly discussed. But it was in Italy where Roberto Maroni the Welfar Minister said to the La Republicca paper about withdrawl from the EURO that "In Europe there is a virtuous example and its Britain, which is growing and developing maintaining its own currency".
More likely is that Italy will be kicked out of the EURO as it has a traditionally very weak economy and the likes of Germany and France have always been concerned that being in the same bed as Italy would hamper there own economies.
Of course from a personal point of view I hope the UK does not have its referendum and of the 4 choices that would push the EU forward that we go with number 3. Still it is a faint hope, too many political elites thinking they know better than there electorates. Nor willing to listen.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
I don't think the EURO was a major factor in economic downcline, increase in the unemployment rate already began in the early '90s, basically growing each year except during the e-commerce boom in 99 and 2000. The one of the main factors seems to be the growing bureocratization, which will have to stop and start shrinking back acceptable levels.
Of the 4 options, my personal preference would be no. 4, although there is no need to rush anything about that.
And I hope option 1 and 2 will be out of the question.
Offline
Pres. Bush & possibility of closing Guantanamo
Sounds like politico-speak for "we're don't plan to change much beyond symbolism but in order to distract you we'll pretend to do more. Bugger off."
The best course of action, practically speaking would be to review the circumstances of each prisoner, release the least dangerous amid great fanfare and keep the real terrorists. Even if we can't get useful information out of them releasing terrorists isn't a sound policy.
From the article.
Amnesty's secretary general, Irene Khan, said in a statement issued in London that she had noted Bush's comment "with interest" and urged him "to close the prison and charge the detainees under U.S. law in U.S. courts or release them, as this prison is a disgrace to American values and international law."
Which is of course insane. First they invoke the Geneva convention, now it's charge them under US law. Which is it? POWs can't be charged under US law because they aren't criminals, otherwise we could charge them all with murder and impose the death penalty. Criminals can't be held as POWs if they aren't enemy combatants. "Lawful combatants" are required to have uniforms among other things and not make a specific point of attacking civilians. Terrorists if anything are equivalent to spies or saboteurs. You can kill 'em right on the spot.
While I don't approve of every aspect of how we're handling these prisoners, the critics should understand the rules before invoking them.
On the other hand, if non-US citizens/nationals fighting outside US territory can be charged under US law, why not everyone? Bust Chinese companies for not meeting our labor laws. Audit Frenchmen for not paying the IRS. The principle is the same, if we're going to apply US law to people outside its jurisdiction let's go all the way with it.
But in all likelihood the Gitmo detainment center will eventually be shut down. Much will be made of it, no admission of error, a few prisoners will be released, and most will continue to be held in another location with even less oversight and greater consequences should any abuse occur, resulting in an institutional circling of the wagons and abuses increasing and never being corrected.
Way to go Amnesty International, really thought that one out. . .
Edited By Cobra Commander on 1118331901
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Offline
I do believe we must choose:
(a) Geneva convention; or
(b) US criminal law
If the US creates international legal precedent for a third category: "terrorist" which reamins vaguely defined and essentially at the whim of the executive (i.e. Ashcroft says "Padilla is a terrorist" therefore its true) we legitimize the odious "Bill of Attainder"
And when some foreign nation arrests an American citizen and their Ministry of Justice says "terrorist" meaning special rules apply - - we will have less international recourse.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
*Well...(reluctant here)...it seems to me that anything we do with regards to suspected terrorists is nearly universally condemned/roundly criticized. I know there are legal issues around Guantanamo (the precise points of which I'm not knowledgeable about).
Lots of the criticisms of the U.S. regarding treatment of suspected terrorists reminds me of the criticism of our immigration policy: Some people/groups think that because we're an "open society," Immigration & Naturalization should be shut down and anyone from wherever be allowed to come in at will.
Seems like a no-win situation regardless.
65 years ago hardly anyone cared what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. Nowadays most everyone's up in arms about Gitmo. :hm: Good old humans...always going to extremes.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Allowing the executive to declare someone is a "terrorist" and thereby avoid both US criminal law and the Geneva convention becomes the de facto equivalent of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder]Bill of Attainder
Remember, whatever Ashcroft can do to a Jose Padilla, a future Janet Reno can do unto the wing-nuts.
From wikipedia:
Bills of attainder evolved into a convenient way for the King to convict subjects of crimes, and confiscate their property, without the bother of a trial--and without the need for a conviction, or indeed any evidence at all.
Edited By BWhite on 1118333487
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
*Well...(reluctant here)...it seems to me that anything we do with regards to suspected terrorists is nearly universally condemned/roundly criticized. I know there are legal issues around Guantanamo (the precise points of which I'm not knowledgeable about).
Lots of the criticisms of the U.S. regarding treatment of suspected terrorists reminds me of the criticism of our immigration policy: Some people/groups think that because we're an "open society," Immigration & Naturalization should be shut down and anyone from wherever be allowed to come in at will.
Seems like a no-win situation regardless.
65 years ago hardly anyone cared what the Nazis were doing to the Jews. Nowadays most everyone's up in arms about Gitmo. :hm: Good old humans...always going to extremes.
--Cindy
>> Seems like a no-win situation regardless. <<
No, just follow the existing rules. Don't claim 9/11 means the President can do whatever the hell he wants, just because 9/11 changed everything.
Its either (a) or (b) - - > the Gitmo detainees are criminals and the Constitution applies OR they are Prisoners of War and the Geneva Convention applies.
Edited By BWhite on 1118333435
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Well, you think we might have learned something from the Japanese internment.
Offline
It simply gets frustrating when I feel that ("just because 9/11 changed everything") the world seems to think America can no longer do any right.
I mean other than Guantanamo.
And it's tempting just to shut out all the criticism because the overabundance of it seems untrue.
--Cindy
How can we?
I mean, there you have a president saying he' s for Freedom, and there's this crazy 'Rummy' camp. (Saw a BBC documentary, where they did a 48 hrs. simulation with volunteers, it's more than horrible, it's borderline insane.
Esp. because there are also people there that are not hardened criminals, sitting there for what is it, four years already? Without knowing when they'll get out... Or get a trial.
And something tells me US citizens will never get to see that docu...
You guys have all the guns, we're just very very weary. Because of what you government preaches, and because of what it actually does.
Can't yo see why people, even governments become vocally sceptic about USA's 'good intentions?'
It all sounds so... False, after a while, merchant-speak...
I know, the people =! the government, but still you live there, so every negative comment rattles you. Must be quite unpleasant.
Offline
It simply gets frustrating when I feel that ("just because 9/11 changed everything") the world seems to think America can no longer do any right.
I mean other than Guantanamo.
And it's tempting just to shut out all the criticism because the overabundance of it seems untrue.
--Cindy
How can we?
I mean, there you have a president saying he' s for Freedom, and there's this crazy 'Rummy' camp. (Saw a BBC documentary, where they did a 48 hrs. simulation with volunteers, it's more than horrible, it's borderline insane.
Esp. because there are also people there that are not hardened criminals, sitting there for what is it, four years already? Without knowing when they'll get out... Or get a trial.
And something tells me US citizens will never get to see that docu...You guys have all the guns, we're just very very weary. Because of what you government preaches, and because of what it actually does.
Can't yo see why people, even governments become vocally sceptic about USA's 'good intentions?'
It all sounds so... False, after a while, merchant-speak...
*Yes, I understand how this can be now (currently).
But a mere 4 months after 9/11?
No.
It still puzzles me.
Much of the world turned against us shortly after 9/11 and before the Iraq war -- even before plans were actively made to invade Iraq.
That I do not understand, for the most part.
::sigh::
But there are two Americas I live in. And only one of them I love.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
It simply gets frustrating when I feel that ("just because 9/11 changed everything") the world seems to think America can no longer do any right.
I mean other than Guantanamo.
And it's tempting just to shut out all the criticism because the overabundance of it seems untrue.
--Cindy
How can we?
I mean, there you have a president saying he' s for Freedom, and there's this crazy 'Rummy' camp. (Saw a BBC documentary, where they did a 48 hrs. simulation with volunteers, it's more than horrible, it's borderline insane.
Esp. because there are also people there that are not hardened criminals, sitting there for what is it, four years already? Without knowing when they'll get out... Or get a trial.
And something tells me US citizens will never get to see that docu...You guys have all the guns, we're just very very weary. Because of what you government preaches, and because of what it actually does.
Can't yo see why people, even governments become vocally sceptic about USA's 'good intentions?'
It all sounds so... False, after a while, merchant-speak...*Yes, I understand how this can be now (currently).
But a mere 4 months after 9/11?
No.
It still puzzles me.
Much of the world turned against us shortly after 9/11 and before the Iraq war -- even before plans were actively made to invade Iraq.
That I do not understand, for the most part.
::sigh::
But there are two Americas I live in. And only one of them I love.
--Cindy
Cindy, google "Downing Street Memo"
Much of the world turned against us shortly after 9/11 and before the Iraq war -- even before plans were actively made to invade Iraq.
On that point, plans to invade Iraq were ready on 9/12. After that, it was just about trying to stir up public support for regime change.
Europe offered formal NATO action to attack Afghanistan. Bush said "No thanks"
The world turned against us?
I recall "freedom fries" playing a big part of that. By the way, the very conservative Congressman who started the "freedom fry" thing has now changed his mind and accuses Bush of lying to get us into Iraq.
Frankly, I believe most of the world still loves the average American, they just think our leaders are bonkers.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
I do believe we must choose:
(a) Geneva convention; or
(b) US criminal law
I tend to agree, but it's difficult to do because neither one really applies. US law doesn't work, because they weren't arrested in the US for disobeying US law. Calling them POWs doesn't work because there is no declared war against a declared enemy. Rather American troops have simply entered a foreign nation to depose a regime that America doesn't like without ever declaring war against it and have faced resistance from supporters of that government and other opponents of the occupation. Simply creating the terrorist class doesn't work either since it is not defined in the Constitution or standard rules of war and is not accepted by international institutions. Also I interpret the rights of Habeus Corpus and a speedy and public trial to apply to all people held by the US on US controlled territory (including the Guantanamo) whether or not they are citizens, except in the case of POWs who may be held from the formal declaration of war until the formal peace treaty. However, as earlier observed these people aren't POWs. The problem is that there is no system for dealing with people captured by the US military in foreign territory but not as part of a war against an opposing army since such a situation is not really supposed to occur.
Good comparison to the Bill of Attainder by the way. However, you don't seem to have mentioned that it is specifically banned in the US Constitution. If a court were to decide that the "terrorist" class is in effect a bill of attainder it would make it unconstitutional.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams
Offline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050608/ap_ … llegations of Koran abuse against Israelis
*Israel says Muslim extremists staged this.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline
Good comparison to the Bill of Attainder by the way. However, you don't seem to have mentioned that it is specifically banned in the US Constitution. If a court were to decide that the "terrorist" class is in effect a bill of attainder it would make it unconstitutional.
What if done under the President's inherent power to fight wars? Scalia? Clarence Thomas?
= = =
This is exactly the battle the ACLU and others are fighting right now and the right wing media are screaming "traitors, traitors"
= = =
Cindy, Koran abuse or not, the mere existence of Gitmo violates what America is supposed to stand for.
Edited By BWhite on 1118351551
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffet … tml]Warren Buffet agrees. It really is a class war, launched by the wealthy.
BUFFETT: Yeah. The rich people are doing so well in this country. I mean, we never had it so good.
DOBBS: What a radical idea.
BUFFETT: It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be.
DOBBS: Exactly. Your class, as you put it, is winning on estate taxes, which I know you are opposed to. I don't know how your son Howard feels about that. I know you are opposed to it.
At the same week the House passed the estate tax, Congress passed the bankruptcy legislation, which they had the temerity to call bankruptcy reform, Democrats and Republicans passing this legislation, which is onerous to the middle class. Half of the bankruptcies in this country take place, because people fall ill, serious illnesses result in bankruptcy. Nearly half of the people involved. How do you -- you have watched a lot of politics. What is going on in this country?
BUFFETT: The rich are winning. Just take the estate tax, less than 2 percent of all estates pay any tax. A couple million people die every year, 40,000 or so estates get taxed.
We raise, what, $30 billion from the estate tax. And, you know, I would like to hear the congressman say where they are going to get the $30 billion from if they don't get it from the estate tax. It's nice to say, you know, wipe out this tax, but we're running a huge deficit, so who does the $30 billion come from?
Edited By BWhite on 1118357753
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Its either (a) or (b) - - > the Gitmo detainees are criminals and the Constitution applies OR they are Prisoners of War and the Geneva Convention applies.
Things are rarely that easy. The constitution does not apply to non-citizens outside the US. The Geneva Convention does not have to apply to combatants who refuse to meet it's criteria.
Forget the lawyer arguments. Those principles SHOULD apply to everyone, everywhere unless America really stands for "might makes right"
Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the Preamble to the Constitution.
Our rights do not come from the Constitution, they come from pre-existing rights the Constitution was enacted to preserve.
Human rights that Thomas Jefferson believed were the inalienable rights of every human being, anywhere on the planet, or who may travel to Mars for that matter.
= = =
In practice, the legalities of the Constitution do not apply outside the United States, however the principles must, always and for everyone. No exceptions.
And Gitmo sets a terrible precedent for the future treatment of our POWs with the world saying in that case "what goes around, comes around"
= = =
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
If we deny human rights even to the most vile terrorist we undermine our own moral legitimacy. And to assure that is happening we need transparent access to Gitmo.
Edited By BWhite on 1118369255
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
As I have said before, Cobra is someone I can talk to. And that gives me hope.
*Does this mean you've given up on me? ???
Half-serious. And it doesn't matter, as you're much more politically savvy than I could ever be.
See, you make really good points and Cobra makes really good points and they can even be points of mutual DISagreement...
Interesting to follow, even if I do get discouraged.
--Cindy
We all know [i]those[/i] Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...
--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)
Offline