Tony Blair could still be charged with war crimes

[Staurm]

It's a divisive issue this one for sure, and it's simply beyond me why still many people fail to see the double standards in Britain and America's actions. We invaded Iraq at the start of the 1st world war, it's all been about us getting our hands on the oil. If we really cared about human rights abuses then why don't we invade China, too many economic benefits for us not too?

It's interesting to note that since the invasion I know scores of people who were in support of the war who now stand against it, yet I know not of a single person who was against it in 2003 who has changed their mind.

[PharmaCan]

it's all been about us getting our hands on the oil.

No - it's all about keeping Iraqi oil in the ground. Look at what has happened with oil prices since GWB's unjustifiable invasion of that sovereign nation.

Long ago, when Iraq was made from the remnants of the Ottoman empire, deal was struck to keep Iraqi oil in the ground and off the world market, thereby creating an almost endless supply shortage.

[Staurm]

Well either way it still amounts to the same thing, controlling the world's resources, regardless of whatever international treaties are broken, eco-systems destroyed or human rights abuses are committed in the process.

[mrdevious]

The United States has imprisoned somewhere in the vicinity of 30% of the young black males in our country, most of them for non-violent drug offenses. When is someone going to invade the U.S. for our human rights violations?

The issue is a good deal more complex than that. For one, it's not just blacks, the US actually imprisons more citizens than any country in the world percapta or just in gross population (ah America, the societal envy of the world, best place to live on Earth, just like we're always hearing about right?). Amnesty International has been all over them for their machiavelian drug laws, which they've petitioned them constantly to reform. But the facts is, you can't really call it a human rights violation in legal standards since those imprisoned are directly breaking a law and comitting an offence not directly necessary to their own wellbeing. It's different than, say, imprisoning a woman for getting an eduction, or a man for practicing the wrong religion.

While I agree that the current "war on drugs" is a violation of human rights, in many other countries as well, there's a huge legal gap between that and imprisoning someone for rights set forth by most inernational organizations including the UN, such as freedom of education, religion, and flipping your local MP the bird. When it comes to intnernational human rights, these things are basics. When it comes to these rediculous and outdated drug laws that cause 1000x more harm than good, the US made sure back in 1937 that the UN was 100% on board with the insanity.

[mrdevious]

Well either way it still amounts to the same thing, controlling the world's resources, regardless of whatever international treaties are broken, eco-systems destroyed or human rights abuses are committed in the process.

I feel I should point out that Iraq had a huge area of marshlands, forget the name at present, that had a population which existed with a unique culture that lived in balance with the ecosystem for thousands of years, dating back to being one of the oldest societies in human history. Saddam made of point of whiping these people out and utterly destroying the marshlands, and the US (mother of all that is evil you know) has undertaken massive efforts to restore the region. I wish I had some figures at present, but I hear they've been making some real headway on the project.

[Triple-P]

the american government is responcible for the only attemped genocide in north america...when will they be charged with that??

[Staurm]

Attempted? Weren't they successful in wiping out the majority of the population of indigenous native Americans?

[mrdevious]

Attempted? Weren't they successful in wiping out the majority of the population of indigenous native Americans?

I guess "attempted" is based on whether or not you consider success the total anihilation of the race, or just the slaughter of many.

the american government is responcible for the only attemped genocide in north america...when will they be charged with that??

Well, there were lots of native tribes that tried to comit genocide by whiping out other weaker tribes, so I wouldn't say the only. They should't be charged with anything, I'm not guilty for what my ancestors did (though my related ancestors did nothing, and my scottish ancestors suffered their own genocide), any more than I'd be guilty because my brother commited murder. It's the same guilt by association bullshit, same race doesn't make you the same people.

We do owe them something though. Whites are where we are because our ancestors rode to success on the backs of slaves and the theft of land. Natives are where they are because our ancestors fucked them over. So I say what we owe them is to do everything in our power to get their living standards up to where we have ours.

[Staurm]

We do owe them something though. Whites are where we are because our ancestors rode to success on the backs of slaves and the theft of land. Natives are where they are because our ancestors fucked them over. So I say what we owe them is to do everything in our power to get their living standards up to where we have ours.

Well, it depends really on what you value as a living standard. I'd give up most western mod cons to have a lifestyle more in line with native tribalism, living close to nature, having a physically active working life where the rewards are good food and shelter. I value this with far more sustainabilty than 9-5 office work, dependance on automobiles transport. Not only is it sustainable in terms of the environment, but sustainable in terms of my own physical and mental well being. I don't think giving electricity and roads to Africa, or building suburban homes for native Americans comes close to compensating them for what our ancestors have done.

I guess "attempted" is based on whether or not you consider success the total anihilation of the race, or just the slaughter of many.

The official defintion of genocide is this

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so in fact what the original white settlers did to America, then Africa, and now the middle east falls can be described as genocide, its not as is commonly thought a terms that only refers to the mass killing of a civilisation, it can include the destruction of cultural values as well.

[mrdevious]

Well, it depends really on what you value as a living standard. I'd give up most western mod cons to have a lifestyle more in line with native tribalism, living close to nature, having a physically active working life where the rewards are good food and shelter. I value this with far more sustainabilty than 9-5 office work, dependance on automobiles transport. Not only is it sustainable in terms of the environment, but sustainable in terms of my own physical and mental well being. I don't think giving electricity and roads to Africa, or building suburban homes for native Americans comes close to compensating them for what our ancestors have done

True that, but the native living standards today are not in sync with the tribal system of a thousand years ago. Personally I think the reserves (or "reservations" in the states) are the worst thing for them. There's really nothing we can do now, our culture and technology are firmly ingrained in their society, and it's made for some mighty shitty living conditions. Diabetes are becoming rampant among the children because of their poor diets (chips and soda for dinner), drug use is rampant, alcoholism is a big problem of course, and education and medical care are substandard. It shocks me that here in Canada native people are actually burrying their children in this day and age.

So unless we can somehow remove the T.V., twinkies, pop, junkfood, cigs, alcohol, and narcotics from their civilization (and that's not gonna happen), the reserve system is just a place where chiefs can act as despots and haord the federal-alloted funds for themselves (and believe me, they do).

On an interesting note, my friend is a science and anthropology major, and he was telling me how people in nomadic society's on average had to work only 4 hours a day, and spend the rest of the time chillin', having ceremonies, and all that other good stuff. They didn't live long, but they lived healthy; mental illnesses like autism and schizophrenia were unheard of, as well as arthritis and numerous other conditions. As my biology teacher explained, modern shelter is one of the biggest reasons we live so long today.

so in fact what the original white settlers did to America, then Africa, and now the middle east falls can be described as genocide, its not as is commonly thought a terms that only refers to the mass killing of a civilisation, it can include the destruction of cultural values as well.

Yep, I studied genocide a good deal in political science. The US actually wouldn't sign the UN international agreement on genocide because their current policies on the treatment of african-americans violated this, simply by suppressing their rights, freedoms, and culture.