Guantanamo conditions 'worsening'

[jpeyton]

BBC News

Conditions for detainees at the US military jail at Guantanamo Bay are deteriorating, with the majority held in solitary confinement, a report says.

Amnesty International said the often harsh and inhumane conditions at the camp were "pushing people to the edge".

It called for the facility to be closed and for plans for "unfair" military commission trials to be abandoned.

Many of the 385 inmates have been held for five years or more, unable to mount a legal challenge to their detention.

"While the United States has an obligation to protect its citizens... that does not relieve the United States from its responsibilities to comply with human rights," the report said.

"Statements by the Bush administration that these men are 'enemy combatants,' 'terrorists' or 'very bad people' do not justify the complete lack of due process rights," the group said.

Amnesty reiterated its call for detainees at the prison camp in Cuba - many of whom are suspected Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters - to be released or charged and sent to trial.

'Already in despair'

The report, published on Thursday, said about 300 detainees are now being held at a new facility - known as Camp 5, Camp 6 and Camp Echo - comparable to "super-max" high security units in the US.

The group said the facility had "created even harsher and apparently more permanent conditions of extreme isolation and sensory deprivation".

It said the detainees were reportedly confined to windowless cells for 22 hours a day, only allowed to exercise at night and could go for days without seeing daylight.

The organisation's UK director, Kate Allen, described the process at Guantanamo as "a travesty of justice".

"With many prisoners already in despair at being held in indefinite detention... some are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown.

"The US authorities should immediately stop pushing people to the edge with extreme isolation techniques and allow proper access for independent medical experts and human rights groups."

'Serving justice'

The provision that stripped detainees of their right to mount a legal challenge to their confinement was upheld by a US federal appeals court in Washington in February.

Pushing the anti-terror legislation through Congress last year, Mr Bush said he needed the new law to bring terror suspects to justice.

It allows for the indefinite detention of people as "enemy combatants".

The US has said it plans to use the military tribunal system to prosecute about 80 of 385 prisoners remaining at the camp.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We only have plans to try 80 of the 385 detainees? Why are the other ones still being held (for fun)? If they did something wrong, try them, if they didn't, release them. Am I missing something? Why destroy the lives of innocent men whom we can't prove did anything wrong (even in a ass-backwards military tribunal of all places)?

No wonder this whole British sailor detainee situation has been such a PR nightmare for Bush/Blair.

Thank goodness Ahmadinejad was a lot more reasonable in his treatment of British detainees. Almost Saint-like in comparison.

 

[Butterbean]

In major cities we have whole areas under gang control and little kids jumping rope get shot when caught in gun battles - and hardly anyone cares. We have 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes (meaning caused by doctors and hospitals) - and hardly anyone cares. We have millions of kids getting abused and degraded at home and in schools and hardly anyone cares. There are thousands being killed in the Sudan and hardly anyone cares. So why do people care about a few hundred creeps in Guantanamo?

The answer is partly because they get to hate Bush and the US. The other part of the answer is because liberals are feminised and they have battered womans syndrome when it comes to real enemies. Libs always compulsively support the criminal and bow down in service to him - and the pervert, the junkie, the abortionist, the foreign dictator, the pimp, the prostitute, the terrorist - even when such people threaten the liberal themselves. It's a neurotic and psychotic mindset.

Libs are so guilt ridden for hating so much (inclusing themselves - but it began with parents generally) that they need to project and transfer their hate toward a safe target (their own countries and leaders) while desperately seeking the appproval of the the really threatening people and seeking to gain a good image of themselves - but its only a false compensatory virtue.

The truth is libs don't care about a few hundred schmucks in Guantanamo. They are secretly thrilled to have something to feel upset about because only by being upset about something can they feel important and virtuous in a compensatory way and give vent to their seething nature. If Bush could be blamed and hated for Sudan we would never hear the end of it and the resort in Cuba would be forgotten. Liberalism is the dark side of the human psyche disguised as light.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
In major cities we have whole areas under gang control and little kids jumping rope get shot when caught in gun battles - and hardly anyone cares. We have 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes (meaning caused by doctors and hospitals) - and hardly anyone cares. We have millions of kids getting abused and degraded at home and in schools and hardly anyone cares. There are thousands being killed in the Sudan and hardly anyone cares.

Likewise, why do Republicans ignore all these issues yet spend $350+ billion (and counting) in a war overseas that has produced nothing but more terrorists and more bodies? $350+ billion would go a long ways towards gang control, poor health care, preventing child abuse, preventing death in Africa, etc.

We liberals attack Guantanamo not because of the body count, but because it shows the chilling nature of our President's policies in action. Detainees are guilty until proven innocent, held indefinitely without trial, and there is no legal ramification for our actions towards them. Bush could literally declare you an enemy combatant, lock you away for a decade, and release you without a single charge. Liberals are attacking the ideologies of the President. While you Republicans literally tie our hands (and the hands of our children) with relentless spending in a bottomless money pit called Iraq.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
In major cities we have whole areas under gang control and little kids jumping rope get shot when caught in gun battles - and hardly anyone cares.

Because it is not true.

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Liberalism is the dark side of the human psyche disguised as light.

Pass that bong over sparky.


The only "guilt" I feel is knowing people from other countries read crap like this and having to admit yes, we have quite a few idiots like you in this country.

 

[chucky2]

If actually true (taking AI reports as 110% accurate is probably not always the best idea0 then I do feel very bad for whatever innocents have been held there...there's really not anyway to make it up to whoever those people are...

...but...

"With many prisoners already in despair at being held in indefinite detention... some are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown

..for the non-innocent, I hope they just get more of the above. Maybe that will crack their redicalism and we can get some actual real info out of them...not sure how much will be good after up to 5 years, but maybe it'll allow us to connect some dots we couldn't before. And if it doesn't get through to them, at least their not out killing more innocents...

It's a war folks, not a party.

Chuck

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: chucky2
If actually true (taking AI reports as 110% accurate is probably not always the best idea0 then I do feel very bad for whatever innocents have been held there...there's really not anyway to make it up to whoever those people are...

...but...

"With many prisoners already in despair at being held in indefinite detention... some are dangerously close to full-blown mental and physical breakdown

..for the non-innocent, I hope they just get more of the above. Maybe that will crack their redicalism and we can get some actual real info out of them...not sure how much will be good after up to 5 years, but maybe it'll allow us to connect some dots we couldn't before. And if it doesn't get through to them, at least their not out killing more innocents...

It's a war folks, not a party.

Chuck

I'm almost 100% sure if they were guilty before, they'll hate the US even more (and have even less of a will to live after being brought to the edge mentally/physically). If they were innocent before, I can't imagine why they wouldn't hate the US wholeheartedly afterwards.

Torture/detention has never been claimed as a tactic for converting enemies.

But again, don't get caught up in the numbers game. 385 detainees is a drop in the bucket and al-Qaeda can't recruit infantry fast enough after we dropped the first bombs in Iraq.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Butterbean
In major cities we have whole areas under gang control and little kids jumping rope get shot when caught in gun battles - and hardly anyone cares.

Because it is not true.

Originally posted by: Butterbean
Liberalism is the dark side of the human psyche disguised as light.

Pass that bong over sparky.


The only "guilt" I feel is knowing people from other countries read crap like this and having to admit yes, we have quite a few idiots like you in this country.

I can see you disagreeing with the liberal coments (although I mostly do not), but where do you live man that you don't see/hear about gangs and the destruction they cause. Next time you're in the Chicago area, why don't you let me know...we'll wait until about midnight and then go a drive through Robbins, Harvey, Englewood, etc. here on the South Side, or maybe Cabrini Greens or Robert Taylor homes areas.

I literallu helped move my cousins cousin out of her appt. in Chicago because enough was enough when some little girl that lived next door got shot and died right there on the corner.

Man.....I can't even believe you say "because it's not true."....that's just like totally unreal to me.

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

I'm almost 100% sure if they were guilty before, they'll hate the US even more (and have even less of a will to live after being brought to the edge mentally/physically). If they were innocent before, I can't imagine why they wouldn't hate the US wholeheartedly afterwards.

Torture/detention has never been claimed as a tactic for converting enemies.

But again, don't get caught up in the numbers game. 385 detainees is a drop in the bucket and al-Qaeda can't recruit infantry fast enough after we dropped the first bombs in Iraq.

Yeah, I pretty much don't care if we lock th guilty ones up and literally throw away the key. People who are willling to kill innocents purely for the sake of killing innocents, just don't deserve to live. People who are engaging US and Iraqi forces in Iraq and/or US forces in Afghanistan I have no compassion for either.

The truly innocents though cought up and detained, I do feel really badly for them. While I'm sure al-Qaeda got a definite bump when we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, it's not like they were lacking in recruitment before.

When you see something bad happening to the West, and whole towns are partying like it's Mardi Gras, you just know that plenty were already signing up before we ever went in.

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: chucky2
People who are engaging US and Iraqi forces in Iraq I have no compassion for either.

So if a foreign power invaded your neighborhood you would just bend over and spread em?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: chucky2
When you see something bad happening to the West, and whole towns are partying like it's Mardi Gras, you just know that plenty were already signing up before we ever went in.

Chuck

According to our own government reports, terrorism was up specifically for the period from March 2003 to the present (which was back in 2006 when it was published). It was down between 9/11 and when the war broke out.

The president himself said he wanted to fight the enemy in their own land. Unfortunately, with the amount of resources it has taken up, the war has only succeeded in increasing the strength of al-Qaeda while tying our hands with regards to doing anything about the organization.

We certainly don't currently have the means or manpower to finish the job in Afghanistan. We're wasting thousands of man hours of intelligence gathering fighting an insurgency that we created while al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups feel less heat worldwide.

War is expensive, time-consuming, and extremely inefficient. Why we stopped short of accomplishing our original post-9/11 goals, I'll never understand.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
"areas under gang control" is just an example of how exaggerated your whole positon was, there is no area under "control" of gangs, if anything gangs have gotten to be less of a problem in the past 2 decades, compton, watts, inglewood in S central LA are a walk in the park compared to mid 90's.

Either you are not old enough to remember, or you don't know the city well enough to know what to expect, either that or your sources are total BS, from seeing the rest of your post sounds like you are just parroting right wing hate-radio, lay off that overhyped stuff, it's total overblown crap for ratings among paranoid white males.

Well Steeplerot, I've lived in the south suburbs of Chicago for the first two thirds of my life. I'll be the first to admit that I didn't live in a ghetto (thank god!), nor did I live in sunny Beverly Hills either. I can tell you that there are very not good parts of the Chicago area, ones you really don't want to be in during the day, and you especially don't want to be in at night - see the aforementioned ones I listed before.

Now, I would have no real way of knowing that LA is just a pristine city now, one where you'd have no problem letting young children stay out late at night and not worry...but if you say so, being you're from CA, I guess I'll believe you.

But.....he didn't say LA, he said Major Cities. Think Philli, Detroit, bad areas of Chicago, the apperantly ex-bad areas of LA, New Orleans, etc. All these are major cities, and all have areas I highly doubt you'd want to be wandering around in at night. And I can tell you right now, there are definite gangs and gang areas in at least the Chicago area....I really doubt we're the only city with that problem.

Chuck, a realist white male.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: chucky2
People who are engaging US and Iraqi forces in Iraq I have no compassion for either.

So if a foreign power invaded your neighborhood you would just bend over and spread em?

If I lived in a gang infested city where the gang/gangs were killing and terrorizing people left and right, and the police showed up specifically to take them out, I'd be pretty estatic. In that contect, if the police came knocking on my door and said they were looking for IED's EFP's, some suspected nut, d@mn straight I'd let them in and let them search. Who wouldn't?


You're saying you'd be p1ssed someone came to do something about the crazy that just killed some of your extended family, or your neighbor?

Chuck

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: chucky2
You're saying you'd be p1ssed someone came to do something about the crazy that just killed some of your extended family, or your neighbor?

Chuck

Saddam killed a lot of dissenters, but that percentage (in comparison to Iraq's population) was VASTLY smaller than the percentage of Iraqis that now suffer from lack of electricity, increases in cost of living, and decreases in public safety. At minimum, 60,000 dead Iraqi civilians in 4 years, and likely more; Saddam never killed that fast.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

According to our own government reports, terrorism was up specifically for the period from March 2003 to the present (which was back in 2006 when it was published). It was down between 9/11 and when the war broke out.

That's not really surprising when you think about it.

The president himself said he wanted to fight the enemy in their own land. Unfortunately, with the amount of resources it has taken up, the war has only succeeded in increasing the strength of al-Qaeda while tying our hands with regards to doing anything about the organization.

How is it tying our hands again, I really don't understand what you're saying here? Because what, we went into Iraq we are not going whole hog in Afghanistan? I get the feeling you don't want us in either countries, so you're saying you'd be fine though if we'd just taken over Afghanistan, but not Iraq? One is better than the other?

We certainly don't currently have the means or manpower to finish the job in Afghanistan. We're wasting thousands of man hours of intelligence gathering fighting an insurgency that we created while al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups feel less heat worldwide.

I'm not sure we really created an insurgency. My view is that by taking out an oppressive dictator, now we're watching groups go at it who couldn't go at it before...and yes, then there's the kill US insurgents too.

War is expensive, time-consuming, and extremely inefficient. Why we stopped short of accomplishing our original post-9/11 goals, I'll never understand.

Our original post-9/11 goals were to find and take the fight to the terrorists, wherever they were. Bush himself said this would be a long hard road, taking 10 year, even longer, that it would not be quick. Had we not gone into Iraq, we'd still be fighting the war on terror most likely. Yes, there'd most likely be lots less military loss of life. But just maybe, maybe, us getting Iraq to stabilize and work out might start something down the road that the folks in the ME haven't ever seen: A true view of the Western world.

Just possibly then maybe people won't allow their children to be brainwashed in finding nirvanna in killing Westeners...and maybe landing up in Gitmo where there aren't lots of virgins running around.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Saddam killed a lot of dissenters, but that percentage (in comparison to Iraq's population) was VASTLY smaller than the percentage of Iraqis that now suffer from lack of electricity, increases in cost of living, and decreases in public safety. At minimum, 60,000 dead Iraqi civilians in 4 years, and likely more; Saddam never killed that fast.

The difference now though is that Iraqi's themselves have the power and opportunity to actually make their country something other than an oppressive dictatorship....whereas before, sure, they were safe...unless maybe one of Saddam's sons was cruising around and decided, Hey, your wife looks like someone I want to bang...maybe after I finish with her, you'll see her again.

The Iraqi's have opportunity right now, whereas before they had oppression.

When a Dem. US president gets elected in '08, and we abandon Iraq, then we'll actually be defeated there. The next time then we ask one of those countries or groups in those countries for help, they'll think, Hmmm, let me see...the US will leave me hanging if it suits them or I become inconvenient...I think I'll just lie and tell them I don't know anything about <xyz> terrorist.

Chuck

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We only have plans to try 80 of the 385 detainees? Why are the other ones still being held (for fun)? If they did something wrong, try them, if they didn't, release them. Am I missing something? Why destroy the lives of innocent men whom we can't prove did anything wrong (even in a ass-backwards military tribunal of all places)?

No wonder this whole British sailor detainee situation has been such a PR nightmare for Bush/Blair.

Thank goodness Ahmadinejad was a lot more reasonable in his treatment of British detainees. Almost Saint-like in comparison.

I suggest once you let them out, you should let them move in with you. See how long they let you live, infidel.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: chucky2


If I lived in a gang infested city where the gang/gangs were killing and terrorizing people left and right, and the police showed up specifically to take them out, I'd be pretty estatic.

How about if those "cops" were military guys from China? Ones who did not have control at all -were not invited, their reason for being there known across the world as being for a lie, and were part of why your neighborhood was a mess.

Reality is the place was not crawling with gangs and so dangerous until the Americans came which is why they want us gone, it is not a war, it is a occupation we are talking about here, our troops are not police.

Message of the Iraqi Resistance to the American People

^ Know your adversary

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
In major cities we have whole areas under gang control and little kids jumping rope get shot when caught in gun battles - and hardly anyone cares. We have 250,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes (meaning caused by doctors and hospitals) - and hardly anyone cares. We have millions of kids getting abused and degraded at home and in schools and hardly anyone cares. There are thousands being killed in the Sudan and hardly anyone cares. So why do people care about a few hundred creeps in Guantanamo?

The answer is partly because they get to hate Bush and the US. The other part of the answer is because liberals are feminised and they have battered womans syndrome when it comes to real enemies. Libs always compulsively support the criminal and bow down in service to him - and the pervert, the junkie, the abortionist, the foreign dictator, the pimp, the prostitute, the terrorist - even when such people threaten the liberal themselves. It's a neurotic and psychotic mindset.

Libs are so guilt ridden for hating so much (inclusing themselves - but it began with parents generally) that they need to project and transfer their hate toward a safe target (their own countries and leaders) while desperately seeking the appproval of the the really threatening people and seeking to gain a good image of themselves - but its only a false compensatory virtue.

The truth is libs don't care about a few hundred schmucks in Guantanamo. They are secretly thrilled to have something to feel upset about because only by being upset about something can they feel important and virtuous in a compensatory way and give vent to their seething nature. If Bush could be blamed and hated for Sudan we would never hear the end of it and the resort in Cuba would be forgotten. Liberalism is the dark side of the human psyche disguised as light.

There is nothing more sad than an amateur psychologist...except perhaps an amateur right-wing psychologist. And people say LIBERALS are the elitists!

And just in case you were wondering about who has the neurotic mindset, I'm pretty sure you were the one who just implied that feminine attributes are the same thing as battered woman's syndrome. That's not what I would call a real healthy attitude about the opposite sex there, Jethro.

 

[chucky2]

No Rainsford, he said liberals are femanized (that I don't really agree with, although I would say it's less prevalent in conservatives), and that they have battered womans syndrome when it comes to real enemies (that I would tend to agree with).

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: chucky2


If I lived in a gang infested city where the gang/gangs were killing and terrorizing people left and right, and the police showed up specifically to take them out, I'd be pretty estatic.

How about if those "cops" were military guys from China? Ones who did not have control at all -were not invited, their reason for being there known across the world as being for a lie, and were part of why your neighborhood was a mess.

Reality is the place was not crawling with gangs and so dangerous until the Americans came which is why they want us gone, it is not a war, it is a occupation we are talking about here, our troops are not police.

Message of the Iraqi Resistance to the American People

^ Know your adversary

THanks for that video! It's like better than any other link I could hope to post on exactly why we need to get a country - any country - over there to really see the true Western world and stop being so brainwashed as to actually believe things like the narrator in the video.

That video was so totally warped, so totally touch point, it'd be the equivalent of someone making a video of the Hindenburg burning up and saying, Hydrogen producers of the world, stop your production, look what your actions have caused!

I especially like the bring us together moment at the end of the video, really brings in the on the fence Libs I'm sure...

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: chucky2
exactly why we need to get a country - any country - over there to really see the true Western world and stop being so brainwashed as to actually believe things like the narrator in the video.

You cannot force cultural changes, imperialism fails every empire.

We should be a leader by example, not a corrupting force in making more extremism.

 

[chucky2]

We led by example and that got us 9/11 out of the blue. Granted, we've done meddling in the ME, but we don't fly on over and kill 3000 of their civs.

And I'm not wanting us to force ourselves on them. I'm wanting Iraqi's to have a - and more importantly take the - chance at actually having a society not run by a madman or a mullah. One which free media is possible so eventually, after years most likely, their young adults and their children actually start realizing the West isn't so F'd up as they were led to believe. So that way when the radical nut jobs start calling for their children to come blow themselves up, their like, What is up with these wackos...instead of Yeah, Death to The Great Satan! It's an honor to die!

Of course, that means radical leaders, radical religious figures, and all around tyrants will be against wanting that to happen...as they lose out and lose power/control.

Hmmmm....who do we think keeps stirring things up in Iraq again?

Chuck

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2
No Rainsford, he said liberals are femanized (that I don't really agree with, although I would say it's less prevalent in conservatives), and that they have battered womans syndrome when it comes to real enemies (that I would tend to agree with).

Chuck

Bullshit. Even if I had been living a cave and wasn't aware that the right treats "feminine" like the worst possible trait a person (male or female) can have like it's 1860 or something, only a functional illiterate constructs a sentence like he did and doesn't mean what I said he meant. Conservative speech is filled with "liberals are feminine" kinds of phrases, and the only reason that works is because of how the target audience (other conservatives) views women in the first place.

I think it's a stupid ass debate, but I suppose that's what you get when you involve folks like you and Butterbean in it...garbage in, garbage out. But what really concerns me isn't how you perceive weakness in dealing with "real enemies", it's how you perceive strength. In your worldview, the important thing isn't to HAVE a strong response, it's to have the IMAGE of strength...in other words, a real fight against a real enemy is all about political theater, the conflict will presumably take care of itself. So you support nonsensical ideas because that's what Real Men do, while things that actually might help are rejected out of hand because they don't convey the appropriate levels of manliness. That's why you guys almost always support torturing and imprisoning random guys without actually bothering to try them to find out if they might be actual bad guys, yet you make very little noise about actually dealing with the repressive regimes that create the actual terrorists in the first place...perhaps because you appreciate how countries like Saudi Arabia treat women. Who knows, whatever the case, it seems a lot like the global war on terror is less about, you know, fighting terrorism and more about a chance for conservatives to (a little defensively, if you ask me) prove to the rest of us how manly you all are.

As for which side is more "feminine", I couldn't really say. On the other hand, I have my doubts that manliness is really the pickup truck commercial you righties seem to think it is...and you'd seem a lot more secure in your manhood if you didn't go around talking about it all the time. Like the saying goes, the guy who goes around calling everyone else gay is probably in the closet himself.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2
We led by example and that got us 9/11 out of the blue. Granted, we've done meddling in the ME, but we don't fly on over and kill 3000 of their civs.

Yeah, I'm no math professor, but I'm pretty sure we've killed WAY more civilians than that in Iraq so far...and they didn't even have anything to do with 9/11. Obviously our intention wasn't the same, but I'm not sure how much better that makes their families feel.

And I'm not wanting us to force ourselves on them. I'm wanting Iraqi's to have a - and more importantly take the - chance at actually having a society not run by a madman or a mullah. One which free media is possible so eventually, after years most likely, their young adults and their children actually start realizing the West isn't so F'd up as they were led to believe. So that way when the radical nut jobs start calling for their children to come blow themselves up, their like, What is up with these wackos...instead of Yeah, Death to The Great Satan! It's an honor to die!

Of course, that means radical leaders, radical religious figures, and all around tyrants will be against wanting that to happen...as they lose out and lose power/control.

Hmmmm....who do we think keeps stirring things up in Iraq again?

Chuck

I would like nothing more than for the Iraqis to embrace American style democracy (or maybe even do us one better), but you absolutely cannot make someone believe in the power of democracy by invading their country and forcing them to take the democratic path. By definition that won't work, especially when we're the "enemy" they are so convinced is out to get them. Whether or not they're right is irrelevant...from their point of view the evil Westerners just decimated their country and told them it's now time for the type of government WE want you to have. The only amazing part is that any of them at all are going along with it.

Gunboat democracy doesn't work any better than gunboat diplomacy...quite a bit worse actually.