Thread: Victor Bout - Russian Businessman (?) facing 25 years in US prison

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, as long as it doesn't concern U.S. national security, they could be dealt with somewhere else. Selling weapons to terrorists that are most likely going to use them to attack the U.S. is a completely different matter. I think it's just so obvious and clear, isn't it?

No, it's not. The fact the US made some enemies does not give them the right to stomp all over the world abusing their power. The US is becoming the greatest Orwellian-type dictatorship of all, and in the light of this I see their so called fight for freedom as hypocrisy. Which is sad.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

The US is becoming the greatest Orwellian-type dictatorship

Sorry, didn't notice that. It treats its citizens millions of times better than many of the countries you would put up with do. Some of which would really remind me of Oceania.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Sorry, didn't notice that. It treats its citizens millions of times better than many of the countries you would put up with do. Some of which would really remind me of Oceania.

How they treat their citizens is their internal business. I'm more affected and disturbed by the fact that they treat the rest of the world exactly as any dictator would have treated it - like it does not have any say in the matter and its only right is to obey or be destroyed. And all this is going on to the accompaniment of inspired rhetoric and doublespeak, which was brilliantly described by Orwell.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

How they treat their citizens is their internal business. I'm more affected and disturbed by the fact that they treat the rest of the world exactly as any dictator would have treated it - like it does not have any say in the matter and its only right is to obey or be destroyed. And all this is going on to the accompaniment of inspired rhetoric and doublespeak, which was brilliantly described by Orwell.

First, how a country treats its citizens is not its "internal business", if the people are treated harsh, it's up to the world community to decide if it should intervene and help them get rid of those who provide such treatment.

Second, what Orwell described was exactly how dictatorial authorities can treat people in their own country. Did he write much about other countries? No. There was only one ministry that was engaged in waging wars - Miniwar, the other 3 - Minitrue, Minilove, and Miniplenty stuck to humiliating their own citizens. In fact, if you're looking for a 1984 prototype, you can go with almost any commie regime, they all fit fine.

And finally, don't you think that common people, like you or those from your environment don't have to be bothered by the things a country may or may not do to some international terrorists? For it can hardly affect you...

Originally Posted by Eric C.

First, how a country treats its citizens is not its "internal business", if the people are treated harsh, it's up to the world community to decide if it should intervene and help them get rid of those who provide such treatment

That's where our opinions differ. I consider such an arrogant desire to shape other countries to one's own standards or liking a source of instability, and generally no more than an excuse for aggression (if it suits one's interests).

Second, what Orwell described was exactly how dictatorial authorities can treat people in their own country. Did he write much about other countries? No

Seriously? Can't you extrapolate? ))) He described a way such a destructive power operates, how it corrupts and brainwashes people (making them believe in "a course" and succumbing to politically correct "truths"), and its consequences. A matter of citizenship is of no import here. The age of globalization has come.

And finally, don't you think that common people, like you or those from your environment don't have to be bothered by the things a country may or may not do to some international terrorists? For it can hardly affect you...

It definitely affects me, because I do not like it when a certain country takes upon itself to judge who's a terrorist and who's not, and what to do about it - without regard to anyone's opinion. If you let it go far enough, who can guarantee that it's not me, who'd be labeled a terrorist next according to some newly invented foreign law?

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

That's where our opinions differ. I consider such an arrogant desire to shape other countries to one's own standards or liking a source of instability, and generally no more than an excuse for aggression (if it suits one's interests).

Seriously? Can't you extrapolate? ))) He described a way such a destructive power operates, how it corrupts and brainwashes people (making them believe in "a course" and succumbing to politically correct "truths"), and its consequences. A matter of citizenship is of no import here. The age of globalization has come.

It definitely affects me, because I do not like it when a certain country takes upon itself to judge who's a terrorist and who's not, and what to do about it - without regard to anyone's opinion. If you let it go far enough, who can guarantee that it's not me, who'd be labeled a terrorist next according to some newly invented foreign law?

What's wrong with breaking down the standards that make people suffer? If they don't want to follow those standards and aren't powerful enough to do away with them on their own, what could you suggest?

So, globalization has come, but you still insist on only obeying laws issued by a certain country? Sounds a bit contradictory, don't you think? And even if so, how come some "newly invented" local laws will be wiser than some "newly invented" foreign laws in distinguishing between a terrorist and a person who just looks like a terrorist or anything?

Originally Posted by Eric C.

So, globalization has come, but you still insist on only obeying laws issued by a certain country? Sounds a bit contradictory, don't you think?

I guess I was not very clear, but don't really see a contradiction. Globalization has come, and you have to tweak some old concepts and situations, depicted in old books, so they could be applied to today's world. But it does not mean that one country law should prevail over everything, when it's not legally stipulated by all the players.

And even if so, how come some "newly invented" local laws will be wiser than some "newly invented" foreign laws in distinguishing between a terrorist and a person who just looks like a terrorist or anything?

First, who'd be a judge of that? Second, it does not matter what's wiser! It's LAW. And, globalization or not, there are still borders and citizens to whom certain laws are applied, and certain laws are not.