Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A New Party; Peace & Progress
Topic Started: Nov 27 2004, 10:31 PM (277 Views)
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
A new political party has been launched today called Peace and Progress. You can read its manifesto here.

While I agree with some of what they say about terrorism, and also about the need for a new bill of rights to protect us for the whims of Governments with large majorities, I couldnt vote for them.

British troops need to stay in Iraq to help secure the country and facilitate elections. We are there with the consent of an Iraqi Government. If British troops were to leave we would be letting down both the people of Iraq and our US allies who would then have an even greater burden.

Of course Britain should seek the enforcement of UN resolutions on Israel/Palestine but it needs to be done in a way in which is acceptable to the parties involved. That is the way to get a long term peace there, negotiation and agreement not trying to impose solutions.

As morally questionable as it might be for us to demand others dont have WMD while we in the west have the biggest stockpiles, frankly I prefer that they are in our hands not that of terrorists. For the moment we need to retain nuclear weapons as a deterant, while not useful in the war on terror, MAD might well come into play again with countries like China.

Arms exports are such a big part of our economy I dont see how we could just stop all exports. What about the cost in terms of lost jobs and the economic damage?

We should cancel third world debt, however we can and should attach conditions so that the money is spend on health, education etc not building up armies and palaces for the rich.

Britain must have controls on assylum seekers or the system would be abused and we would be overwealmed with people trying to abuse our generosity. Yet I do agree some of the draconian and illogical measures of late need changing, such as removing both benefits, right to work and then also denying deportation. Someone in that situation is completley at a loss.

The anti-terror Acts are needed to give the police the powers to prevent terror attacks on Britain. We should not appologise for them or repeal them, although we need to be careful they are not abused. If the Muslim or the Irish community before feela heavier impact of these acts than the rest, perhaps thats because more of them are involved with terrorism? Sorry thats not politically correct. Seriously how many of the 9/11 attackers were not Muslims? How many IRA bombers where not Irish. It is plain logic.

I want our citizens back from Guantanamo because I dont trust the US authorities, but I dont nessasarily think they should be automatically released. A senior judge should review their cases annually and they should be held in comfortable surrounding until a trial can go ahead. That might mean holding a terrorist in comfort but that is better than holding a innocent person in Guantanamo Bay.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Nov 27 2004, 10:31 PM
I want our citizens back from Guantanamo because I dont trust the US authorities

Well, I don't trust your authorities, so I think we'll keep them until we're darned well ready to release them.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I dont trust them not to abuse those prisonners, because thats what happened in Iraq. I certainly dont think they are being kept in conditions which I would like to see. As I say I think these people should be kept in comfortable conditions considering that they are innocent people until it is proven in a trial that they are guilty of a crime.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Nov 28 2004, 07:09 AM
I dont trust them not to abuse those prisonners, because thats what happened in Iraq. I certainly dont think they are being kept in conditions which I would like to see. As I say I think these people should be kept in comfortable conditions considering that they are innocent people until it is proven in a trial that they are guilty of a crime.

I don't trust British courts to not release terrorists who may return to the field of battle. I certainly don't think you know what conditions these terrorists are kept in, and the only thing you know are the accusations coming from Jihadist terrorists themselves. And I see they still have a head from which to speak, which is far better treatment than they would give someone they capture.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
So we should judge our treatment of them on comparison to how terrorists treat hostages? I dont think so. In terms of the treatment of prisonners complaints have been made by the detainees, who I doubt are all terrorists, and from international organisations. The British Government has said itself it wants the men returned to Britain. My point is that if you are going to detain people without trial they should be held in comfortable (and secure) surroundings which are suitable for innocent people who have not usually be charged with a crime let alone found guilty of one. Instead the presumption is that they are all terrorists, yet that is guilty before trial.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
As I say I think these people should be kept in comfortable conditions considering that they are innocent people until it is proven in a trial that they are guilty of a crime.


You start from the mistaken premise that they are criminals. They are not. They are prisoners of war. Enemy combantants and therefore, jave no right to a trial becuase thay are not being charged. They are being held in accordancve with the Geneva convention.

Please, get it right. There is a big difference in what you claim and what is.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ANOVA
Nov 28 2004, 04:43 PM
Quote:
 
As I say I think these people should be kept in comfortable conditions considering that they are innocent people until it is proven in a trial that they are guilty of a crime.


You start from the mistaken premise that they are criminals. They are not. They are prisoners of war. Enemy combantants and therefore, jave no right to a trial becuase thay are not being charged. They are being held in accordancve with the Geneva convention.

Please, get it right. There is a big difference in what you claim and what is.

ANOVA

Actually they're not held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, because they are not soldiers for any specific nation. That said, they are being held in conditions that are meant to be similar to how a prisoner of war would be detained under the Geneva Conventions.

ds9074
Nov 28 2004, 07:53 AM
So we should judge our treatment of them on comparison to how terrorists treat hostages? I dont think so. In terms of the treatment of prisonners complaints have been made by the detainees, who I doubt are all terrorists, and from international organisations. The British Government has said itself it wants the men returned to Britain. My point is that if you are going to detain people without trial they should be held in comfortable (and secure) surroundings which are suitable for innocent people who have not usually be charged with a crime let alone found guilty of one. Instead the presumption is that they are all terrorists, yet that is guilty before trial.

Here's a pound (£), buy a clue.

I never suggested some comparison of treatment. My point was that if there was systemic mistreatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan, which are the only people held at GITMO, people suffering under such mistreatment would never see the light of day; they would have simply disappeared to never be heard from again.

As for your doubts that all the people captured in Afghanistan are terrorists ... your attitude examplifies exactly why I don't want them sent back to Britain. You ilk would declare that unless there was evidence that could stand the tests of the judicial system, then such people should be released, while totally ignoring the fact these people were captured in Afghanistan!

And as for these so called "international organisations", they have no other proof to support their claims other than the testimony of those having been detained.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I didnt say I think they should be released, just that if they are not charged and tried they should be kept in comfortable conditions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Nov 28 2004, 07:05 PM
I didnt say I think they should be released, just that if they are not charged and tried they should be kept in comfortable conditions.

And who says their conditions are not comfortable?

But no, that's not really what you said. You said, "My point is that if you are going to detain people without trial they should be held in comfortable (and secure) surroundings which are suitable for innocent people who have not usually be charged with a crime let alone found guilty of one."

Yes, the surroundings suitable for an innocent person is called a home.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
We hold innocent people awaiting trial all the time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Nov 28 2004, 08:48 PM
We hold innocent people awaiting trial all the time.

The only people held prior to trial in the United States are those that cannot make bail or on the rare occasion those likely to skip bail.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Nov 27 2004, 09:31 PM
A new political party has been launched today called Peace and Progress. You can read its manifesto here.

While I agree with some of what they say about terrorism, and also about the need for a new bill of rights to protect us for the whims of Governments with large majorities, I couldnt vote for them.

British troops need to stay in Iraq to help secure the country and facilitate elections. We are there with the consent of an Iraqi Government. If British troops were to leave we would be letting down both the people of Iraq and our US allies who would then have an even greater burden.

Of course Britain should seek the enforcement of UN resolutions on Israel/Palestine but it needs to be done in a way in which is acceptable to the parties involved. That is the way to get a long term peace there, negotiation and agreement not trying to impose solutions.

As morally questionable as it might be for us to demand others dont have WMD while we in the west have the biggest stockpiles, frankly I prefer that they are in our hands not that of terrorists. For the moment we need to retain nuclear weapons as a deterant, while not useful in the war on terror, MAD might well come into play again with countries like China.

Arms exports are such a big part of our economy I dont see how we could just stop all exports. What about the cost in terms of lost jobs and the economic damage?

We should cancel third world debt, however we can and should attach conditions so that the money is spend on health, education etc not building up armies and palaces for the rich.

Britain must have controls on assylum seekers or the system would be abused and we would be overwealmed with people trying to abuse our generosity. Yet I do agree some of the draconian and illogical measures of late need changing, such as removing both benefits, right to work and then also denying deportation. Someone in that situation is completley at a loss.

The anti-terror Acts are needed to give the police the powers to prevent terror attacks on Britain. We should not appologise for them or repeal them, although we need to be careful they are not abused. If the Muslim or the Irish community before feela heavier impact of these acts than the rest, perhaps thats because more of them are involved with terrorism? Sorry thats not politically correct. Seriously how many of the 9/11 attackers were not Muslims? How many IRA bombers where not Irish. It is plain logic.

I want our citizens back from Guantanamo because I dont trust the US authorities, but I dont nessasarily think they should be automatically released. A senior judge should review their cases annually and they should be held in comfortable surrounding until a trial can go ahead. That might mean holding a terrorist in comfort but that is better than holding a innocent person in Guantanamo Bay.

Sorry, any party that has a "manifesto" needs to be laughed at, and then ignored. Kinda like Kucinich voters.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
So that would be like every party in Great Britain you would be laughing at ABG? Labour, Conservative, Liberal the whole lot. The system here is one in which a party produces a manifesto on which their candidates stand. If elected they are then expected to stick to that manifesto, implementing as much as possible and not taking actions contary to that. I find it to be a democratic way of working.

2001 General Election, Party Manifestos

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Manifestos are for commies and other loony candidates who can't get their lunacy enacted except by judicial fiat.

Maybe it is your poor choice of words? (a la "The Communist Manifesto)

Most parties have a platform stating what they support and oppose.

P.S. Yes, I do actually laugh at several political parties in the UK.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Its just a cultural difference. The the UK an election manifesto is appropriate term for all parties from all political backgrounds. As I say the Conservative party produces manifestos, for example Mrs Thatchers Manifesto of 1983. You could not call her a commie.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus