主播大秀

Unhappy for whom, terrorists, their friends, families, and supporters? The inmates of GITMO are among the most dangerous people in the world, most of whom should never be set free on civilized society again, in fact many should be executed. They were mostly captured in Afghanistan fighting for the Taleban and al Qaeda. The only thing wrong with GITMO is that it is not larger, more completely filled with the people who ought to be in there, and that the American government is giving in to political pressure to release some of these people. Among those released, some have already gone back to fight for their Islamofascist cause to destroy Western Civilization. For people who are sane, this calls for a birthday celebration...six candles. As for the bleeding hearts, this is one of the consequences when you declare war on the People of the United States of America. There is undoubtedly far worse to come. If you don't like it, don't get caught up in the hate America rhetoric and don't become part of it.

Well dont to Amnesty International for raising awareness of the shame of Guantanemo. I saw the protest in Belfast today and it was stark and extremely effective.

Pictures here:

Pictures from today's demonstration here (sorry, I tried to use html and system crashed!):

I have an idea. Next dozen or so inmates released from GITMO should be sent to Northern Ireland with a guarantee from NI's AI chapter and NI's government that they will stay there. I'm sure in NI their bomb making talents will be most appreciated especially by those who have fond memories of the good old days.

That's a brilliant protest from Amnesty: you really caught the mood of the moment. I was in belfast and people were talking about Guantanemo and why it's still open after 6 years. That's exactly the question they need to be asking. Well done patrick. Thanks for what you are doing.

Three cheers for Amnesty. Guantanamo Bay is a disgrace to civilisation, not a defence of it.

I completely agree with Gerard. I also saw the demonstration and it was one of the most visual and compelling (and Positive!) protests I've ever seen in Northern Ireland. Well done Amnesty.

It comes as no surprise to me that AI in NI would come to the defense of suicide bombers and other assassins who perpetrate terrorism on helpless civilian populations to advance their religious causes. Kindred spirits as it were. Even though these monsters work for the competition, to AI in NI their support is like that of a trade association, an international labor union from hell as it were. It's analagous to members of the Cali drug cartel demanding release of imprisoned opium producers in Afghanistan or heroin dealers on death row in New York. How like socialists everywhere to disguise their plan to destroy free civilized society as a progressive humane demand for social justice and how like them to rebuke the actions of the government of a truly democratic nation, the United States of America to effectively protect its citizens from the worlds worst and most dangerous criminals. Were Congress to actually to have the guts to declare war on al Qaeda, AI members who publicly take this position or act on it could be declared enemy agents and could face imprisonment and even execution themselves if they were captured by the US. Now there's a happy thought for the new year.

Ah, liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name! Of course, as you have said before, Mark, the main liberty as far as you are concerned is for you and your family. Never mind the basic liberal value that a person is presumed innocent until proved otherwise; never mind the basic human right to life of an Afghani or iraqi (150-600,000 killed since the US invasion, depending on which estimate); never mind the right to be free from torture or degrading treatment; never mind the right to free speech. They are all expendable when you think, rightly or wrongly, that your liberty is threatened.

Frankly, your statement (whether tongue-in-cheek or not) renders freedom worthless as a principle (why should I give a fig about your freedom against that of billions of others, especially when it is so selfishly espoused?), so why you bother to argue about it is a mystery. As you can see here, most of us don鈥檛 agree and your 鈥榯hreats鈥� to those who pursue 鈥榮ocial justice鈥� are only likely to engender more disagreement.

brian mcclinton #11;
How like a European to try to confuse an issue by equating a criminal accused in a civil crime who is protected by the US Constitution and other civil rights laws with a military attack by a soldier on a foreign battlefield not identifiable by any recognized uniform fighting for the army of al Qaeda whose purpose is to destroy civilization or for the army of Taleban Afghanistan which gave al Qaeda sanctuary and who is therefore NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions or any other legal protections. This is the same kind of bogus argument that many Europeans used to equate Soviet Communism which waged a war to enslave the world with Capitalist Democracy, a struggle as Eurosocialists would have it between seeming moral equivalents having different concepts of social justice when that could hardly be further from the truth. Your terrorist friends were largely captured fighting for one of the cruelest most barbaric regimes in the world whose crimes are so horrific they almost defy being catalogued. In a world of WMDs and against an intrepid enemy who has no value for any human life including his own, I don鈥檛 think torture to extract what plans for mass murder he has knowledge of is anything to apologize for and it is dangerously na茂ve to try to apply doctrines that were devised in different times when such circumstances didn鈥檛 exist.

In the event the very real possibility of a WMD attack on America materializes, I wouldn鈥檛 take much satisfaction in it if I were you, as pleased as your jealous instincts would be. The aftermath will quickly have consequences which will change every life left on this earth in ways we can only imagine but we can be certain what鈥檚 left of them however short their time, will be perpetual misery. Remember, over 80% of Americans believe in an afterlife and as the cold war demonstrated, Americans will not hesitate to burn down the entire world if necessary to avoid being enslaved by what you Europeans imagine would be utopia. My hunch is that in the aftermath of a nuclear attack on New York City or Washington DC, the US will annihilate the entire Islamic world from Algeria to Zanzibar but we may not have even that long to wait. As things are going, I would not be surprised at a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran by the US or Israel. The recent report by American intelligence services did not convince most Americans or Israelis that Iran is not planning to build and use nuclear weapons.

Rant in protest all you want for all the good it will do you. It will fall on deaf ears in the only places that count, The White House and the Pentagon. Even Barrack Obama says he is ready to attack al Qaeda and the Taleban in Pakistan. Just hope they don't show up in NI or he might be ready to attack them there too.

Guantanamo Bay violates the principles its administrators claim to be upholding and right there is the insuperable objection. You can't claim to be fighting for justice and democracy, then throw out all your own rules of law. My countryman, David Hicks, was held for 5 years in solitary confinement, tortured, humiliated, beaten. He was not charged with a crime for 5 years, and when he was it was with a crime that had been invented subsequent to his arrest. It's a matter of profound shame to Australians that our government allowed Hicks to languish in an American jail under conditions that we consider anti-democratic. My congratulations to AI.

Rachael Weiss;
For 4 years I lived about 2 or 3 miles from the World Trade Center. While I was in school on the other side of the Hudson, I watched it being built. I was there countless times. I could have been one of the dead the day my country was attacked. I don't care if my country fights for other people's democracy or not, all I'm interested in is that it fights for its own survival and mine with it. That's it main function, the other is superfluous. Had American soldiers not risked their lives fighting Japan during World War II killing millions of Japanese civilians in the process, not only at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in Tokyo and other places, YOU WOULD NOT BE ALIVE TODAY! What was your "countryman" doing in Afghanistan when America finally retaliated? If there was truly justice for him, he'd have been executed as an enemy irregular combatant. I wonder how many people in Britain think that if the RAF hadn't firebombed Dresden killing hundreds of thousands in one night, they might not be alive today either. That is the nature of war especially when you take up arms against other people in one. I am surprised that any Australian would defend anyone associated with al Qaeda given how many who were just tourists were murdered at a nightclub by those assassins in Bali a few years ago. I thought Australians had more mettle that that. BTW, my maternal grandfather's name was also Weiss. It disgusts me to think we might somehow be distantly related and that even one miniscule drop of your watery blood flows in my veins.

Rachael Weiss;
For 4 years I lived about 2 or 3 miles from the World Trade Center. While I was in school on the other side of the Hudson, I watched it being built. I was there countless times. I could have been one of the dead the day my country was attacked. I don't care if my country fights for other people's democracy or not, all I'm interested in is that it fights for its own survival and mine with it. That's it main function, the other is superfluous. Had American soldiers not risked their lives fighting Japan during World War II killing millions of Japanese civilians in the process, not only at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in Tokyo and other places, YOU WOULD NOT BE ALIVE TODAY! What was your "countryman" doing in Afghanistan when America finally retaliated? If there was truly justice for him, he'd have been executed as an enemy irregular combatant. I wonder how many people in Britain think that if the RAF hadn't firebombed Dresden killing hundreds of thousands in one night, they might not be alive today either. That is the nature of war especially when you take up arms against other people in one. I am surprised that any Australian would defend anyone associated with al Qaeda given how many who were just tourists were murdered at a nightclub by those assassins in Bali a few years ago. I thought Australians had more mettle that that. BTW, my maternal grandfather's name was also Weiss. It disgusts me to think we might somehow be distantly related and that even one miniscule drop of your watery blood flows in my veins.

Mark,
You tell Rachael,

鈥淗ad American soldiers not risked their lives fighting Japan during World War II killing millions of Japanese civilians in the process, not only at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but in Tokyo and other places, YOU WOULD NOT BE ALIVE TODAY!鈥�

On the contrary, the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two of the most gratuitous acts of mass slaughter and mass terrorism in human history, and the man who ordered them ought to have been indicted as a war criminal. Thank goodness (thank the lord?), not all Americans think like you:

鈥淚 had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, based on the belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face鈥�
- Eisenhower

鈥淚t was my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender...My own feeling was that, in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children鈥� - Admiral William Leahy (Truman鈥檚 Chief of Staff)

鈥淭he atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war鈥� - General Curtis LeMay

鈥淯se of the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view鈥�
- General MacArthur

鈥淭he Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender. The Emperor, the Lord Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Navy Minister had decided as early as May of 1945 that the war should be ended even if it meant acceptance of defeat on allied terms鈥�
- US Strategic Bombing Survey (1946)

鈥淢y father鈥檚 overriding concern in these first weeks was our policy towards Russia鈥�
- Margaret Truman

鈥淭here was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis鈥� - General Groves (military director of the Manhattan Project)

鈥淚 cannot speak for the others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an end to the war before the Russians came in鈥�
- James Byrnes (US Secretary of State)

And a couple of others for good measure:

鈥淚t would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell, and was brought about by overwhelming maritime power. This alone made it possible to seize ocean bases from which to launch the final attack and force her metropolitan army to capitulate without striking a blow鈥�
- Churchill

鈥淭he use of the atomic bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before Russia鈥檚 participation鈥� - Albert Einstein

You always know that arguments are reaching absurdity when people start presenting the Japanese as victims in the Second World War. So the Japanese leaders say they were going to surrender anyway and there was no need for the atomic bombs. That's the sort of thing my kids say when they're being punished for something. If they were going to surrender why didn't they, and why didn't they after the first bomb. Yes, the fear of Russia may have been an influence but open your eyes guys, Stalin was one of the world's worst despots. So much of this is plain anti-americanism. Get out some dvds of Band of Brothers or the Longest Day and remember how America saved Europe from total destruction by the Nazis (and then by the communists - and now by the Jihadists.

On another point - I presume we'll soon have Amnesty (an organisation I quit last year) organising protests about the lack of abortion facilities in Northern Ireland..

HI Smasher,

You always know that arguments are reaching absurdity when people start presenting any criticism of American government policy as anti-Americanism. You have ignored the fact that most of the quotes were from Americans, but of course the truth only gets in the way of your preconceived opinion.

The second bomb was dropped three days after the first when the Russians were marching across Manchuria. The fact is that the USA wanted Japan to surrender to them not to the Russians. The bombs were a flexing of US muscle, the first shots in the Cold War. That is what Truman's daughter and Einstein mean in their statements. They were telling the Russians: "Don't mean mess with us, or the consequences will be prompt and utter destruction, such as that suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Those people - probably half a million in total when you count the long-term effects - were expendable for US foreign policy.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson admitted as much on 11th September 1945 when he called the bomb a 鈥榙iplomatic weapon鈥� and explained that 鈥淎merican statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously above our hip鈥�. As Studs Terkel put it at the time of the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima: 鈥渟o little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we鈥檝e got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we鈥檝e got something and they鈥檇 better behave themselves in Europe. That鈥檚 why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 per cent of Americans and they鈥檒l spit in your eye鈥�.

By far the largest part of victory in the European war 1939-45 was played by Russia, but of course if your history is formed from the movies, you won't really know that. It might help to read some history books instead of quoting entertainment-cum propaganda films.

brian mcclinton;

Your history is flawed, your facts irrelevant, your opinions only those of people who hate America and will find any way they can to criticize it. The only opinion about the use of the atom bombs which mattered was that of the Commander-in-Chief, President Truman. Whatever someone said later on about what they thought should have or could have happened are just footnotes and not very reliable ones at that. How self serving of Oppenheimer to say afterwards, "We have blood on our hands." What did he think an atomic bomb was going to be about when he agreed to take charge of building it. The real fact is that had the atom bombs not been dropped, it is very unlikely Japan would have surrendered without a massive American invasion of the home islands. Operation "Olympic Coronet" was scheduled to begin in 1946 and incur around one million American casualties. Now why should Americans have suffered even one unnecessary casualty to save Japanese lives? And as it happens, likely far more Japanese civilians would have died in such an invasion than were killed by the two atom bombs but that was not the reason to use it. Even after the bombs were dropped, fanatical Japanese generals tried to prevent the Emperor's message of surrender from being broadcast to the Japanese people, they wanted to fight on. They were just as fanatical as al Qaeda and even more so than the IRA. In fact, the fire bombing of Tokyo probably killed more Japanese civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

It was also important to let the Russians know in case they had any doubt, that America was fully prepared to use nuclear weapons. If they had any illusions that Americans were too concerned with being guilty of committing atrocities to use them, Hiroshima and Nagasaki dispelled those illusions.

In fact the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and now India and Pakistan as well as most likely Israel has the power to inflict far worse on humanity and will use it should they feel it necessary.

The only reason anyone could pretend the USSR won WWII is because the US sent massive aid in both equipment and money to them and opened up a second front in Northern Africa and then invaded Europe from both the South and West. Had Russia had to fight Nazi Germany alone, it would have lost. As it was, had Hitler not insisted on capturing Moscow but merely bypassed it, he might have defeated the Soviets anyway.

Just in case you somehow aren't aware of it, war is about killing people. Kennedy learned during the Cuban missile crisis that the US military had at that time only one nuclear war fighting strategy, to burn down everything from the Danube River to the Pacific Ocean.

"They were telling the Russians: "Don't mean mess with us, or the consequences will be prompt and utter destruction, such as that suffered by the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Those people - probably half a million in total when you count the long-term effects - were expendable for US foreign policy."

Don't kid yourself, from America's point of view YOU are also expendable. Today as always, Europe is of no real value to the US except to see to it that it doesn't fall into the hands of the enemy the way it did in WWII. We couldn't have it become part of the Soviet empire during the cold war and we can't allow it to be controlled by al Qaeda now, even if it means it has to be destroyed to prevent it.

Among the big differences between the American mentality and the European mentality is that Americans will die fighting before they ever allow themselves to be enslaved. That is what keeps us free. Europeans on the other hand don't seem to mind slavery at all, not perpetrating it, not suffering it. What do you think the EU is really about? Just say to a Frenchman "Vichy" and see what reaction you get.

Mark,

Most of what you have said on this thread is arrogant, insulting (the watery blood remark, especially) and threatening drivel. Take this as an example:

鈥淭he only opinion about the use of the atom bombs which mattered was that of the Commander-in-Chief, President Truman. Whatever someone said later on about what they thought should have or could have happened are just footnotes and not very reliable ones at that鈥�.

After the war, numbers increasing with the telling, almost as if the passage of time was increasing both his guilt and his self-deception, Truman talked about a 鈥榪uarter of a million鈥� American lives (December 1945), then 鈥榤aybe as much as a million鈥� (12th January 1953) and finally 鈥榯he dropping of the bombs... saved millions of lives鈥� (28th April, 1959). Yet we now know that in June 1945 he ordered the military to calculate the cost in American lives of a planned assault on Japan, and on 15th June they told him they thought it might be 40,000 US soldiers.

It is certainly a matter of concern to me and millions of others what an American President does since in world terms (if not in his own country) he is the most powerful man on earth at the moment. The only country to have used these dreadful weapons is the USA. Considering that its president is often a no-brainer like Reagan or Bush, this is a little worrying to the rest of us who want to survive.

On 8th August 1945, two days after the destruction of Hiroshima, former President Herbert Hoover wrote, 鈥淭he use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul鈥�. We know, as Sherman said, that war is hell. Truman himself used this argument when he said: 鈥淟et us not become so preoccupied with weapons that we lose sight of the fact that war itself is the real villain鈥�. So there it is, then. We absolve ourselves from responsibility for our actions. But the reasoning is phoney. War is hell because we make it so, and especially if we step beyond the limits that we and others have established in international law (this applies also to Guantanamo Bay). Truman ignored the motto on his desk: 鈥淭he buck stops here鈥�. It stopped with him, and he is guilty.

If we move to the present and the foreign policy of the US since 9/11. That attack was a modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor. And, as with the earlier example, America has sought to avenge this violation of its territory. Like the bully who is hit and then ferociously lashes out all around him, the US responded to 9/11 by declaring 鈥榓 war on terrorism鈥�. This did not mean a police action to apprehend those behind the attack, as it should have done (you half-agree with this yourself), but wars on entire countries in which many thousands have died (600,000 in Iraq alone, according to one estimate). In a modern version of nuclear 鈥榮hock and awe鈥�, the equivalent of seven Hiroshima bombs have been dropped on Iraq since March 2003.

Like the bombing of Hiroshima which served notice to the rest of the world that the US possessed unparalleled power that it would not hesitate to use, the war against Iraq had a similar purpose of establishing a position of supremacy that others would fear to challenge. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like the bully in a playground, says Ian Lustik, a University of Pennsylvania professor of political science and author of Unsettled States, Disputed Lands, 鈥淵ou beat up somebody, and everybody else behaves鈥�.

Just as Hiroshima was partly about the future, so too the Iraq War was a war to remake the world in the interests of the US. The neocons even admit as much. William Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan have written that 鈥淭he mission begins in Baghdad, but it does not end there ... We stand on the cusp of a new historical era... It is about what sort of role the United States intends to play in the twenty-first century鈥�. But, a few years on, most of the world new see through all this, and even most Americans are tiring of mad Neo-Con rhetoric.

The Iraq War shares with Hiroshima the fact that it was based on deception. Then it was 鈥榙eemed鈥� to be necessary to save lives, In 2003 it was the lie that war would rid Iraq of its so-called weapons of mass destruction. A myth was created by the leaders in order to justify their actions to themselves and to their people. But there were no WMD in Iraq, just as there was absolutely no necessity to unleash nuclear weapons in 1945. These myths are 鈥榥ecessary鈥� because leaders of the free world have to convince their people that they are doing what is right and moral. They need a sanction for their actions, so they create one, and a compliant media spreads the news.

The irony revealed from Hiroshima to Iraq is that the state most 鈥榯hreatened鈥� by WMD is the only state to have used them on others. Might this not tell us that if the US really wants to rid the world of this threat, then it should first look in the mirror at the beam in its own eye?

The European paradigm, which you so contemptuously dismiss, is the way of the future, in contrast to your raucous, aggressive ultra-nationalist realpolitik. A cosmopolitan model is more appropriate to deal with worldwide problems that extend beyond the nation state: economic globalisation and climate change being obvious examples. But so is international terrorism. If you want this problem tackled properly, you need to seek international co-operation, not a bullying, gung ho, let鈥檚 kill them all or lock them all up philosophy which is ultimately self-defeating and creates more of the problem you are trying to eradicate.

brian mcclinton
You are about as confused as you can be and I don't think anything I or anyone else could ever say would unconfuse you. It didn't matter whether it was a projection of a million American casualties, 45,000 or just one that dropping the atom bombs prevented, it was clearly the right thing to do. The President of the United States is not the president of the world. He does not and should not put any interests before America's. That's why he got elected and that's what he swore to, in fact that's all he swore to. So called international law is a naive sham and always has been. For example, those who take the part of the so called Palestinians say that the building of settlements by Israel in the disputed territories is a violation of international law but what about the four genocidal wars to annihilate Israel and kill all of its people the Arabs waged, and what about the two wars of terrorism they and their friends also waged to kill as many Israelis as they could? Where were Arab cries about violations of international law then? Genocide IS the stated policy of every nation with nuclear weapons. Anyone who doesn't think so is naive. The plan to attack the USSR and China with nuclear weapons was to kill all of their people, probably about a third to half the world's poulation, just as the USSR's was to kill every American, Brit, Frenchman, and German. It's also been the policy practiced since WWII by among others governments of Serbia, Cambodia, Uganda, Ruwanda and Sudan. What are you doing about the 2 million people being systematically murdered by their own government in Sudan right this minute? Hitler gave genocide a bad name so we don't use that word much anymore, we call it "ethnic cleansing" instead. It's more palatable that way. Listening some of the "leaders" in NI, their rhetoric at times seemed to advocate exactly that, wiping the other side out and I'm talking about both sides.

You don't seem to know much about 9-11 either. You probably don't even know why al Qaeda attacked the US. All you have to do to find out is listen to what Osama Bin Laden had to say himself. It had nothing to do with Israel or impovrished Moslems around the world. It had to do with American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia on what he considered sacred Islamic ground. And what were they doing there? Protecting Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein so that you in NI would have oil to heat your home with in the winter and gas to drive your car. (imported US oil comes mostly from Nigeria, Venezuela, etc., very little from the Persian Gulf although it is true oil is fungible.)

Why should I care what some retired ex-President said 13 years after he was out of office, he was just another private citizen when he said it...like Jimmy Who with his own brand of jibberish is now. Or for that matter some professor from U of P?

If things are so good in Europe as you say they are and the future looks so bright, why do Europeans keep coming over here? Why can't we figure out a way to convince them go back the other way? Got any suggestions?

BTW, I'm not surprised you believe that claptrap article written in the Lancet in the summer of 2006 and their number was 650,000 and that was 18 months ago. Like you they did whatever they could to inflate the numbers beyond ludicrous. At the time they published it, they (probably unwittingly) claimed that 650 Iraqis would have had to have died on average every single day from the beginning of the aftermath of the invasion to the day the survey was taken. All it took to figure that one out was to do the math. Even the IRA couldn't kill people that quickly.

Yes I'd be very worried about what America will do to the world in the future but not about what it will do to try to prevent being attacked again but what will happen after it fails. That's when all of our lives for all practical intents and purposes will be over. That's when the end of this sorry species will be at hand. Have a nice day.

Mark,

Who is really confused here?

You say that international law is a sham and imply that America should ignore it where her interests are concerned, yet you invoke the Geneva Conventions to justify Guantanamo Bay. In any case you are quite wrong. As a party to these conventions, the USA is required to treat every detained combatant humanely, including so-called 鈥榰nlawful combatants鈥�. It may not pick and choose pick and choose among them to decide who is entitled to decent treatment. According to the Geneva Conventions every captured fighter is entitled to humane treatment, understood at a minimum to include basic shelter, clothing, food and medical attention. In addition, no detainee 鈥� even if suspected of war crimes such as the murder of civilians 鈥� may be subjected to torture, corporal punishment, or humiliating or degrading treatment. If captured fighters are tried for crimes, the trials must satisfy certain basic fair trial guarantees. The Geneva Conventions are clearly being broken at Guantanamo Bay.

You say that Truman was right to drop the bombs, even though he deceived himself and the American people about the number of lives it would save, and it was right even if they saved one American life, yet earlier you said that he was right PRECISELY because of the number of lives that it saved, not only then but in the future! (we wouldn't be alive today!)

You say that the figure of 45,000 doesn鈥檛 matter, yet on the other hand the Lancet figure about Iraqi deaths does matter. Does it matter whether the USA have killed 200,000 Iraqis or 600,000 Iraqis, Mark? After all, they aren't Americans and therefore are 'expendable. Do numbers matter or not, Mark? You seem to think that you can pick and choose the facts to suit your prejudices.

You refer to the 鈥榚nemy鈥� who has 鈥榥o value for any human life鈥� yet boast that America killed or might kill millions in Japan, Europe, Iraq, Iran, the 鈥榚ntire Islamic world鈥� and even poor little NI if we don鈥檛 watch ourselves. They are all 鈥榚xpendable鈥�. So much for the value of human life.

Mark, it is entirely possible that your boasts and threats wreak of the harmful effects of watching too many Hollywood movies. Try watching some European films or even Americans ones that aren't about killing. - if there are any.

It has to be said, too, that your nasty abuse of people who disagree (Amnesty and suicide bombers are kindred spirits and all fighters for social justice are evil 鈥榮ocialists鈥� in #10) is demeaning. If you really wish to discuss the issues instead of ranting insultingly about them, stick to the arguments and leave out the personal remarks, please.

I don't IMPLY that America should ignore so called international law where its interests are concerned, I state unconditionally that it should always ignore them. There is no law when it is applied only on some occasions and in ways which are purely political. While Europeans can't wait to give up any and all of their sovereignty to extranational organizations who do not represent or act exclusively in their interests, Americans guard theirs jealously and probably the one real greatest issue most Americans have with their government is when the government acts in ceding sovereignty to others. This for example is why the Kennedy McCain bill which would have allowed illegal aliens in the US a sure if arduous path to citizenship was soundly defeated, the outcry from Americans of all political stripes demanded that their representatives vote it down against the wishes of their leadership in both parties who thought they knew better than the people what is best for the country. I hope it taught John McCain a lesson especially since he might be our next President.

I did not invoke Geneva to justify GITMO, all I said was that even if you believed in Geneva as I don't, it would not apply. The theory some Americans use to justify Geneva is that if we don't mistreat the enemy's captives, they will not mistreat our soldiers when they are captured. This has proven false in every war fought by America since Geneva as has been proven again in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a worthless rag as far as America's interests are concerned. But even if it weren't, as it is currently constituted, it is clearly badly obsolete when it would disallow the most effective measures to extract information about WMD plots from captives, information that might save millions of American lives.

Insofar as your comments about my statements about Truman using the atom bombs, you twist my words around and distort my reasons for your own purposes. That in retrospect it saved more Japanese lives than it cost is besides the point, it is simply the conclusion most experts have drawn but that was not the reason to use it. Once Pearl Harbor happened, Japanese lives all became expendable from America's point of view. If the only weapon the US had was 10,000 times more powerful and would have ended the existence of Japan, that would have been right to use too. War is not waged and won by following the Marquis of Queensbury rules. It is won by the side which is more brutal and effective, hence the US learned from WWII that it must always be by far the meanest dog on the block and when it bites, it must be fatal to the enemy. That was the mistake it made in every war since WWII. It didn't fight to victory in Korea, Vietnam, Desert Strom, or even in many small skirmishes such as Mogadishu and Lebanon. It is only when the enemy has doubt that an attack on America will have fatal consequences to it that it becomes dangerous and takes risks such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq before the Invasion. Saddam Hussein believed the US would not invade because he thought his paid shills who influenced the governments of France, Germany, Russia, and China would stop it in the UN Security Council and that would prevent America from striking. Why did he believe that? Because President Clinton's weak actions and President Bush before him led inescapably to that conclusion. The first time Iraq resisted inspection of a building by UN inspectors, the US should have bombed that building flat with a warning that the next time the cease fire would end and the war would be prosecuted right to Saddam Hussein's doorstep. Once Hussein saw lack of resolve and weakness, he figured he could play with the coalition endlessly. And he almost got away with it. President Bush said in one speech that the US would not allow the UN to hold a veto over America's actions including its use of military force. Now if you believe in so called international law, there should be lots of leaders in the Hague right now including Syria's President Assad and Iran's Ayatolahs and Ahmadinejad who is helping wage a war by proxy in Lebanon. Why aren't they being held accountable for violations? What about Hamas' leader "Hyena" in Gaza who continues supporting firing rockets at civilians in Israel, why don't you demand he be captured by the UN and held for trial?

I'm not boasting about what America might do killing its enemies, I'm just telling you facts you don't like. If you don't believe it, just pick up a copy of Jane's which spells out the military assets and capabilities of different armed forces around the world. All those trillions the US taxpayer spent on all that equipment isn't for parades. It doesn't have 10,000 thermonuclear weapons for no reason. It is important for there to be no doubt in anyone's mind including those in Iran or in the hills and caves of Pakistan that if America is attacked they will be used. How will America know which enemy struck it? It probably won't. Therefore the only way it can be sure it won't be struck again and the most likely scenario will be to retaliate against all of them. Iran puts itself in far graver danger by being suspected of having nuclear weapons than not having them. Usually the Democrats don't like buying weapons but they are surely ready to use them. Most major wars fought by America in the 20th century were started under Democratic administrations, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam while the Republicans are willing to spend money on the equipment but are loathe to use it. Iraq was forced on America, it had no choice. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are falling all over each other trying to reassure Americans they will not hesitate to use military force. Barrack Obama says he would bomb Pakistan while Hillary Clinton's advisors say on TV you don't talk about it, you just do it.

You don't like my characterizations of certain organizations (I didn't cite individual people except for one)? What about yours? You've called both President Truman and President Bush war criminals. But then what do you expect from a country which was founded by the worlds rejects, misfits, criminals, and other undesirables cast off from other societies. Yes Americans have strong aggressive blood flowing in their veins the heritage of those who against the odds survived endless challenges of living and prospering here, not that weak tepid water which flows through most European veins. From those released from debtors prisons in the seventeenth century to the Mafia in the 20th, the criminal element is definitely part of the social DNA of our culture. Good reason to be very frightened of the USA if you intend to cross it.

This is the same boring nonsense as allways. It is pointless trying to change Mark's mind. He is clearly convinced he is completely right - which is an interesting opinion.

Mark,

As usual, you are all over the place. Apparently, whatever America does is right. This is, shall we say, a fascist doctrine. Let us stick to the two examples of Guantanamo and Hiroshima. If America should always ignore international law, then, to repeat, why bother to argue about the Geneva Conventions in relation to Guantanamo at all? The fact is that, according to the UN and other bodies, detainees there have been subjected to force-feeding, prolonged solitary confinement and other abuses, and have been denied the right to a fair trial, as well as religious freedom. Far from criticising Guantanamo from an anti-American perspective, it is entirely possible to argue that what goes on at Guantanamo is 鈥榰namerican鈥�.

About Hiroshima you write: 鈥淥nce Pearl Harbor happened, Japanese lives all became expendable from America's point of view鈥�. This is definitely OTT. There is absolutely no equivalence between Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima. The Japanese attack was directed entirely against naval and army installations (American deaths were 2,300 military and 49 civilian) and only a few stray bombs fell on the city of Honolulu, whereas in the case of the nuclear weapons the cities themselves and their civilian populations were the targets.

But, again, why bother to argue the case for the bombs at all if you believe it? Incidentally, you are wrong about the experts. I suggest you read Gar Alperovitz: 'Atomic Diplomacy' (1965) and, more recently, 鈥楻acing The Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan鈥� (2005) by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Professor of History at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He writes: "Americans still cling to the myth that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided the knockout punch to the Japanese government. The decision to use the bomb saved not only American soldiers but also the Japanese, according to this narrative. The myth serves to justify Truman's decision and ease the collective American conscience". Hasegawa shows that "this myth cannot be supported by historical facts. Evidence makes clear that there were alternatives to the use of the bomb, alternatives that the Truman administration for reasons of its own declined to pursue". He adds: "Justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki by making a historically unsustainable argument that the atomic bombs ended the war is no longer tenable鈥�.

One thing is clear: if millions of Americans think like you, then, alas, you are right: we should all be quaking in our shoes.

brian mcclinton;
Force feeding inmates of an institution is nothing new or unusual, at least in the US. For some reason we do not let them commit suicide by means of a hunger strike. (hanging themselves with bed sheets is more common.) The first time I saw this was in a film about the State Mental Institution in Mass. where an inmate was force fed. It was shown as part of a Psychology course I took in college. It was interesting. A rubber hose is lubricated on the outside to avoid injuring the subject, it is inserted into the seated subject's nose (his head is tilted back) and down his esophagus into his stomach, a funnel is attached to the end of the hose and liquid nourishment is poured directly into his stomach. It is not cruel although it may not be the most comfortable or pleasant experience. Sometimes the subject decides after one or more such experiences that it is better for him to eat on his own. One student was so distraught by seeing this, he fainted, his head hit the back of the chair in front of him, he suffered a concussion, and he had to be taken away by an ambulance.

"What goes on at Guantanamo is entirely unamerican." Obviously you have no knowledge of the history about how America treated the Indians, or black slaves, or lots of other people both inside and outside US territory. Americans can be just as systematically brutal, barbaric, and cruel as any other human beings. I told you above and many times, a lot of us came from bad seed. We are the descendants of the rejects of other societies. Think of America in part as their sweet revenge on the world just as millions of illegal migrants to Europe is sweet revenge of those who were subjects of its Imperial Empires of conquest of the past. It's their answer to the Christian missionaries. They've come home to join you by becoming a direct part of your present day Europe. Don't you want them anymore?

You really refuse to understand the reality of war as it is, not as you imagine it to be. In ancient times, soldiers would meet on battlefields and fight it out with battle axes, truncheons, swords, and then it wasn't until after the battle was over, that the conqueror would "sack" the enemy's towns, villages, and cities, looting, raping, and killing everything and everyone in sight. Troy was sacked. When Persia was defeated, every last Persian was killed. When Sherman defeated the Confederacy, he burned down everything from Atlanta to the Sea and his name is hated in the Southern United States to this very day. Nuclear weapons makes it clear that when war breaks out, every person and every building in a nation is on the front line. The existence of cities and people are regarded as strategic assets of the enemy to be destroyed. The only reason Hitler didn't wipe London off the face of the earth in the Battle of Britain was because he couldn't. Dresden wasn't so lucky. Actually, the intended target for the atomic bomb was Germany but the war ended before it was ready. There was certainly no reason from America's point of view not to use it on Japan to save American lives. The only time I experienced anti-semitism first hand was at a German Rothskeller at an industrial trade fair at Le Lac in Bordeaux France in 1973. I wondered why America was expending so much money and effort to protect these people and if it wasn't really too late to drop atom bombs on Germany anyway even though the war had been over for 28 years. Khrushchev once boasted he could wipe West Germany off the face of the earth with as few as 8 hydrogen bombs. After the detonation of the largest nuclear weapon ever tested, Tsar Bomba by the Soviets in 1961, a blast rated at 50 megatons (some scientists calculated the actual test to be 82 megatons) and it was only tested at half power, an article in one of the US news magazines speculated that the entire continental United States could be destroyed by only 12 such weapons. It might interest you to know that Eisenhower proposed a worldwide nuclear disarmament treaty banning all nuclear weapons assured by intrusive on site inspections on demand but the Soviets (I think Stalin himself) refused because he wanted his own nuclear arsenal. That virtually guaranteed a nuclear arms race. The American "Atoms For Peace" program and the follow-up Nuclear Arms Non-proliferation Treaty was intended as a way to allow all nations to develop nuclear power for civilian use without the suspicion of secret development of nuclear weapons. Because of the devastating effect that a nuclear attack would have on any country, even one as large as the US, the alternative is for a nation fearful of being a target to pre-emptively attack any nation suspected of trying to develop nuclear weapons before they can actually be realized. This is what should have happened with North Korea and what must happen with Iran. If it doesn't and Iran does manage to obtain these weapons, the consequences for the world will force it to face the stupidity of its blunder and timidity in its reluctance to head it off.

Should the world be frightened of America? If you have people in your country actively plotting to attack the US and your government can't or won't find and stop them such as in Pakistan, or where the government is an active participant such as Iran the answer is an unqualified yes. In the aftermath of a nuclear attack on the US, the life expectancy of entire nations including North Korea and Iran once the order is given will be about fifteen minutes. Say your prayers if you are a believer that such a day never comes. We live in very frightening times, but then we always have since the dawn of the nuclear age. What cave have you been living in? Here鈥檚 a consolation thought for you. Whether you are killed by a nuclear weapon, the radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons used against others, or an IRA bomb, in the end, you will be just as dead. :-)

Mark,
Let me quote your first posting: "Don't get caught up in the hate America rhetoric and don't become part of it".
You needn't worry, because you do such a good job of it yourself.

Right now your Palestinian friends in Gaza are being systematically annihilated by Israel. I'm sure to someone like you, Hamas sanctioned firing rockets from Gaza targeting homes in Israel is not a violation of international law while taking one measured incremental step after another to try to convince them to stop is. It hardly matters, the worthless pile of trash treaties called international law everyone signed has no value or meaning anyway and never did. An entire people has been conditioned to hate their neighbors more than they love their own lives or their own children for that matter. We may soon see them dying like flies in their mindless defiance, victims of their own hate turn back on itself. I for one will not shed a single tear when they are gone.

You have some strange fantasy about what The United States of America is and isn't. That it doesn't live up to your expectations or that the majority of its people don't see the world the way you would have them see it is your problem, not theirs...or mine. It is not utopia and it is not a paradigm of your moral ideal, it is just a country which happens to be far more successful than any other because it was built on a system of ideas which convinced its inhabitants that there were more profitable ways to spend one's life than killing each other. That certainly doesn't imply that when they feel threatened by outsiders they will have any reservations about killing other people. They have proven time and again very willing and efficient at it. I'm sorry to say they probably will have to demonstrate that again before much longer. That鈥檚 life, learn to live with it because you have no other choice.