Being gay no grounds for asylum in Holland

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Yes, best. With all its inadequacies, the U.S. is still the country I would live in if I got to pick between any.

I think the same about my country...this is what I meant to say...

Quote:

Yes, but I think it has been beaten into the ground that it was a mistake. There are better ways to take out a tyrant. I still think Bush was just trying to create another front, one away from our home, but of course that is only speculation.

Im almost saying that I love your words here...lol

Quote:

True. heh

Anyway.. dont do it... you are so incommunicable...these days

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RalphyS)

This answer I find typically American. In the original sentence I mentioned over a thousand US soldiers AND tens of thousands of Iraqis. I also mentioned "for some" involuntary sacrifice, meaning the Iraqis, not the enlisted men, who are trained for combat and know the risks of their job.

So much do the poor oppressed people of Iraq mean to you, that if I mention the words 'involuntary sacrifice' you automatically assume I'm talking about the brave Americans?

These are the people, who were oppressed by Saddam, they should have a choice whether they choose to live under a dictator or die "free". That choice was not given to them. Luckily the survivors showed us with their massive parades and welcoming cheers that they indeed wanted the USA and their coalition to come and liberate them. From all over Iraq we could see the tv-images which were so much alike those of the liberated nations in WWII, cheering people, handing out flowers to Americans driving by, NOT.

But I do think that I am getting where you come from, Chase. Why you have such a hard time to even consider the slightest mistake was made in regard to this war. You have friends and maybe even family fighting in Iraq, in danger of their life, maybe someone even already got injured or worse, I hope not, I do not wish harm to anyone overthere, soldier or citizen, but because of this it is just inimaginable for you, that they may be fighting, getting injured, being in constant danger, in fear of being killed for anything but a righteous reason. You dare not even imagine your chosen leader to put these guys in this kind of position without basing it on the highest moral standards and therefore you counterattack anyone, who even dares to suggest so.

I can understand that position, I even support the fact that a leader should be held to these standards, but whereas you dare not imagine that his reasoning isn't what is should be, I and others like me fear that his reasoning was shamefully dubious, at the very least and therefore we question him constanly upon them, just because we value the lifes of the soldiers (as well as the citizens), who have been placed in this awful situation we call war.

History has shown us that maybe as many soldiers/people died for the wrong as for the right reasons and therefore true patriotism should always question the reasons for putting a nation's people in harm's way.

Answer my question, how would YOU get Saddam Hussein to stop his tyrannical reign. I gave you proof that diplomacy didn't work and that he violated human rights throughout his years as president. I've said that there was flawed intelligence. So what? Does the fact that Hussein didn't leave stockpiles of weapongs everywhere make him a good person? Does that magically wipe the blood off of his his hands and bring back thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis? I'm ashamed. So, like I told Ana... if you're going to call my country "dubious" then start calling every other country who thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat a "liar" as well.

And like I said before, if you had your way... Saddam Hussein would still be in a power and he would still be raping over the people of Iraq. The U.S. (and that includes the most prominent Republicans and Democrats) all thought that Hussein not only was a threat, but also an evil dictator that was not fit to run a country because of usurpation of human rights. I advise you to read over Saddam Hussein's offenses... and you derive a better way to get him out of power. I'm not denying that mistakes weren't made by the coalition... but regions aren't fixed over night. It took Europe a while to recover after World War II... I don't see why Iraq is any different.

Yet, anyway... I still find it sad that a nation who legalizes drugs like marijuana and is a cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes won't allow gays the right to asylum. I don't understand that logic.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Answer my question, how would YOU get Saddam Hussein to stop his tyrannical reign. I gave you proof that diplomacy didn't work and that he violated human rights throughout his years as president. I've said that there was flawed intelligence. So what? Does the fact that Hussein didn't leave stockpiles of weapongs everywhere make him a good person? Does that magically wipe the blood off of his his hands and bring back thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis? I'm ashamed. So, like I told Ana... if you're going to call my country "dubious" then start calling every other country who thought that Saddam Hussein was a threat a "liar" as well.

And like I said before, if you had your way... Saddam Hussein would still be in a power and he would still be raping over the people of Iraq. The U.S. (and that includes the most prominent Republicans and Democrats) all thought that Hussein not only was a threat, but also an evil dictator that was not fit to run a country because of usurpation of human rights. I advise you to read over Saddam Hussein's offenses... and you derive a better way to get him out of power. I'm not denying that mistakes weren't made by the coalition... but regions aren't fixed over night. It took Europe a while to recover after World War II... I don't see why Iraq is any different.

Yet, anyway... I still find it sad that a nation who legalizes drugs like marijuana and is a cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes won't allow gays the right to asylum. I don't understand that logic.

OK, even though beforehand regime-change was not mentioned as a reason for this war AND it was not the reason that other nations joined the coalition, I, opposed to you, will directly answer your question.

But first I also like to mention, that although you claimed that all the restrictions and UN-mandates and weapon inspections 'didn't work', it is now obvious that they did work in keeping Saddam from building WMD's, so they were in fact keeping the threat in check, at least for other countries.

Besides this it was totally unnecessary for you to provide me proof of Saddam's tyrannical reign and total lack of disrespect for human rights, I as well as Ana already admitted over and over again that this man was a totally despicable dictator and deserved to be dethroned and worse.

But this is what I always wondered about, maybe if seen to many spy movies or read to many novels about covert operations, was there no other way to remove this man from his reign? Although I'm always for giving anyone a fair trial, in this case, to prevent a war, that would and has killed tens of thousands I would have preferred some covert operation to take out Saddam, either dead or alive.

Another option would have been to back up any resistance to Saddam, financially and armswise. I think it is best that, if possible, that oppressed people remove their own dictator. If outside forces do it, as is proven once again, it feels to the people if they change from one oppressor to another, even it the new one is far and far better than the old one.

But the problem of the USA is indeed 'flawed intelligence' and not only in advance to this war, but to the entire region of the middle east for more than 30 (if not more) years. Backing up the Taliban-leaders and Osama to remove the Russians from Afghanistan, and thereby creating in the long run a much bigger thread. Backing up Saddam in his war against Iran's ayatollah's, result a dangerous dictator. Over and over vetoing any resolution in the UN that condemns Israels treatment of the Palestines and therewith creating or at least enforcing very anti-US sentiments in the region. Supporting totalitarian, anti-democratic regimes in the area. Not having any idea how to deal with the aftermath of the Iraqi war or even any idea of how to remove themselves from the area. Expecting to be received like liberators, while seen as invaders. Yes, indeed you could speak of 'flawed intelligence' in regard to the USA's handling of the middle east over the last 30 years, but apparently that gives me, or anyone for that matter, no right to be critical of the way this all powerfull and all wise nation deals with the situation. How dare I call anything 'dubious' about the USA?

On that topic, your tone also always implies that those who are critical of the USA's policies must hate the USA and therefore you feel the need to lash out at our nations. Always the black and white, the either you're for us or against us tone, never leaving room for the middleground. And old sports metaphore comes to mind, once a player was being asked by a reporter, if he wasn't fed up with the constant criticism of his coach. His reply: "No, it shows he cares about me and thinks I can do better. I see him with other players, who are at the top of their game, which isn't the level which I'm aiming for, but he mostly ignores them, because he knows there is no room for improvement in the way they play. Me, he gives a hard time, because he knows I can do better and I need to do better. If he stops criticizing me, than I have a serious problem". I care about Western values and the USA as a frontfighter for these values and I do believe the people of the USA want to make the world a better and safer place for everyone, but I criticize because I think there are better ways to go about it and while I do not claim to be a 'coach', I do think you could learn from listening to others, instead of dictating your way through world politics.

And if your comparing post-WWII Europe with an Iraq on the brink of civil war, I really think you should start listening to advice, maybe not mine, but certainly those of experts.

Oh, and I always love you little digs about Holland. But let's see, drugs like marihuana are legalized?. Well, in fact no, the sale of soft drugs is being tolerated and regulated in certain places, the growing of it, except for personal use, is still forbidden, which is 'dubious' at the very least imho.
I suppose in the USA nobody does drugs, the 'war on drugs' works so much better than our tolerance and regulate policy.
A cesspool of promiscuous sex with prostitutes? And that from someone out of a nation with an entire million-dollar-industry based on hardcore sex-movies, shows like Jerry Springer, which show the superior morality of the USA on a day to day basis. Our most famous prostitute, Xaviera Hollander, author of the book 'the happy hooker', worked for most of her life in the pristine USA, because that's were the big bugs are. Sure, we did legalize the profession of prostitute, which makes it easier to regulate it, but I'm sure there are relatively more hookers in the USA than here. Trying to forbid the oldest trade in the world, how naive can you get?
And to make it sound like we discriminate gays to not get asylum is low even for you, Chase. I thought we could debate at least on a basis of mutual respect, debating the issues without insinuating things. Any reply on the issues mentioned in the original article are so easily forgotten if it helps to get another dig in. If you call me names, I will call you names, what a childish attitude, instead of really dealing with the issues.
I hope we can rise above that level.

[Chase]

Your nation is discriminating against homosexuals who are trying to flee a country because of fear of death. There's nothing low about me bringing that up. It's true. One reason why prostitution is outlawed throughout most of the United States is because of the threat of STDs. How naive can you get if you don't recognize that there is a major downside to allowing people to pay for sex.

There is still no definitive proof that Hussein did not have any ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. Sure, stockpiles weren't found... but there is no proof that supports the idea that Saddam had no desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Also, that being said... the fact that no apparent WMDs were found doesn't make Saddam Hussein a pleasant man. There thousands of Iraq families that could give you reasons as to why Saddam Hussein should've been taken out of power. I posted Saddam Hussein's record of human rights violations because you constantly try to minimize his despicable behavior by saying that the coalition only based the war solely on WMDs. According to a study by Devon Largio, a recent graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign... at least 21 reasons were presented to justify war with Saddam Hussein.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=2679

And the U.S. never funded the Taliban in a period that it was non existent... nor did they fund Osama bin Laden directly. I posted this in another thread because you guys apparently don't follow history.

In 1979 the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. However, it was not until 1984 that Osama bin Laden actually made an impact. He started Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) ("Office of Order" in English). It was not a militant group, but instead it funneled money to Afghan fighters. While some people accuse Pakistan and the United States... there hasn't been any substantial proof to put any truth to this claim. The U.S. only sent aid to Afghan fighters... not Osama bin Laden's financial network. If any money went to MAK it was more than likely through indirect means. Upon Soviet withdrawal bin Laden split from MAK and established the militant group Al Qaeda. Therefore, for you to say that the United States directly funded bin Laden is baseless. Besides, bin Laden had was born into an extremely wealthy Saudi family with immense connections... bin Laden could have very easily established a militant network without any American dollars... and he did so in the very last stages of the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Bin Laden's status as a militant leader wasn't established until the war was about 95% finished. So... accusing the U.S. of funding a non-existent Arab terror network and a millionaire Saudi doesn't seem plausible.

Now, back to Saddam Hussein. Taking him out covertly doesn't prevent his successors, Uday and Qusay, from taking power. Nor does it prevent the Baath Party from maintaining a firm grip of power on Iraq. Saddam Hussein's sons were in charge of torturing unsuccessful Iraqi olympic athletes... what a nice, professional choice to inherit Saddam Hussein's position, eh? Ethnic tensions have been in Iraq for years prior to the war... and following the Iraq War, the Kurds overwhelmingly voted to support a motion towards creating their own, sovereign state. Following the first Gulf War, there were multiple uprisings against the Baath Party... but Saddam Hussein ruthlessly put an end to them and as a result, at least 30,000 innocent Iraqis were butchered (according to the BBC). He also portrayed himself as being a devout Muslim and went as far as establishing legislation that made homosexuality and prostitution punishable by death.

In comparing Iraq to post war Germany there's a very likely chance that Iraq, like Germany, will be split. Not because coalition countries want spheres of influences within specific regions... but because the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis would prefer to be autonomous. Stop making it sound like this is a uniquely isolated event. You should know better, especially being a European and neighboring a country like Belgium... where there the Dutch speaking peoples and French speaking peoples have politically rivalries within the country. Europeans are known for their intense nationalism or ethnic movements like pan-Slavism. The Czechs and the Slovaks chose to be two separate nations... and you saw what happened within the former Yugoslavia. Sometimes it's better to have separate countries than have to deal with quarelling ethnic factions. I'm not advocating civil war in Iraq... but if they don't want to be united and never really wanted to (Saddam Hussein oppressed all non-Sunni peoples)... then they have every right to push for secession. I don't want to see them destroy each other. They were suppressed for years by Hussein and now the other ethnic factions are being able to voice their opinions and concerns.

Oh, and there are 16 million people in the Netherlands and an estimated 298,290,000 people in the United States. Common sense would probably say there are more hookers in America due to the sheer difference in population.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Oh, and there are 16 million people in the Netherlands and an estimated 298,290,000 people in the United States. Common sense would probably say there are more hookers in America due to the sheer difference in population.

I know the difference in population, that is why I put the word 'relatively' in there, so what I meant is more hookers per x-number of inhabitants, ofcourse it would be hard to really count them in the US, since they are all illegal (jobwise, not citizenwise, it seems to me like I have to explain this too now, before you jump on that).

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

One reason why prostitution is outlawed throughout most of the United States is because of the threat of STDs.How naive can you get if you don't recognize that there is a major downside to allowing people to pay for sex.

Well, sex causes STDs, so much is true, but whether you pay for it or not, has nothing to do with it. Besides by regulating prostitution it is much easier to make sure that the prostitutes and their 'clients' have at all time access to protection. Sure there is a downside to prostitution, but making it illegal hasn't solved the problems in the last 8,000 years (or longer if you're not a creationist), maybe it's time for a new approach. There are also major downsides to the use of alcohol and tobacco, but still we do not prohibit it. Well only the USA tried to prohibit alcohol for a while, how did that work out for you? Wasn't it the big crime time in the USA?

The newest thing on the turmoil about deporting gays and christians as a consequence of debate in our congress (a translation of a newsreport by myself):
Minister Verdonk stated that „it can be affirmed that gays as a consequence of their sexual preference are limited in building an existence in Iran and that it makes it impossible for them to function on a social and cultural level", and therefore homosexuals will not be deported.

In the same debate in the second chamber (like our senate/congress) Verdonk was also pressured into promising not to deport any Iranian Christians for the time being. De Chamber fears that these asylum seekers could be persecuted for their religion in the strict islamic nation.

So once more the soup wasn't eaten as hot as it was served. Our congress seems to have their checks and balances in order on this point.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

but there is no proof that supports the idea that Saddam had no desire to obtain nuclear weapons.

How could you prove that you had no desire to do something? Is this the legal system you would desire, where one had to prove that one did not desire to do something wrong? Well as you like to point out time after time and I admit to time after time Saddam was no innocent bystander, but it still requires proof, not no proof for the contrary view (I will add once again here for clarity, on the subject of WMD's).

And do you want to know why you cannot compare Iraq at this time with post-WWII Europe? The lack of violence for one, while in Iraq people seem to die by the dozens every day at this time, this was in no way the case in Western Europe. The freed nations did welcome the Americans as liberators and even in occupied Germany, there were no massive uprisings.

Once again I will restate, your one and only arguement, the terrible dictatorship of Saddam, under which the Iraqi people suffered immense horrors, but I do not think they are that much better off nowadays with a nation split by a civil war (or on the brink thereoff) were people can in no way feel safe. A civil war that was predicted I might add, but maybe you prefer them fighting among themselves?

And if the US thinks that splitting Iraq might be the better option, it may be in the long run, I'm not sure, why are they not pursuing that avenue?

[Chase]

Look, I have never disputed that the coalition mismanaged post war Iraq... but it's still getting on its feet faster than post war German and post war Japan. In Iraq, it took something like 14 months after the war began for formal elections to take place. In Germay, it took 3 years to write a constitution and 4 years to hold election... in Japan it took 15 for them to adopt a new constitution. There was a Nazi insurgency in Germany, however, It wasn't quite as big as the one we are seeing in Iraq, but nevertheless... there were people still attacking allied troops. But if you're going to analyze the insurgency you have to look at the entire picture. A significant number of the insurgents are foreign and much of the aid is coming from non-Iraqi terrorist organizations. The only large Iraqi militant group I can think of off the top of my head is the radical cleric Al Sadr's Shia group (his father was actually murdered by Saddam Hussein is happy that he's gone... but he's just unhappy that it was the United States and Britain that ousted him).

But I'll reiterate my point. If the Kurds, Shia, and Sunnis don't want to live united in Iraq... then in the long run it'll probably be more beneficial for them to be split into 3 independently functioning nations. Like I have previously stated, it worked out with the Czechs and the Slovaks... and a lot of other Europeans ethnicities.

[Ana4Stapp]

Well...Im back guys! But Im still tired (and happy of course:the show was awesome btw ) from the trip I made to Sao Paulo: just two days offline and I get a considerable numbers of (big)posts ...so I dont know if Ill have enough strenght to read and comment all of them with some sense...lol


Anyway, Ill try...

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I posted Saddam Hussein's record of human rights violations because you constantly try to minimize his despicable behavior by saying that the coalition only based the war solely on WMDs. According to a study by Devon Largio, a recent graduate of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign... at least 21 reasons were presented to justify war with Saddam Hussein. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=2679

And the U.S. never funded the Taliban in a period that it was non existent... nor did they fund Osama bin Laden directly.

Maybe you are the one who didnt follow the history here...because it was definitely the formal reason that US and the allies used to sart this war...

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Sometimes it's better to have separate countries than have to deal with quarelling ethnic factions. I'm not advocating civil war in Iraq... but if they don't want to be united and never really wanted to (Saddam Hussein oppressed all non-Sunni peoples)... then they have every right to push for secession. I don't want to see them destroy each other. They were suppressed for years by Hussein and now the other ethnic factions are being able to voice their opinions and concerns.

So you are disagreeing about US foreing policy strategy in try to forcing them to keep together...amazing...

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Well...Im back guys! But Im still tired (and happy of course:the show was awesome btw ) from the trip I made to Sao Paulo: just two days offline and I get a considerable numbers of (big)posts ...so I dont know if Ill have enough strenght to read and comment all of them with some sense...lol


Anyway, Ill try...



Maybe you are the one who didnt follow the history here...because it was definitely the formal reason that US and the allies used to sart this war...





So you are disagreeing about US foreing policy strategy in try to forcing them to keep together...amazing...

First of all, who are you to say what's formal and what's not. They pushed all of these issues... I'm sorry the Brazilian media only covered one of them. You can't force them together if they don't want to be together. And the U.S. isn't "forcing" them to stay together. My government recognizes that they may want to split up... and if that's the case, then they have every right to do so.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

First of all, who are you to say what's formal and what's not. They pushed all of these issues... I'm sorry the Brazilian media only covered one of them. You can't force them together if they don't want to be together. And the U.S. isn't "forcing" them to stay together. My government recognizes that they may want to split up... and if that's the case, then they have every right to do so.

Like you wisely know but maybe your arrogance didnt let you to remember :english is not my first language and 'maybe' I choosed the wrong word -- -so sorry , my friend...

...Me and YOU know that US and the allies said that Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons...and following this idea he consequently broke the UN resolutions ... so they had their official reason to invade the country and start the war...
And Im sorry that American media only covered one of the sides...and made you to believe in this...