Mr Chavez said he wanted to conclude “a unity pact” in Minsk
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has praised Belarus, calling it “a model social state like the one we are beginning to create”.
During a visit to Minsk, he called for a strategic alliance with Belarus to counter “hegemonic” capitalism.
Mr Chavez later met President Alexander Lukashenko, accused in the West of crushing fundamental rights. [/quote]
Another Great Leader in the Usual Tradition charts diplomatic triumph after diplomatic triumph. He will next visit Russia, Iran, Mali and Vietnam. haha Anyone still think that this braindead, vainglorious peasant is the way of the future? Be sure and write now. haha
Interesting that our usual “human rights” brigade of “concerned citizens” has nothing to say about a leader who flouts “international norms” by visiting Belarus. The EU for example has a ban on any official visits as does the US because of that nation’s human rights record (which is in the toilet) and the EU won’t even do that for Castro!
But anyway, it is nice to see that the usual misguided morality that guides our “concerned” moralists is laughably and pathetically apparent. hahaha
Or should I use smiling face icons instead?
Remind me why the word “contempt” comes up so often in conversations with these “types?”
It doesn’t seem to bother you when the US government flouts international norms (and international laws) by invading sovereign nations without provocation, rounding up people and imprisoning them for years in inhumane conditions without charges being made against them, kidnapping other persons and flying them around the world to secret detention centers to be tortured without scrutiny, and other such acts. So don’t pretend you care about international norms now. No one believes your tired act.
17 UN resolutions with the last one being pretty definititive about what would happen if Saddam failed to comply and you think that it was without provocation? Okay. Live in your own alternate reality but the rest of us will continue to find your positions somewhat er strange.
captured on the battlefield out of uniform fighting our forces. People who we cannot release lest their home governments “torture” them. People who have since been released and have gone on to kill others in Russia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. What do you say to the victims of those murderous acts or don’t they count?
how are the conditions inhumane?
they have had military hearings not by an official tribunal and yes you are correct technically no charges have been brought against them. Curious as to what you think should be done with these individuals most of whom are very dangerous. Any comments on the 1,000 Muslim radicals that the Europeans have rounded up since 911? Very few have been officially “charged” either.
I’m sorry. I must have missed out on the EVIDENCE of this. Got any?
US forces have tortured these prisoners? Got any proof?
The only act around here is your desperately pathetic moral posturing and pseudo parading. But always worth a cheap laugh at the left so don’t let me stop you.
Well, despite all these allegations and gross violations of international principles, um, the US remains one of the nations that gets a “1” on the Amnesty International rating of various nations even though it has elaborated on its concerns. Wanna guess how your friends in Cuba and Belarus and Venezuela rate?
You keep telling yourself that. Viva Chavez! Viva Che! Viva Castro! Hurray that the hero of the people in Venezuela is so close with the heroes of Cuba and Belarus and soon Iran. Yes, these nations and their absolute bottom of the ranking scores clearly shows where you stand when you cheer on their bravado. What would earn even greater praise from you? When these leaders sic their thugs on innocent women and children stomping their faces in? No doubt that would be a very virile and masculine thing to do. Perhaps, someone could eventually make a book and movie out of the experience. Hell, as long as they look good in jeans and leather and ride around on a motorbike, the “glamor” the “sex appeal” and the “passion” will be there for all to ogle.
The US has perfect scores of “1” and “1” for political freedom and civil liberties.
Venezuela gets a “4” and “4” on a scale of 1 to 7.
Belarus gets 7 and 6
Iran gets 6 and 6
Cuba another friend of Chavez gets 7 and 7
what about Bolivia and the thick-necked, fat-faced peasant with no brains there?
Bolivia: 3 and 3 (for now)
Russia (another stop for Chavez): 6 and 5
and despite all of this, who do we hear MT moaning about? That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, the US of A. Despite all the Abu Ghraib nonsense and the Guantanamo Bay and the supposed renditions (I believe they are taking place just for the record and support them), the US STILL gets 1 and 1 perfect scores in both political freedom and civil liberties. This despite the evil Patriot Act, the Bush administration’s monitoring of financial records and listening in on phone conversations a 1 and 1. How in the name of God can such an evil fascist administration earn such high scores? And if it can, does that mean that the “concerns” of posters like MT are bullshit? Well, not exactly but it does give one a frame of reference for how a professional organization that has great expertise in rating these things determines how “important” these “issues” are, eh?
But be sure and keep bashing the US while ignoring Chavez and his friends because? come along everyone sing along you know the words: we must hold the US to a higher standard. haha
[quote=“fred smith”].The EU for example has a ban on any official visits as does the US because of that nation’s human rights record (which is in the toilet) and the EU won’t even do that for Castro!
As an aside, could this be why Belarussians are not allowed to travel to Taiwan?
It doesn’t seem to bother you when the US government flouts international norms (and international laws) by invading sovereign nations without provocation, rounding up people and imprisoning them for years in inhumane conditions without charges being made against them, kidnapping other persons and flying them around the world to secret detention centers to be tortured without scrutiny, and other such acts. So don’t pretend you care about international norms now. No one believes your tired act.[/quote]
We should have a counter-thread
Cheney (man of the oil barons) courts Kazakhstan.
[quote]Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev won a third six-year term in December in an election that international observers said was flawed. Two opposition politicians have been killed in six months, raising the specter of instability and infighting among the country’s leaders.
Kazakhstan produced 1.2 million barrels of oil per day last year and is expected to pump 3 million barrels per day by 2015. [/quote]
A bit like the US position on Israel you mean? (And EU, let’s face it, inasmuchas they have any “position”)
So you say. And as you say yourself:
Anyway. If the USG says it’s true, it is true.
Internment without trial is inhumane. The Americans told us so in Northern Ireland when we foolishly thought it would be a good idea to lock people up for a few months because they were “bad eggs”. How the worm has turned when the shoe is on the other foot gathers no moss a stitch in time. Oh yes.
So you say. Which ones in particular?
And BTW, these so-called “military” tribunals are not “military” in any way shape or form. Military tribunals only have jurisdiction over activities relating to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The military doesn’t want to touch these proposed political show trials with a forty-foot pole.
That’ll be those softie French un-secret police who make Cheney’s men look like effeminate old queens at a crevat party.
“US forces”? You can’t rebut an assertion by stating that some other thing is untrue: “Bananas are yellow” / “Grapefruits are yellow? Nonsense! Got any proof?”
The places flights of rendition were going to (and I am accepting they have stopped) have been the subject of years of US criticism for human rights abuses including torture of prisoners awaiting trial. It’s a pretty poor argument to try and suggest that everything’s all right now and these places all do everything by the book. When the USG contradicts itself in this manner the onus is on it, not us soft leftie wimps, to provide an explanation of this sea-change.
Why does the US at the moment take the attitude that as it is surrounded by ragamuffins and hoodlums it has to act like one? It doesn’t. What happened to the policy used effectively by the British of neutralising enemies by bringing them into the establishment? Castro wouldn’t last ten minutes if America feted him like he was the second coming of Christ. Same with Chevez. Setting these guys up as behemoths is more just grist to their mill. (Sorry about all the cliches)
mmmmm were those “binding” resolutions (whack whack ouch ouch) as in the “binding” resolutions that Saddam flouted? (ouch whack ouch whack!)
Back to you…
Okay, MT, I get that Bush has visited with all kinds of leaders as well. So fair point but you have studiously refused to respond to these points.
IF the US and its renditions and Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and Bagram in Afghanistan and the Patriot Act and the listening in on phone calls and the monitoring of bank transfers and all this other litany of abuses by the Fascist Bush administration are as bad as you say, er, why does Freedom House have the US with two perfect scores for political and civil liberties freedom? Cat got your tongue?
AND given that you find Chavez so amusing for dicking with the neocons, what do you have to say, the Defender of Human Rights Everywhere Especially When They Include Any and ALL Possible Infractions by the US, that Venezuela scores a “4” and a “4.” Yet, it would appear to the perhaps less sophisticated reader who does not have your finely tuned moral thermometer that you actually are more supportive of Chavez than Bush. Care to clear up that little conundrum for us?
You have caught me being a bit more careless than I normally would. I was after all dealing with MT and emotionalism and irrational lampooning of misguided, misdirected, mistaken, misconceived morality was the main thrust of my post. I will therefore have to address a few of the points that you have raised with a bit more attention and seriousness than I would normally provide to the previously mentioned poster.
You are correct. There are very different standards for different nations when it comes to calling attention to and enforcing respect for human rights. I would, however, point out that human rights is one of many variables in drafting a nation’s foreign policy strategy and unfortunately it is not always even-handed. Sorry, I can explain it but not justify it.
You may be right. My main point with the Belarus point, however, was to use it to lampoon MT whose MAIN concern is human rights. I merely wanted to show that the leader of a nation (two 4s) went to vist a nation with a 6 and 7 and yet I sensed that MT was crowing about the fact that the leader of Venezuela was sticking it to the conservatives. I merely wanted to point out that for someone who appears to be most concerned about human rights (his frequent posts regarding supposed US infractions seem to give that impression), his reply was shall we say inconsistent. In my defense, I have never claimed to be PRIMARILY concerned about human rights issues. But for those who claim to be or who posture as defenders of human rights… as they have said, we must “hold them to higher standards,” eh?
Again, to my knowledge the UN resolutions on Israel are non-binding. Also, in fairness, many UN resolutions regarding issues related to Israel’s security (which are part of those 55 resolutions) are often ignored, flouted or not even tabled due to the imperfections inherent in the UN. I am not nor have I ever been a defender of the “international law” as envisoned by the UN adherents. So again, I merely pointed out to a poster who seemed to deem the UN as the most important arbiter of these affairs that the UN had passed 17 BINDING resolutions against Saddam. The fact that the UN has also passed OTHER resolutions regarding Israel is not relevant to the same degree since I am not the one claiming to care about the “international law” as set out by the UN imprimatur. See the difference?
[quote]Some goddam pinko leftie wrote:
rounding up people and imprisoning them for years [/quote]
I concur with your sentiments. Thank you for giving me a nice laugh.
But not unprecedented. It occurred during World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the difference this time is that people seem to be suggesting that the US is not really at war with Islamofascism. I take exception to that sentiment. I have no problem with others disagreeing with me but I certainly do not want to take their “concerns” to heart. If and when they have a president that they have elected and is therefore responsible to them and their concerns, they have a better leg to stand on. I voted for Bush because I wanted strong action against these evil bastards not some long drawn out trial with posturing civil rights attorneys looking to make a name for themselves in the media. Can you say Ramsey Clarke?
Mea culpa. I fully realize that in the past America has preached what it is not willing to practice today. Sorry about that. But I have no intention of holding our nation to those outdated standards just because we once demanded them of others. Again, I apologize if this seems hypocritical. I fully understand how you would be annoyed but I really cannot help that.
There is a separate thread on this so I will only respond by pointing out that we are in a very tough area and for posters like MT not to realize this or sympathize with this merely shows the extent of their moral prancing. You would never hear MT or his ilk take responsibility for those who are subsequently killed by terrorists released from Guantanamo as has happened frequently in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Russia. I also pointed out that such hearings are not unique. They were allowed during World War II. I have also pointed out that the Supreme Court ruling took greatest exception to the fact that Bush was the final authority. It wanted to carve out a greater role for Congress and for that I am extremely glad. I want this very public debate to be held to discuss how exactly we are going to deal with these prisoners. Any such debate would be of great assistance to the Republican cause in the midterm elections. Let’s get on with it!
Nope. That includes nations like Germany, those in Eastern Europe, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark and even !!! Greece, Switzerland, Belgium and Sweden!!!
Frequent allegations have been made regarding torture by US forces. In most cases, it has never been proved. It is the responsibility of those making the charge to prove the offense. Those in Guantanamo have never been charged but let’s just say they were in very unusual places at very unusual times so I am less sympathetic. Again, this is a very difficult area but we ALL have to realize that. Releasing these people would be very dangerous and who is going to take responsibility for those killed by these people after they are released? How about some civil rights lawyers suing the government for releasing them and then having them take away the civil rights (as in life) of others?
I sympathize with your view, but I support renditions as apparently do most European nations if the allegations are to be believed. When anyone has proof of them, bring it forward and we will look at it, but until then, they are just more of the same unproven allegations.
We do not. You are engaging in hyperbole. Again, the Freedom House knows all about the renditions, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc and yet we score perfect marks in political freedom and civil liberties. How do you account for this if things are as dire as you seem to suggest?
Yeah, we see how bringing the Sunnis into power in Iraq worked. Let’s face it, you played groups off against each other to great effect. That works well when there is an imperial overstructure but when you are implementing democracy? Doesn’t work so well so don’t kid yourself. AND by the way I am a huge fan of the British empire and its civilizing influence on the world.