It's called "torture" Mr. Bush by Ghoulman

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
...you are being a hypocrite by doing so.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrite

hypocrite
n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold

Since you say you don't think that people should have political discussions on this board (follow the link I provided above for your post that says this), yet do so, you have professed a belief (or opinion) that you clearly contradict by posting to this thread. Therefore you are a hypocrite. That is unless you don't think that you yourself are bound by your own statements.

So, you will have to explain further if you still don't think I know what the word means.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:02 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

SigmaNunki: [bold]You must think I'm stupid.[/bold]
AURaptor: [bold]In every way possible.[/bold]

I realize in some contorted way you really wish there was some hypocricy here on my part, but there just isn't.

I didn't stat the thread. Never suggested you said I did, but it's a matter of fact that bears repeating. I didn't start it, thus it came about w/ out MY input.

Take all my comments out, the thread STILL exists. Are you following me? So far, that's me no start, me no maintain....

Me wishing it wouldn't be here doesn't make it so. I happen to agree the sentiment that political chats should not infiltrate this board. Since said threads are already here, you can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless I started a thread or kept reposting answers over and over and over while no one else did. This is the last time I answer you on this. ( Re-read this post slowly, or have it read TO you, if that's what it takes for you to GET what I'm saying.)

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:19 PM

Some news articles for those who care to look more into it. I admit I'm only scratching the surface here. Googled it all.

I'm particularly upset at the idea that this has probably been known about for some time, but only now been made public. If Rumsfeld knew about it and kept mum then he should be fired. If the President knew about it and did nothing then he should be impeached. That's just my opinion.

Article about a Spain Bombing arrest, YES it's about an american arrested in possible connection but he wasn't a mercenary:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-05-06-spain-arrest_x.htm

Investigation of the death of a prisoner at Abu Ghurayb - not for the squeamish:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Iraq_abuse_death_040507-1.htm
l

International Red Cross had already warned the US Govt of possible incidences of prisoner torture and mistreatment:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20040507_449.html

More details on the alleged torture and abuse (not just Abu Ghurayb) including some quotes from Brig. Gen Karpinski and talk of possible CIA involvement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4881156/

BBC article (mention of the 2003 ICRC report which was leaked to the Wall Street Journal):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3692507.stm

Again some corroborating info on the fact that the Red Cross told Washington about this back in 2003:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-06-rumsfeld-usat_x.htm

Bush admitted he knew about this back in January and Congress wasn't informed??? http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1210520,00.html

My disgust continues.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:43 PM

Is AURaptor is rabid Republican who would defend Bush to his dying breath? Yes.

Is Bush a fascist idiot about 1 goose step away from Hitler? Maybe.

But AURaptor does have a point, the "atrocities" are blown out of proportion by a sensationalist media, and are the actions of a few sick soldiers. They are not a commentary on the American people (although it IS a commentary on us all as human beings in general) or on the Bush administration.

The media is blowing it out of proportion, not because the media is a left-wing propaganda machine as AURaptor and other defensive Bushists (just made that word up, I kinda like it

) like to believe, they do it because sensationalism sells papers. The press routinely crucifies people in order to sell more papers and make more money. The media in general are all no better than the sleazy rag mags you pass in the supermarket lineups. They would just as quickly skewer a left-winger if they could sell a couple more copies of their sensationalist, scandal-mongering crap.

As for the CIA guys not having to follow the rules, that is kinda what you guys hired them for (yes, I'm not American, I'm American Lite (Canadian)). The CIA's job is to fight the dirty hidden wars against dirty people who don't follow the rules, they can't fight with their hands tied. In any fight you have to play by the same rules as your opponent or you lose. Terrorists and extremists don't follow the Geneva Conventions, or any other set of rules, so if you want the CIA to be able to do it's job (and you love to bitch when they don't) you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too. It's an ugly truth, but then it's an ugly world and we are an ugly species.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
SigmaNunki: [bold]You must think I'm stupid.[/bold]
AURaptor: [bold]In every way possible.[/bold]

I realize in some contorted way you really wish there was some hypocricy here on my part, but there just isn't.

I didn't stat the thread. Never suggested you said I did, but it's a matter of fact that bears repeating. I didn't start it, thus it came about w/ out MY input.

Take all my comments out, the thread STILL exists. Are you following me? So far, that's me no start, me no maintain....

Me wishing it wouldn't be here doesn't make it so. I happen to agree the sentiment that political chats should not infiltrate this board. Since said threads are already here, you can't accuse me of being a hypocrite unless I started a thread or kept reposting answers over and over and over while no one else did. This is the last time I answer you on this. ( Re-read this post slowly, or have it read TO you, if that's what it takes for you to GET what I'm saying.)

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

What because you didn't start the thread you aren't a hypocrite? The logical train of thought states that Of course you are. You only need participate to be one.

You also clearly have some sort of problem with people that hold a different view as you - insulting as you were. Perhaps it is best if you steered clear of these threads because participating in them seems to make you see red.

And also, if you reply to me again, lets try to keep it civil. The tone of your last post was everything but.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
...you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too.

This one sings a world of truth, I'll trust that you can get what I mean here.

Quote:
Originally posted by WEERWOLF:
"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Maugwai:

Your post had a couple of interesting points. The first is the use of "science" and "research". What you call "research", scientists call a "literature search". What you call science, we call "research". Not important, just interesting that two endeavors would use the word "research" in such different ways.

The second point- bias- actually gets a lot of discussion in science. Some bias, such as pharmas burying 19 out of 20 contracted studies, is an obvious perversion of science, just as it would be an obvious perversion of journalism.

The OTHER kind of bias- unconscious bias- is actually more interesting. It can be anything from unconsciously selecting data to failing to see the OBVIOUS patterns because of pre-conceived notions, For example, for years mathematicians believed that you could only form so many patterns from four colors, until a housewife from San Diego starting tiling her kitchen... This crosses over with philosophy.

If you want to read a very good book on assumptions and how they color our thinking, get "Man Against Myth" by Dr. Barrows Dunham, philosophy- Princeton, Temple.

If you want to read a great book on unconscious bias in science, read "The Mismeasure of Man" by Dr Stephen J Gould, paleontologist Harvard.

There is another good book that proposes a very unusual theory of human evolution called "Descent of Woman" by Elaine Morgan who is, I believe, a journalist in Britain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
...you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too.

This one sings a world of truth, I'll trust that you can get what I mean here.

Quote:
Originally posted by WEERWOLF:
"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

High and mighty ideals are all fine and good to aspire to but as Mal and the crew demonstrate on a daily basis you do what you need to survive and when you have the luxury of a choice you try to do what's right. If setting up an agency to fight dirty, both so we don't have to and so we can survive, is the price we have to pay, I say go for it. Sitting back and saying we are better than this while our people are being slaughtered and whole nations live in starvation, ignorance and oppression, just so we can say we didn't do anything wrong is actually saying we didn't do anything and that is wrong. Fight long, fight hard, fight dirty when you have to (and Mal is certainly not above fighting dirty), but fight. In a perfect world you can afford to say things are black and white, but we live in a world of greys. Having one agency who works outside the rules to protect us against hundreds of groups that have no rules is a necessary evil and one I have no problem living with.

I should also point out what the soldiers did was just sick pranks and needless torture. The CIA were there to find information and were not just randomly torturing and humiliating prisoners for their amusement. They do a horrible job that nobody wants and nobody thanks them for so we can be safe, yes it means people get hurt, but hey war is hell and life isn't fair.

Oh, and BTW, if Bush knew about what the soldiers were doing and did nothing about it (which he probably did since he knew there were no WMDs and still invaded) then he's a scumbag and deserves to be impeached (although it will never happen, you get as much justice as you can afford and he can afford plenty).

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:15 PM

PERSEPHONE

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:

". . . it's an ugly world and we are an ugly species."

Aint we just.

Sometimes you've just got to ask yourself this simple question: W.W.M.D.?
What Would Mal Do?

"It's just an object. It's not what you think."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 10:35 PM

WEERWOLF

To Auraptor:

The threat with torture is still torture. I don't know the picture itself, so I don't know if the prisoner was blindfolded, but if he was, there was no way of knowing for him that the wires weren't connected. Even if he wasn't blindfolded, the wires might be connected at any time.

For all he knew then, his torturers might turn on the juice any moment. If these are standard, approved interogation techniques in the US, I hope they get applied to you when you get pulled over by cops when they suspect you of participating in terrorism. Of course you'll get an apology later, upstanding citizen that you are. All in the good cause for protecting US civilians, you know.

Hey, wait a minute... That would be you...

And you keep talking about this "war" thing going on in Iraq, but... I thought the war had been declared as being over? Iraqi government surrendered, Saddam in custody? The foreign nationals, soldiers and otherwise, are there to stabilise the country and allow for democratic elections. No war. Bush's point of view, as well as mine and probably of every other western government. See, the Dutch didn't went to fight the war, our government said no, but there's 1200 of our soldiers there now to help stabilise the country. They wouldn't be there if there would still be a war.

I'm not saying that for those there that the fighting has stopped, it hasn't. The Iraqis blowing up cars and planting bombs and such don't believe the war is over, they're fighting in the only way left to them to get their country back, which is a guerilla war. Their point of view. Not all Iraqis point of view. Yet.

But if you want more danger to foreigners in Iraq, more people taking up arms against the foreign occupation of Iraq, by all means, go at those prisoners with the (threat of the) cattleprod to find out where the next bomb is going to be planted. Your chances of finding the bombs will improve exponentionally since there will be more and more and more of them every time you 'interrogate' prisoners like this.

"We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill. We come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, ma'am!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:05 PM

WEERWOLF

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
...you need to realize they need to play outside the rules too.

This one sings a world of truth, I'll trust that you can get what I mean here.

Quote:
Originally posted by WEERWOLF:
"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

High and mighty ideals are all fine and good to aspire to but as Mal and the crew demonstrate on a daily basis you do what you need to survive and when you have the luxury of a choice you try to do what's right. If setting up an agency to fight dirty, both so we don't have to and so we can survive, is the price we have to pay, I say go for it. Sitting back and saying we are better than this while our people are being slaughtered and whole nations live in starvation, ignorance and oppression, just so we can say we didn't do anything wrong is actually saying we didn't do anything and that is wrong. Fight long, fight hard, fight dirty when you have to (and Mal is certainly not above fighting dirty), but fight. In a perfect world you can afford to say things are black and white, but we live in a world of greys. Having one agency who works outside the rules to protect us against hundreds of groups that have no rules is a necessary evil and one I have no problem living with.

I should also point out what the soldiers did was just sick pranks and needless torture. The CIA were there to find information and were not just randomly torturing and humiliating prisoners for their amusement. They do a horrible job that nobody wants and nobody thanks them for so we can be safe, yes it means people get hurt, but hey war is hell and life isn't fair.

Oh, and BTW, if Bush knew about what the soldiers were doing and did nothing about it (which he probably did since he knew there were no WMDs and still invaded) then he's a scumbag and deserves to be impeached (although it will never happen, you get as much justice as you can afford and he can afford plenty).

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

I acknowledge the fact that the CIA and its counterparts all over the world need to fight dirty, but I don't think they'd make pictures of it and allow them to get published... I thought they'd be too secretive for that. Although I wish from the bottom of my pacifist heart it wouldn't be necessary, I do acknowledge the fact that there are wackos out there who don't think like me, and I greatly appreciate the effort people make to protect my freedom.

I quoted Book from "Bushwacked" because my impression of the pictures of torture was, that the prisoners involved were regular prisoners, and that the soldiers torturing them were not CIA operatives but soldiers assigned to guard duty until either the prisoners could be released or tried for crimes. As far as I know, there's still trials before punishment, and I didn't know torture was considered apt punishment under any western law, be they local or international.

I do strongly believe that in situations where you as a person have the upper hand on someone else, you have no choice other than to treat him decently. You won. He knows. Period. Torturing him will give him all the more reasons to try and kill you when he gets the chance.

Using your opponent's hideous crimes as a justification to stoop a few levels down and do hideous things yourself is immoral and goes against western lawmaking. Lynching was banned too.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

Think it was Ghandi.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
High and mighty ideals are all fine and good to aspire to but as Mal and the crew demonstrate on a daily basis you do what you need to survive and when you have the luxury of a choice you try to do what's right.

This is not a matter of survival for the USA and we do have the luxury of other choices. Remember, WE invaded THEM, not the other way around! Mal, as I recall, never invaded a naiton.

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

By now, I'm sure that you've heard that there are videotapes and "thousands" more photos, some apparently worse than what we've already seen, and the question is whether this was done as a matter of policy or whether this was just a few overzealous/ badly trained guards.

We've been raced from one news item to the next, so I think it's time for a little breather and a look at the bigger picture.

Since his appointment to Defense, Rumsfeld has had an unusual bent. His mantra has been "speed and flexibility" not massed force. Some people have interpreted this as a "Special Ops" fixation and indeed our Special Ops forces are stretched very thin. But overall, I think he has a "mercenary army" fixation, since mercs make up the third largest force in Iraq, and our regular troops are poorly supported.

He has resisted having the Red Cross inspect any of our prisons. Gitmo was set up ESPECIALLY to evade the Geneva Convention, and it took some looking to find an area that was under US control but not on US soil. (The alternative was a prison ship at sea.) Most of the prisoners at Gitmo have never even been charged.

In fact, if you look at the Patriot Act, it's possible even for American citizens to wind up at Gitmo as "detainees" on ACCUSATION. All thegovernment has to do is make it a nefarious enough accusation- being a terrorist- and you get yanked off to Gitmo as an "enemy combatant" without the possibility of even having charges filed, much less getting a judicial review.

By now, you should be sensing a pattern of evasion of both the US Constitution and international law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by weerwolf:
I acknowledge the fact that the CIA and its counterparts all over the world need to fight dirty, but I don't think they'd make pictures of it and allow them to get published... I thought they'd be too secretive for that. Although I wish from the bottom of my pacifist heart it wouldn't be necessary, I do acknowledge the fact that there are wackos out there who don't think like me, and I greatly appreciate the effort people make to protect my freedom.

I quoted Book from "Bushwacked" because my impression of the pictures of torture was, that the prisoners involved were regular prisoners, and that the soldiers torturing them were not CIA operatives but soldiers assigned to guard duty until either the prisoners could be released or tried for crimes. As far as I know, there's still trials before punishment, and I didn't know torture was considered apt punishment under any western law, be they local or international.

I do strongly believe that in situations where you as a person have the upper hand on someone else, you have no choice other than to treat him decently. You won. He knows. Period. Torturing him will give him all the more reasons to try and kill you when he gets the chance.

Using your opponent's hideous crimes as a justification to stoop a few levels down and do hideous things yourself is immoral and goes against western lawmaking. Lynching was banned too.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."

Think it was Ghandi.

You missed my point, what the soldiers did was wrong, flat out. The CIA didn't take pictures of naked people, they interrogated prisoners for information, not amusement. The pictures are the soldiers being sickos. If the CIA had prevented another 9/11 with those interrogations it would have been more than worth it.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
High and mighty ideals are all fine and good to aspire to but as Mal and the crew demonstrate on a daily basis you do what you need to survive and when you have the luxury of a choice you try to do what's right.

This is not a matter of survival for the USA and we do have the luxury of other choices. Remember, WE invaded THEM, not the other way around! Mal, as I recall, never invaded a naiton.

We have a choice because of people like the CIA. The CIA doesn't have a choice, they have to fight dirty so that we don't have to. There is a fight for survival, the war on terrorism is far from over. The interrogations by the CIA were to find terrorists and stop more terrorist attacks. I'm not talking about the Iraq invasion or the military, I'm only referring to the actions of the CIA (who, BTW, told Bush there were no WMDs and therefore no reason to invade). Bush's invasion was his own doing, he lied to get in there and doesn't care about the Iraqi people, just their oil...and of course nailing the guy that embarassed his daddy so much was a bonus too

. The CIA are in Iraq (and everywhere else) waging the neverending secret war that needs to be fought, they should not be lumped in with the sick bastards that took pleasure in torturing and humiliating prisoners for fun and took pictures. I'm not slamming the military as a whole, we all know and love Static and the other fighting men and women who have carried themselves with bravery and honour, the people who did these things for their own sick amusement don't deserve to wear a uniform...well maybe a Nazi one...

Quote:

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

By now, I'm sure that you've heard that there are videotapes and "thousands" more photos, some apparently worse than what we've already seen, and the question is whether this was done as a matter of policy or whether this was just a few overzealous/ badly trained guards.

We've been raced from one news item to the next, so I think it's time for a little breather and a look at the bigger picture.

Since his appointment to Defense, Rumsfeld has had an unusual bent. His mantra has been "speed and flexibility" not massed force. Some people have interpreted this as a "Special Ops" fixation and indeed our Special Ops forces are stretched very thin. But overall, I think he has a "mercenary army" fixation, since mercs make up the third largest force in Iraq, and our regular troops are poorly supported.

He has resisted having the Red Cross inspect any of our prisons. Gitmo was set up ESPECIALLY to evade the Geneva Convention, and it took some looking to find an area that was under US control but not on US soil. (The alternative was a prison ship at sea.) Most of the prisoners at Gitmo have never even been charged.

In fact, if you look at the Patriot Act, it's possible even for American citizens to wind up at Gitmo as "detainees" on ACCUSATION. All thegovernment has to do is make it a nefarious enough accusation- being a terrorist- and you get yanked off to Gitmo as an "enemy combatant" without the possibility of even having charges filed, much less getting a judicial review.

By now, you should be sensing a pattern of evasion of both the US Constitution and international law.

Hence my comment about Bush being a fascist idiot about 1 goose step away from Hitler.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:28 AM

SERGEANTX

I could't bare to read this entire thread, but the 'hazing' comments were just a little too much to take.

I'm not disputing the similarities between hazing ceremonies and what we saw in those pictures. And its no surprise that the fraternities that engage in them produce the kind of sick bastards we have running our government. Its still just as wrong and it sickens me to think of the way our leaders are acting on our behalf.

The most disturbing thing that's come out of this is Rumsfeld's admission during his Senate testimony that the conditions of a prisoners internment were known to have an affect on their willingness to cooperate during interrogation. That tells me this is likely NOT just an aberration of a few misguided soldiers but a practice deliberately promoted by the military or requested by the hired interrogators'.

EDIT: I'm no fan of the democratic party and the thought of voting for Kerry is rather irksome, but not nearly so disturbing as the thought of the neocons running rampant on a second term without the restraint of a pending election and without the moderation of Colin Powell.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:39 AM

SKYDANCE

I'm not a fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him, and hope he doesn't get re-elected.

However, I come here to talk about Firefly, and perhaps related topics (such as fiction, science, and tv/movies). Political discussions are just spam.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 6:27 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Skydance:
I'm not a fan of Bush. I didn't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him, and hope he doesn't get re-elected.

However, I come here to talk about Firefly, and perhaps related topics (such as fiction, science, and tv/movies). Political discussions are just spam.

I don't mind as long as they are clearly labled as such. It's a pretty easy thing to just not click on the political threads.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skydance:
Political discussions are just spam.

No, posts telling people what they can or can't talk about are spam. If you don't like a thread don't read it, but don't impose your censorship on others.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 7:42 AM

LEMAT

Ghoulman,

For what it's worth, I have alot of work to do and cannot read the entire thread...yet. I should be joining y'all directly. But I promised NXTBrowncoat--the guy who authored the "enough of this political crap" thread--that I would do this.

(On Soapbox)

I respectfully request that you post any and all future political threads in Talk Story. Thank you.

Most humbly and respectfully,

Jon

(Off Soapbox)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
High and mighty ideals are all fine and good to aspire to but as Mal and the crew demonstrate on a daily basis you do what you need to survive and when you have the luxury of a choice you try to do what's right.

Your fallacy here is that the US doesn't have the luxury of choice. They are the ones that have billions to invest in this with hundreds of thousands of troops. So, yes, they do have the responsibility of standing on high moral ground. Did they do that lately, No. Well, at least a few of them didn't.

If anything I wouldn't be surprised if the militants did these things, as to say that they are the underdog here is an understatement. But, wait a minute... They didn't. Well, not yet. With this happening to Iraqis what'll happen to the kidnapped now?

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
Sitting back and saying we are better than this while our people are being slaughtered and whole nations live in starvation, ignorance and oppression, just so we can say we didn't do anything wrong is actually saying we didn't do anything and that is wrong.

Wrong. If anything the US is slaughtering the Iraqis. How many civilian casualties again? Anyone? But right now we don't want to talk about that do we. Too much poor Iraqis for you, eh? Of course, it's all in the name of freedom and that justifies anything, right?

I'll reference the time when a crowd was throwing rocks at a US post, someone in the crowd fired and the US opened up into the crowd and the US defended this act. For those that are interested in a live interview that references this event see CBC Sunday's Deadline Iraq.

And this wasn't an isolated incident. These soldiers are so stressed out there trigger fingers will pull that trigger at anything. Perhaps the US should be humane to those troops and start rotating them out. Oh wait, they don't have enough to do that without the possibility of a draft.

And why would you reference other countries, we are talking about Iraq here. That is unless you are talking about how the US liberated Iraq of there water, electricity, oil, etc. By the way, that is from the mouths of Iraqis, again see Deadline Iraq.

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
In a perfect world you can afford to say things are black and white, but we live in a world of greys.

Never said it was black and white. I'm just saying that when someone has definitively the upper hand then they have the moral, ethical responsibility to behave properly. Otherwise you become what you fight against.

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
I should also point out what the soldiers did was just sick pranks and needless torture.
...
Oh, and BTW, if Bush knew about what the soldiers were doing and did nothing about it (which he probably did since he knew there were no WMDs and still invaded) then he's a scumbag and deserves to be impeached (although it will never happen, you get as much justice as you can afford and he can afford plenty).

At least we agree on something

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
The CIA were there to find information and were not just randomly torturing and humiliating prisoners for their amusement. They do a horrible job that nobody wants and nobody thanks them for so we can be safe, yes it means people get hurt, but hey war is hell and life isn't fair.

War's over. And no life isn't fair, that's evident by the way the Iraqis are being treated.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:02 PM

You're missing my point, I don't support the invasion of Iraq so Bush could make daddy and the oil barons happy. When I said there wasn't a luxury of choice and that we are at war I wasn't referring to the Iraq invasion I was referring to the war on terrorism, which is far from over. The invasion of Iraq was Bush being a militant dick. The CIA interrogating prisoners (in any country) is what they do, year in, year out, non-stop because they have to. I don't think Bush was in the right ordering the attack on Iraq. Yes, the US, in this case, had the luxury of choice and Bush made the wrong one. My arguments about lack of choice, and the need to fight dirty, outside the rules, was for the CIA only, not the military occupation.

Yes, those soldiers that tortured the prisoners for fun are sick bastards.

Yes, Bush is a dick.

Yes, the Iraq invasion was wrong.

No, what the CIA did was not wrong and their war is a dark horrible one that never ends. Their job is the toughest and they should never be lumped in with Bush (they told him not to invade) or the sick bastards in those pictures (they do what they have to to fight terrorism and espionage).

The idea that if the CIA played nice the rest of the world would do the same or go easy on them is naive.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:37 PM

"Perhaps you were too busy slurping up all of Bush's lies"

Not convinced there were lies. The only slurping I do is on pistachio ice cream.

The fact is, I'm not convinced that Al Qaida hasn't always been in Iraq. Hey we found some of the WMD Bush said were there. Al Qaida is fighting us in Iraq.. and it's only a matter of time until I believe Bush will be vindicated about other things too..

It won't make any difference to liberals of course; they blame Bush for anything imagined or real whether it's his fault or not.. in fact, particularly if it's not his fault he gets blamed. I'm waiting for someone to blame Bush for the cancellation of the Friends TV show next.
We'll also hear how Bush attached missiles to the Titanic, to princess Di's car, and was responsible for Martha Stewart's impropriety.

I'm so bored of the "Bush lied" tired rhetoric.. time to get a new talking point from the DNC, the Oil for Food scandaliers, Ross Perot, or who ever liberals hit up for those things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:44 PM

Sorry but since when were some WMD's that Bush said were there found? Did I miss that memo or news bulletin?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 7:08 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Additional Protocol I, Article 75 of the Geneva Conventions, “murder; torture of all kinds, whether physical OR MENTAL; CORPORAL PUNISHMENT; and mutilation … are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by CIVILIAN or by military agents.” Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states: “NO PHYSICAL OR MORAL COERCION shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.”

Idi Amin once told prisoners he would release them if they did things that met his approval - and they did their very best to guess what it was and fulfill it... (This is not nearly as graphic as it could have been, I'm including it to make this point -) Without laying a finger on them, he tortured them.

The US has an official 'stress and duress' ('torture lite') policy that breaches the Convention. What happened in Iraq is not an aberration - it's policy.

There are thousands more photos reported, including ones of those who died during interrogation, were beaten for hours etc. And the soldiers already memorialized that they were acting at the behest of interrogators.
Once this is public, what will become of the rationalizations? It's not just humiliation and hazing, it's not just a few rogues, and it's not acceptable under international law.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 8, 2004 10:11 PM

WEERWOLF

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:

"Perhaps you were too busy slurping up all of Bush's lies"

Not convinced there were lies. The only slurping I do is on pistachio ice cream.

The fact is, I'm not convinced that Al Qaida hasn't always been in Iraq. Hey we found some of the WMD Bush said were there. Al Qaida is fighting us in Iraq.. and it's only a matter of time until I believe Bush will be vindicated about other things too..

It won't make any difference to liberals of course; they blame Bush for anything imagined or real whether it's his fault or not.. in fact, particularly if it's not his fault he gets blamed. I'm waiting for someone to blame Bush for the cancellation of the Friends TV show next.
We'll also hear how Bush attached missiles to the Titanic, to princess Di's car, and was responsible for Martha Stewart's impropriety.

I'm so bored of the "Bush lied" tired rhetoric.. time to get a new talking point from the DNC, the Oil for Food scandaliers, Ross Perot, or who ever liberals hit up for those things.

Oh, there were some WMD found, now? Funny, haven't heard about it meself. And here I thought they got al used up by Ali Chemicali on the Kurds...

You wanna know why some people in the US governement were so convinced there were WsMD in Iraq? Because previous administrations had supplied them to Saddam in order to remain a threat to Sovjet-sponsered Iran.

Remember the Cold War? Apart from thousands of dead Kurds decomposing in the streets of their villages there's also an image in my head of then-President Reagan wrapping his arm around a Taliban fighter and saying "This is not a rebel. This is a freedom fighter." See how nice the Taliban were in the eighties? The US governement supplied them weapons of all sorts too. Now they're the bad guys because they force women to dress up in burkas, men to grow beards, hide Osama bin-Laden, and they burn cassette tapes too. Some freedom fighters they turned out to be.

But always better of course than to have Sovjets in Afghanistan, the medival dustbowl of the world. Of course. No consideration on whether the natives in Afghanistan might have prefered the Sovjets over the Taliban... The safety of the US was at stake back there! (that's sarcasm).

I think some people in the US government couldn't believe Saddam would be stupid enough to have used all the WsMD. Or sell them off to as yet undescribed third buyers (for my own safety, I certainly hope they all got used up instead of sold off). And that's why they kept yelling that there where WsMD in Iraq. This whole Afghanistan/Iraq thing is the US past coming back to bite the current administration in the butt.

Also agree with FlyingFree that Bush should have had the intelligence to listen to the CIA. It's what they're there for. A bit stupid to pay people to figure out where the threats to your nation are and then overruling their reports because some of your daddy's old war buddies remembered that the Reagan administration had sold a shitload of cannisters with chemicals to Saddam.

"I realise certain words were exchanged, also certain bullets."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 4:54 AM

enough VX to kill 80000 was discovered coming out of Iraq by way of Syria. And that's not all over the year there have been plenty of instances of WMD capture that showed not only the presence but proved the continued will to develop them by Saddam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:04 AM

"You wanna know why some people in the US governement were so convinced there were WsMD in Iraq? Because previous administrations had supplied them to Saddam in order to remain a threat to Sovjet-sponsered Iran."

This is a bold faced untruth. There were some weapons given to Saddam but not the chemical weapons in your inferance. Those were devloped by Saddam based on a small medical sample give for medical research only.

The main reason most of us believed the weapons were still there is because UN inspectors documented their existance in the 90's and Saddam refused to show that he'd destroyed them, even in his 1000 page diversion. It was obvious he was still hiding something.

It would have been easy to say, "this is where the chemicals were destroyed". I statement that could be verified after the fact with test equipment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 7:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
...
My arguments about lack of choice, and the need to fight dirty, outside the rules, was for the CIA only, not the military occupation.

...

No, what the CIA did was not wrong and their war is a dark horrible one that never ends. Their job is the toughest and they should never be lumped in with Bush (they told him not to invade) or the sick bastards in those pictures (they do what they have to to fight terrorism and espionage).

The idea that if the CIA played nice the rest of the world would do the same or go easy on them is naive.

I think it has become clear that we are talking about different things and agree on the issues that the thread is primarily about.

Now onto your CIA specific stuff.

I have no issues with intelligence gathering or counter intelligence or counter espionage as long as it's within the "rules" of morality.

For instance, if the CIA basically tortured someone for information that wasn't really important then they are no better than terrorists and should be punished accordingly.

But, if that person was known to have or was known to have knowledge that would lead to finding out were a nuclear device in a city that would save 10's of thousands (or millions) of people, go for it. It's a matter of the greater good.

And this war on terror will never be over. It's going to be up to us to figure out a civil way to do it without all of this big brother crap that the US wants the rest of the world to buy into (and we aren't thank god!). ie biometrics. Hey people it doesn't work 1/3 of the time. That doesn't exactly spell confidence to me. So, I'd like it not in my passport thank you very much.

I think we should look at some countries that have been dealing with this sort of thing for years if not decades. I think we can look at pretty much any country in the EU right now and learn a lot. Germany for instance still has extremely strict privacy laws and yet has been known to help the US by intelligence sharing in the war on terror.

I'm just saying that we should be reasonable about these things instead of going off half-cocked and making laws that we'll regret later (ie in the US the patriot act *shiver*).

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 8:36 AM

COWARD

Quote:
This is a bold faced untruth. There were some weapons given to Saddam but not the chemical weapons in your inferance. Those were devloped by Saddam based on a small medical sample give for medical research only.

I am sure VX gas can be used in a variety of medical purposes... aren't you?

Here maybe you should learn the not so very subtle difference between chemical and biological weapons.

Chemical weapons are created by mixing several chemicals (hence the name...) to form a toxic gas or liquid. They have been used extensively by many nations (especially in WWI (Mustard Gas)) including the US. It would be very difficult to reverse-engineer the toxin from a finished sample. Thus Saddam couldn't have gotten the weapons from anywhere but from a country which defied international law and hordes chemical weapons, unless he developed them himself from scratch. As far as I know the US is the only country in the world that admits to having a chemical weapons (correct me if I'm wrong (but back it up please!).

As far as we know biological weapons have never been used anywhere. A biological weapon would be some form of virus or bacteria, usually a very potent and deadly one (Ebola, Marburg), hence the name biological. If the virus were infective you would obviously need only a very small dose to do maximum damage. Since most pathogens used in biological weapons do not server any useful medical prupose, except the development of immunisation (which would be against the interest of the military) I highly doubt ANYONE would be stupid enough to give a sample of this to Saddam. Again the US is the only country to develop these weapons.

Now let me ask you another question:
Have you read the 11000 (not 1000 if I remember correctly) pages document? Have you personally assessed whether the weapons were dismantled or not?
I think I will not have to wait for your answer so the following: most experts agreed that there were gaps in the document, but it also showed how, when and where a lot of the weapons were destroyed. Iraq did release further documents later on which still didn't explain where ALL of the weapons went. Most likely because Saddam sold them somewhere to make a quick buck and build more palaces and didn't want the UN to know.

Now the line "there could possibly have been WMD" is not a very good justification for war, when we know that the US in fact, without a shadow of a doubt has WMD (nuclear).

As for this thread:

The torture performed on these prisoners (now apparently there seems to be at least one case of rape surfacing) is appaling beyond belief, but I cannot believe that this is representative of the US forces behaviour in Iraq. Those responsible should be tried in courtand sentenced harshly.

The media should continue digging until they have found every case, Bush should make a formal apology and the US should allow the red cross to inspect prisons immediately.

I also think that Rumsfeld should have the decency to resign, even if he didn't know (which I highly doubt) and didn't have anything to with it, simply for failing to prevent it.

Unfortunately it seems like none of this damage control seems to be happening, which will make the situation in Iraq that much worse.

Coward

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 9, 2004 10:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Doran, where do you get your info from? Maybe you should look at the CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY that detailed which equipment, cultures, chemicals, and information was given to Saddam. I'm not going to google it because I know you won't even read it, but suffice it to say that Scy Commerce Baldridge and Scy State Schultz testified about the vats, computers, chemicals, lasers, lyophilizers, centrifuges, 70 different cultures (of anthrax, botulism etc), "crop spraying" helicopters and so forth that were shipped to Iraq. BTW, the cultures were NOT medical research cultures- those are different strains. And of course the picture of Rumsfeld warmly shaking Saddam's hand has been widely distributed. That doesn't include the "ground truth" that the USA supplied to Iraq on its use of chemical weapons against Iran.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:25 AM

Sorry, it wasn't VX in was a biological agent, and lot's of it. I didn't have to read the the 1000's of pages in their entirety; all I had to do was parse through it using a search engine to determine what wasn't there. Other experts have read the entire diversionary "document" and have commented similarly but I did check on my own. The 11000 report was largely empty of any real data. Like I said Saddam was stauling for time.

I believe some of the WMD were destroyed.. but not all especially in light of the confessions about the WMD into Jordan that I mention.. The perps reported to have gotten the biological agent from a "perfume factory" in Iraq.

I'm not convinced that more isn't out there either. Heck we've found enough evidence that Saddam was manufacting WMD and breaching resolutions without finding any more to make the case.

The war started in the 80's .. what we have now is a continuation resulting from a breach of the staying resolution. Saddam needed to be removed.

At one poimt Saddam was an uneasy ally. We did provide some convensional weapons.. but the VX was not provided.. the Biological samples he got were part of a medical research program and were not offered to Saddam.. They were offered to a University. The fact that Saddam used them to produce a weapon is more condemnation of him not us.

Saddam defied international law every day. He routinely shot at our aircraft with patroled for the UN in the no fly zone. He had illegal commerce with France, Russia, and Germany in the form of the Food For Oil Scandal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:45 AM

"That doesn't include the "ground truth" that the USA supplied to Iraq on its use of chemical weapons against Iran."

No, we didn't.. and you can find anything you want to find on the internet.. there is always someone who will post something that says what you want it too. It looks so convincing on the internet too. Even the smelliest long hair can be an expert and look really official. Heck even our enemies can put up an official looking conspiracy theory web page and pretend to be in-the-know.

Heck, I read the other day a site that was claiming personal knowledge that most of the congress was Jewish. They had names and everything. Never mind the fact that the official census of the congress shows only 11 are Jewish; these experts on their official looking page knew the “truth”.

Did we assist Saddam in his fight against Iran? Yes, did we give him botulism and anthrax for the purpose of using against Iran? No, we didn't. I have heard assertions and read fantastic accounts that claim that we did.. but they were without substantiation by official documentation or witness. On the other hand there is documentation that show research botulin and other agents for a medical university.

"BTW, the cultures were NOT medical research cultures- those are different strains"

O contrare, They were medical samples.. I'm aware there are some people who claim they weren't but there was other testimoney that stated that they were.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ummm... and the point of this is???? That we really didn't know what Saddam was up to? That all of the sudden Bush II became aware of "dual use" equipment, but back then it was OK to ship "crop spraying" (wink wink) helicopters?

No, the USA did not ship VX, but it DID ship the three components needed to make VX. Since this was all coming from US companies (like Dow) it had to be Okayed by Baldridge. At the same time, the USA killed a UN censure regarding Iraq's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds.

The Administration DID know what Saddam was doing. We helped them calibrate how much gas they needed to use on Iranian troops in order to get a good kill ratio.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:50 AM

"I also think that Rumsfeld should have the decency to resign, even if he didn't know (which I highly doubt) and didn't have anything to with it, simply for failing to prevent it."

Rumsfeld Should Stay
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
5/10/04
WASHINGTON — Donald Rumsfeld has been designated by Democratic politicians as the scapegoat for the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison. But any resignation would only whet their appetite to cut and run. The highly effective defense secretary owes it to the nation's war on terror to soldier on...

"... in the [post 9/11] panic of the winter of 2001, Rumsfeld was one of the few in power concerned about prisoners' rights. Some now demanding his scalp then supported the repressive Patriot Act. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10SAFI.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%
2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:53 AM

"Ummm... and the point of this is???? That we really didn't know what Saddam was up to? That all of the sudden Bush II got hot and bothered about "dual use" equipment, but back then it was OK to ship "crop spraying" (wink wink) helicopters?"

This is a snide and unfair accusation.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Heck, I read the other day a site that was claiming personal knowledge that most of the congress was Jewish. They had names and everything. Never mind the fact that the official census of the congress shows only 11 are Jewish; these experts on their official looking page knew the “truth”.

And this was....???

But, at least we're getting somewhere!

OK, you show me yours, and I show you mine! (sources, that is heh heh heh).

But, I'm going to lob a diversionary grenade inot the fray because I have to do some googling and I have to go bug two of my daughter's many doctors today, so...

Who ELSE were we shipping chemical weapons components to? HINT: It wasn't Iran, but it does begin with an "I".

'Fraid I'll have to come back to this later. Sorry Doran, I have a few really important things to do today. TTUL.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:57 AM

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rice, Condoleezza - National Security Advisor

Date: 9/28/2003

Quote/Claim:
"On nuclear there was dissent on the extent of the program and how far along the program might be. How much had he gone to reconstitute? But the judgment of the intelligence community was that he had kept in place his infrastructure, that he was trying to procure items." [Meet the Press transcript]

Fact:
The UN reported on 9/8/03 that Iraq was not capable of pursuing an active nuclear weapons program after 1991. The report said “"No indication of post-1991 weaponization activities was uncovered in Iraq.”

Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." - Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03, 6/28/03; CBS News, 6/7/03

"A major intelligence report, called a National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, two months later said Iraq could make a nuclear bomb "within several months to a year" only if it acquired plutonium or uranium from abroad. Without that huge assist, it would take until 2007 to 2009, declassified portions of the document said." - Knight Ridder, 2/6/04

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense

Date: 9/19/2002

Quote/Claim:
“[Saddam has] amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.” [Source: DOD Web site]

Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 10/7/2002

Quote/Claim:
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
According to The Washington Post, Robert Boyd, the U.S. Air Force's senior intelligence analyst, has concluded that evidence uncovered in Iraq confirms the Air Force's prewar assessment that Iraq had been developing unmanned aerial vehicles (or drones) to fly reconnaissance missions, not to deliver WMDs. - Washington Post, 9/27/03

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 5/29/2003

Quote/Claim:
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
“We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile biological weapons production effort. Technical limitations would prevent any of these processes from being ideally suited to these trailers.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 7/14/2003

Quote/Claim:
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." [Source: White House Web site]

Fact:
"UN weapons inspectors worked in Iraq from November 27, 2002 until March 18, 2003. During that time, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) conducted more than 900 inspections at more than 500 sites. The inspectors did not find that Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons or that it had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program." - Arms Control Association Web site

Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction

Speaker: Kristol, Bill - Weekly Standard Editor

Date: 7/8/2003

Quote/Claim:
“I mean are we going to seriously debate whether everyone thought Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction, had weapons of mass destruction, had an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program, was concealing his scientist from inspectors? Is that -- I mean I think Bush wins that debate hands down.” [Source: Fox News transcript]

Fact:
A March 2004 report from U.N. weapons inspectors concludes there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994. This confirms a January 2004 study by the non-partisan Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which concluded Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear program nor had it managed to stockpile other weapons of mass destruction. - Carnegie Report

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:02 AM

And to be more evenhanded about the whole thing - here is the link to the whole David Kay Report - provided by Connorflynn, thanks :)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003
.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:12 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I read David Kay's entire report.

As a source of amusement, you might be interested in tallying the 'may's, 'might's, 'could's, and 'possible's, (could possibly, may possibly etc) and similar phrases in the report.

Also tally up the unmodified 'are's, 'did's, 'was's etc (ie 'was possibly' doesn't count).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:29 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
Hence my comment about Bush being a fascist idiot about 1 goose step away from Hitler.

I'd say Bin Ladden and Saddam along with those who follow them or believe what they do are far closer to Hitler then Bush could ever be.

Bush might be aggressive in his prosecution of the War on Terror, but its the Muslims seeking the elimination of the Jewish race. Its the Muslims who send their kids off to little 'Hitler Youth' style religous schools to learn hate and murder from the earliest age. Its the Muslims who have been involved in the most aggression since Hitler himself.

Granted the palestinians have a beef, the World took their land to create a Jewish state. But its not like they were really using it and we owed the Jewish people a big favor after what they suffered at Hitler's hands. Isreal went on to become a stable, prosperous Democracy, but rather then share the wealth, the Palestinians persist in senseless violence.

Hitler wasn't big on sharing either.

I wont call you a Nazi sympathyzer for defending those Muslims who believe as Hitler did and act as Hitler would act. But you are a fool. History will either enlighten you or entrench your position. But deep down you'll know yourself for the fool you are and you'll be ashamed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:04 AM

GHOULMAN

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Lies and more lies. It's funny how people constantly parrot what they are told they should think. Thanks CNN.

The thing is, Americans have lost thier sense of reality. Why? Because they watch a dog wagging TV that constantly tells them retarded things like 'Torture is acceptable' (actual CNN quote from two weeks BEFORE the torture photos), or 'the Geneva Convention doesn't apply' (Dick Cheney), or anything they can think of. They will say anything. The White House is a liars think tank.

America has already lost the conflict in Iraq. This is the first thing Americans need to understand. It's over. You lost. Again. Who will you blame?

The Chicago University study that showed how the White House revieled over 27 reasons for invading Iraq is incredible. Now, this is said on the news like it's no big thing... well, if I gave my boss 27 reasons for fuckin' up do you think I'd have a job? REALITY! Other countries respect laws because people go to jail, even Presidents. But not in the USA. Not anymore.

Worse... no one here has stood up for the soldiers at all! SHAME! The spin going around, especially the first week, is that the 'abuse' (it's TORTURE! REALITY!) was caused by a few. But we know that in fact this is POLICY from Intellegence and thus Rumsfeld and thus the President. How do we know this? REALITY... it's thier JOB to know! So why doesn't anyone call the White House on it? Why?

Because the White House runs the War like the Nazis did. That is - dissent is treason (there's even a frickin' book), follow the Pres or loose your job (Clarke), ignore international law (torturing innocent civilians as policy).

I know the old rule on the Net is that the second you call someone a Nazi that ends the debate. But when the White House uses every Nazi trick in the Nazi cook book you gotta wonder. And of course, sicking dogs on prisoners certainly provoked a few memories (and comments) from Holocaust Survivors.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly . . . it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
-Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:21 AM

DIEGO

I guess I'm a bit of a romantic rather than a pragmatist in my personal patriotism. I'd rather see our great and wonderful experiment in democracy (the USA) end than to see us compromise on our founding principles. Yeah, there needs to be flexibility to change with the times otherwise it's not democracy, but instead some kind of weird necropoly ruled by our ancestors. But, all the same, there are principles that should not be subject to later revision. Torture is far beyond the veil even if some of us, or even the majority of us, feel that we can justify it for some reason or another (national security, war on terror etc.). I think that kind of self-justification was what made the cold war so scary (School of the Americas, anyone?).

That's my opinion on the matter.

My only other comment is to support the idea that political discussions should be welcome on this forum, but that there really needs to be a basic sense of decorum. Presenting ideas is one thing, but name calling (on either side of this debate) is like a wave eroding the sand castle of discourse and resulting in an anarchic cloud of sand.

Diego

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
But you are a fool. History will either enlighten you or entrench your position. But deep down you'll know yourself for the fool you are and you'll be ashamed.

Ah name calling, always an intelligent and dignified way of getting your point across....if your point is you're an ass.

I didn't say Saddam or Bin Laden were better than Bush (oh, right you jump to conclusions too). Just because they are asses doesn't excuse Bush from being one (or you either for that matter). And not all Muslims are evil murdering psychos, just like not all Americans are gun-toting rednecks, it's just the gun-toting rednecks give the rest of you a bad name.

If Bush invaded for strictly humanitarian reasons why hasn't he gone after all the other dictators in the world, instead of just the one with the biggest oil fields? Human rights are being trampled all over the world but Bush doesn't care, his oil baron buddies wanted Iraq so Bush went and got it for them. You don't see him declaring war in North Korea, China, Africa, Cuba or anywhere else do you? They don't have oil, it's not worth it. Also it didn't hurt that the war (pronounced slaughter) distracted the public from the fact that Bush is a lousy president who appears to have Forest Gump as an economic advisor.

"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:36 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
Ah name calling, always an intelligent and dignified way of getting your point across....if your point is you're an ass.

Like calling someone a Nazi?

Quote:

I didn't say Saddam or Bin Laden were better than Bush.

Funny. You guys hardly ever condemn the actual terrorists. Like the guys who hung the burned, mutilated corpses of American aid workers from a bridge, or the good fellows who decapitated an American for Arab TV, or the poor misunderstood souls who ambushed an Isreali army patrol then stole the body parts to use as bargining chips, or the peaceloving people who blow themselves up on buses filled with schoolchildren, or the rightous men of God who kill or mutilate women and girls for the horrific crime of learning to read, or the statesmen who seek peace in the Middle East by making the understandable demand that all Jews must die, or and so on and so forth and lets not forget the planes, bombings, machetes, rock throwers, murdered Iraqi scientists, bribed UN and European leaders, dancing in the streets, and abused Donkey cart drivers.

Quote:

Just because they are asses doesn't excuse Bush from being one (or you either for that matter).

Saddam and Bin Laddin are not "asses". They are murdering, would be despots with delusions of rightousness. Bush and I may be asses, but sometimes it takes a bad ass to kick some ass. Perhaps you prefer the Clinton approach (ignore, drop bomb in desert, ignore, blow up aspirin factory in neutral 3rd country, ignore).

Quote:

why hasn't he gone after all the other dictators in the world, instead of just the one with the biggest oil fields? Human rights are being trampled all over the world...You don't see him declaring war in North Korea, China, Africa, Cuba or anywhere else do you? They don't have oil

Lots of oil in Nigeria, we havn't gone there. China is too big to conquer in 30 days. Cuba is being contained and, by recent news reports, delt with. North Korea has a leader who really is a bit insane and has a couple real nukes that he can and will hit Japan or South Korea so pardon us for wanting to handle that one delicately. Also where is France and the so called rest of the world? We send troops the fight, they fight. French troops stood by and watched while Rwandans were slaughtered by the million. They could have stopped it, we would have helped.

Quote:

Also it didn't hurt that the war (pronounced slaughter) distracted the public from the fact that Bush is a lousy president who appears to have Forest Gump as an economic advisor.

Seems to me Gump was a very wealthy man with a successful business and a knack for being in the right place and doing the right thing.

I can't complain, I got my job, a new job created in 2002 just for me, and the best job I've ever had making more money then ever before.

As for the rest of the Economy, seems the country is headed in the right direction. Just opened a closed engine plant in Cleveland, is that new industry in Ohio...I can't believe it. Why I thought everybody was losing their jobs and the economy was in ruins. Wait, that was the Clinton legacy.

As I said, history will prove you the fool, as it has most 20th century liberals. Some learn and are better for it, many get angry and entrench in their beliefs. All are fools and deeps down they know it.

So there you go. You're a fool, I'm an ass. I'm also one of those gun-toting rednecks (although I'm a Yankee and wont really be gun -toting till I pick up my concealed carry permit next month).

When dealing with the likes of Bin Ladden it seems better to be a armed asshole then an unarmed fool.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:50 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Diego:

My only other comment is to support the idea that political discussions should be welcome on this forum, but that there really needs to be a basic sense of decorum. Presenting ideas is one thing, but name calling (on either side of this debate) is like a wave eroding the sand castle of discourse and resulting in an anarchic cloud of sand.

Diego

Yea, It's not like this is moderated. You're on your own.

*pssst* Listen... if "people" like to forward bizarre lies such as 'torture is acceptable' then I will NOT treat them with any respect. Why should I?

If "people" call me a liberal as if that's a bad thing I'll piss on thier heads. Why would I accept such an underhanded Nazi tactic? Yes... labeling people is something the Nazis invented in regard to polemics of this nature.

If "people" think that I'll accept rhetoric reminisant of 1939 Germany I will not. Why would you?

Right now, Iraq is a meat grinder and all I can think is "people" can't even get the brains to give a rats tiny pink arse that innocent people (the ones "people" call terrorists) are getting tortured and killed and raped, etc.

So "people" are here arguing a thread that as of last week even CNN reporting has proven to be 100% correct. Why? Because they are liars.

And I recall that School of the Americas stuff from waaaaay back. Funny, I hoped I'd grow up NOT to live through Vietnam.

I guess after 9/11 nothing changed after all. America is still on the same path it always was. Not a good thing btw.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:22 AM