REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Don't get mad, it's for our troops

POSTED BY: SUCCATASH
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2004 02:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10408
PAGE 1 of 2

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 6:06 PM

SUCCATASH



Bush is using "Support the Troops" to get away with a terrible war. Human lives are worth more than this. It makes me sick.

Earlier than expected, Pres. Bush needs a down payment of $25 billion from US Congress. Why? Because a lot of mistakes have been made involving the Iraq war.

It's costing us and the rest of the world a lot more than expected in money, natural resources and human lives. Since people are likely to complain about the cost of this war, the official government statement is, "It's for the troops."

Well, I think this is a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility for the mistakes and also to divert our attention from the enormous costs involved.


Bush Asks for $25 billion for Iraq
May 05, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_go_pr
_wh/iraq_spending&cid=544&ncid=716


"The Bush administration asked Congress Wednesday for a $25 billion down payment for next year's U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a retreat from the White House's earlier plans not to seek the money until after the November elections....

"I certainly expect so," Frist told reporters afterward when asked whether Congress would approve the funds. "It's for our troops."

-----------

EDIT:

My president pointed at a country and said, "You're Evil! You are an immediate threat!" And someone yelled, "Support our troops!" and suddenly everyone was cheering like it was a fucking football game as we invaded and raped a country that didn't want us there.

I support my friends, family and all human beings. But I have a hard time separating "government" from "military" and I have a hard time supporting these institutions under current conditions.

I am ashamed and embarrased by my country's actions.


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

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:27 AM

SUCCATASH



I hope Joss reads this.

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:35 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
Bush is using "Support the Troops" to get away with a terrible war. Human lives are worth more than this. It makes me sick.

I support my friends, family and all human beings. But I have a hard time separating "government" from "military" and I have a hard time supporting these institutions under current conditions.

I am ashamed and embarrased by my country's actions.

It is getting harder, isn't it? I've been watching news reports this week as well and seeing the photographs over and over and over again has made me look away in shame as I ask questions.

How can Bush support Rumsfeld?

What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.

Where are these pictures coming from?

What are we fighting for again?

Can someone explain this to me?

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:31 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Channain:

How can Bush support Rumsfeld?

What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.

Where are these pictures coming from?

What are we fighting for again?

Can someone explain this to me?



1. Because Rumsfeld is a competent Defense Secretary and you have to back up your people when they are under scrutiny. If Rumsfeld leaves it should be because of a private choice the President makes, not because of public pressure but rather from inability to perform or desire to leave. But publically a leader should always try and support their team.

2. I suspect you can go to your local jail and ask any convicted felon the same question. They broke the law, their motives are not the primary issue.

3. The military conducted an investigation and is releasing the pictures, thats why Bush reprimanded Rumsfeld for not giving him the heads up before they hit the newspapers. The ultimate source is probably a couple well meaning whistle blowers.

4. Truth, justice and the American Way. Same as always.

5. I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:05 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H

Thanks Hero. I needed that.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:16 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


But true freedom would also include the right to reject

" Your Truth, Your justice and Your American Way. "

One of the biggest hurdles in forming a new Iraqi government is trying to ensure they are a pro-American Iraq government who will allow continued military basing in Iraq and honor the Iraqi contracts handed out by the US. Many of the countries opposed to the war are not pro-Saddam, they just cannot agree to this aftermath. If a realistic plan was presented to the security council that did not have these alterior motives, perhaps the outcome would have been different........

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 10:25 AM

EARLY


Quote:



1. Because Rumsfeld is a competent Defense Secretary and you have to back up your people when they are under scrutiny. If Rumsfeld leaves it should be because of a private choice the President makes, not because of public pressure but rather from inability to perform or desire to leave. But publically a leader should always try and support their team.

2. I suspect you can go to your local jail and ask any convicted felon the same question. They broke the law, their motives are not the primary issue.

3. The military conducted an investigation and is releasing the pictures, thats why Bush reprimanded Rumsfeld for not giving him the heads up before they hit the newspapers. The ultimate source is probably a couple well meaning whistle blowers.

4. Truth, justice and the American Way. Same as always.

5. I know its hard to understand. We live in a new millenium mired in the hatreds and prejudices of the old. A thousand years ago the same religous ideas were being used to justify wars and atrocities. But there has been progress. New ideas are rising to challenge the old ways. Freedom, justice, equality of race and sex. These are the things we strive for and they strive to hold back. Have faith. We shall overcome, someday.

H



Ah the sweet smell of nationalism (remeber nationalism is different from patriotism). I'm curious...would you have fought for Unification? Oh and by the way as a US Marine my opinion is that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home. To send our troops to far off lands away from their families where they will kill and be killed is not support. To support that you simply support the state or empire which ever term you prefer, but certainly not the troops. Of course several "Easy-chair commandos" might disagree.

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

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:53 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal


Quote:

Originally posted by Channain:
What are we fighting for again?



To destroy the nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Oops. How about democratization? No, I know: de-Ba'athification, yeah. Um, to stop torture? Stay tuned.

--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our serial killers.

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:23 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal


Channain asked where are these pictures came from.

The photographs released so far were taken between October and December 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have asked for investigations of widespread killings and torture there long before these specific events happened.

Reservist army specialist Joseph Darby was given a CD with about a thousand photos. Unlike most other soldiers there, he was outraged. On 13 January 2004 he left an anonymous note under the door of the army Criminal Investigation team. He later made a sworn statement.

A guard leader and a company commander at the prison is suspended from duty on 18 January.

On 31 January Major General Antonio Taguba is told to investiate.

Sometime around early February GWB is told about
the charges by Donald Rumsfeld.

Taguba presents his now infamous classified report on 12 March. Eight days later 6 soldiers face charges.

Gen. Richard Myers asks CBS-TV to delay showing the photos they received. The photos are shown on 60 minutes II after other journalists say they'll do it if CBS doesn't.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4765683.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/07/1083911410214.html
--
I am Jack's username
FTL in Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
Support our serial killers.

Edited to fix URLs and some copyedit.

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:53 AM

SHINY


Quote:

Originally posted by Channain:
How can Bush support Rumsfeld?



After branding Kerry a waffler, and after having stood behind Rumsfeld publicly more than once, Bush can't afford to dilute his public image of confidence, conviction, and consistency by admitting he made a mistake in hiring him or keeping him onboard for so long. As in other situations, Bush will stand by his previous (and preconceived) decisions and opinions, facts be dammned. Apparently there are a not insubstantial percentage of the American public who view this as strength.

Quote:


What were those soldiers thinking? First, to do what they did at all, let alone take pictures of it.



According to McCain and other experienced senators/congressmen investigating this, it's not just six junior soldiers who one day decided to do this out of the blue (and somehow obtained hoods, electrodes/wires, etc. in the middle of Iraq) but rather it was a result of orders to 'soften up' the prisoners for interrogation by the intelligence branch(es) by humiliating and attempting to break prisoners through sexual abuse (apparently, among neocon schools of 'thought', arabs are especially susceptible to sexual humilation...Rush Limbaugh applauds this behavior, without reprimand or censure from the white house I might add)

Quote:


Where are these pictures coming from?



Digital cameras, laptops, and internet connections really are everywhere. It's also possible that some of the pictures were taken on orders so they could show them to the prisoners later to reinforce the humiliation and further "soften up" the prisoners.

Quote:


What are we fighting for again?



Well, the excuses are pretty much gone now. The first excuse, ties to 9/11, was found to be without evidence to support it. The second argument, MWDs, likewise was found to be baseless. The fallback argument, that we are bringing democracy and liberation and civilization to the people of Iraq and will provide a shining example of how to govern a free people to all the countries of the middle east...well, that seems unlikely given how our international credibility is at an all time low (but as a consolation, hatred and distrust of us is at an all-time high! -- hey, now maybe enough terrorists will spawn from this area that we can support our claim of a connection with Iraq and global terrorism!!!)

The real reason behind all this, as documented by people close to the administration (until they were smeared and character-assassinated after they told the public the truth), is that the neoconservatives in power simply wanted to extend American military influence over the region, in order to better counter/prevent/preempt potential future/imagined threats to our country or it's "interests" (I personally think that all of the money and resources invested in this war would have been better strategically spent on simply undermining their cash cow by investing in research in alternative energy sources -- maybe someone needs to start a campaign about 'winning the war on terrorism with solar power' or something...)




Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 6:02 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


The only things Rumsfeld can be held accountable for

1. Was once the allegations came to light, did the chain of command investigate and rectify the issue in a timely manner ?

2. Was there a cover up or an attempted cover up ?

As to point one, John McCain was just being interviewed on TV, and according to him the allegations have been around for a year.... They have been made not only by the International Red Cross and Amesty International, but also by Colin Powell, Paul Bremer, and some un-named sources within the Military chain of command.

Were these ignored completely and the problem allowed to continue? And if so where did that order come from ?

Point Two will only be answered once point one is........

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 11:27 AM

ROCKETJOCK


Headline from the Contra Costa Times 5/8/2004:
Rumsfeld takes responsibility for prison abuse, won't resign

I'm reminded of the words celebrity impressionist David Frye put in Richard Nixon's mouth about thirty-two years ago:

I accept responsibilty for the Watergate break-ins. But not the blame. Let me explain the difference: People who are responsible keep their jobs; people who are to blame do not."

The more things change, the more they stay the same...


"You can't enslave a free man. The most you can do is kill him." -- Robert A. Heinlein

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:21 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
But true freedom would also include the right to reject

" Your Truth, Your justice and Your American Way. "
B]



In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.

This country, this governemt has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.

Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government. Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.

Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.

Where's the hope in that?

H

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 6:19 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:

In the beginning all the world was America.

I think people need to understand that American ideals are not the sole property of those of us living in the United States. If the freedom is the natural state of Man, then those truths we hold to be self evident must apply to all Mankind.



I would suggest your present government and the original framers of your constitution would find themselves having serious issues...

Quote:


This country, this government has never claimed perfection. We claim only to be "more perfect". We recognize the importence of truth and justice. We seek to protect them and provide them to our people. Just who are "our people"? The answer is everyone, everywhere. The whole world has come here, every nation, every culture, every religion, has come to share in our vision. Sure we have our faults and bumps, but together we get by, we build, rebuild, and move foreward. That is the American Way.


But that could be said of many countries, some who step it even further. If your statements were the truth, then why are so many opposed to your actions?, if Truth and Justice are what you seek then why reject the Scrutiny of the International Criminal Court?

Quote:


Do we have the right to inflict our ways on other nations?

Yes. Why?

Because the birthright of every child is liberty, not a suicide jacket. Every woman is born with the ability and God given right to be an equal to all, not a slave to men. Because rape, torture, and abuse are crimes, not instruments of government.



Not long ago your government debated the use of torture as a instrument of government, some of your troops seem to do it on their own, and many feel that your country ( by its words and acts ) is trying to place itself above all anothers - not exist as equals

Quote:


Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.



So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US
Quote:



Can you imagine where we'd be if our great experiment had simply failed. A world of slaves and tyrants locked in a cycle of war each more devestating then the last.




Has it really suceeded ? Or have you evolved from slaves to tyrants by proxy. The British stepped in and ruled their colonys directly, placed their military forces in place to enforce their laws and dominated the areas economicly. The only difference I see is America now likes to stick a local regime into power and pull the strings from the background while preaching words like freedom and liberty while their acts remove any meaning the words once had...

Quote:


Where's the hope in that?



A fair question, if your troops came to my country though, I would fight.



" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Sunday, May 9, 2004 8:25 PM

SERGEANTX


Does anyone else here pretty much skip over any post that quotes another, line by line, meticulously deconstructing it in painstaking detail? I don't want to be a complete ass, but it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. If it is indeed discourse. It's usually just a set up for thinly disguised straw man retorts. Plus, it wears out my scroll wheel.

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  

Sunday, May 9, 2004 9:30 PM

HKCAVALIER


They seem to go hand in hand with the overlong manifestos which they rebut.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:20 AM

SHINY


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=2&u=/nm/20040510
/pl_nm/iraq_abuse_rumsfeld_dc


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The independent Army Times newspaper, read widely in the U.S. military, on Monday suggested Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon (news - web sites) civilian and military leaders should be removed over the Iraq (news - web sites) prisoner abuse scandal.

"This was not just a failure of leadership at the local command level. This was a failure that ran straight to the top. Accountability here is essential -- even if that means relieving top leaders from duty in a time of war," the private weekly newspaper said in an editorial.



Please help Haken keep this site running by occasionally clicking on some of the sponsored ad links on the side of the page!

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 6:53 AM

RUXTON


The responsibility goes right to the top. Bush, and we must assume he knew, is ultimately responsible. Rumsfeld will almost certainly go, as a scapegoat for Bush. Bush needs to let him go, in an attempt to show the country he's taking really serious action. However, just as Bush apologized too late, any action against Rumsfeld at this point will be seen as happening too late. At this point, too many people realize the immense and ongoing failures of this administration for it to persist. (Vote for Kucinich.)

The world sees this once-shining country now as a dim bulb growing dimmer by the day, and the only way to attempt to rectify the damage (which many say is impossible) would be to clean house in Washington. Yet many, worldwide, realize that won't really accomplish anything because the corruption is far too rampant.

.......Ruxton

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 7:15 AM

GUNRUNNER


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:

Quote:

Because instruments of mass destruction and terror are too dangerous to be left in the hands of those who would use them.



So far the US has been the only ones to use them, and the one who has threatened the use of them the most. I can understand wanting to have them to use as a deterent against the US



Actually several nations have used WMDs during war. The US use of the A-Bomb in WWII, the Iraqi use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and to suppress insurgents after the 1st gulf war, and the Soviets used of chemical weapons against Afghani/Foreign forces in the caves of Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation are just a few of the well known instances.

The Firefly CCG Web Site:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Bllm119/firefly_ccg_web_site.htm

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 1:20 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


That depends of the definition of WMD that you accept, Nukes even tactical one fall into the catagory, Biologicals also do.

Chemical weapons including Nerve Gas, Mustard Gas, etc really don't.

Anyway, that was the scope of the NATO NBCW-Defence ( Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare )handbook that I was issued during training in 1989....

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 1:24 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


" it's just such an obnoxious and overused form of online discourse. "

I felt the person I was responding to made some good points mixed with some I disagreed with, I don't normally break a post down like that but felt each point deserved a bit of debate.

If you have any suggestion on how I could accomplish that in another format, I would take it as a kindness....

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Monday, May 10, 2004 1:31 PM

SERGEANTX


Ignore me Gino. Chalk it up to a bad mood. I read your post and pretty much agreed with what you had to say. The quoting frenzy thing bothers me cause its often abused, but your post was hardly a case of that.
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  

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:44 AM

ZORIAH


I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 1:50 AM

COWARD


Hero:
I found your post understandabel and shocking at the same time. Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?
Sure there may be many things that are really good about the US, there may be many things that are better than in the rest of the world, but there are many things elsewhere that are better than in the US. Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism. Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.
I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world, simply because there is a downside to everything. What you or I may perceive as a great country, an unemployed, homeless, discriminated immigrant may regard as total hell.
I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:27 AM

HERO


Its a legal term. It allows you to convey property to a fictional entity for the sole purpose of then conveying that property back to yourself. It had a variety of uses, most dealing with various forms of estates and trusts or transfer of various interests, but now has been eliminated in most jurisdictions. I think California still uses them, but the Californians were always big into legal fictions.

In this context its probably being used in a political context that is confusing and technically incorrect.

H

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:48 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm enjoying this discussion, but I have a newbie question: what is the 'straw man' in reference to? I have seen it mentioned before and don't understand its meaning.



The straw man argument is a technique, usually considered fallacious, wherein you restate your 'opponent's' argument in a way that will distort its meaning or focus. This might be done by taking a single line out of context, or by focusing your rebuttal on select statements that don't accurately represent the overall point they were trying to make.

You then point out the weaknesses of the distorted argument. Online, this is usually done by isolating specific lines out of context and attacking them with vim and vigor. The overall effect is to seem as though you've disproven the other person's argument thoroughly, even though you've completely ignored, or distorted the actually point they were making.

It works much better online than in a live setting because, in person, its relatively easy for the other person to stop you in midstride and call bullshit. In a forum you can go on and on and on with this, often boring readers into conceeding that you must be right since you've disproven nearly every statement the other poster made.

The term comes from the idea of building a 'straw man' that will be easy to knock down.

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  

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:15 AM

FIREFLYWILDCARD1


The abuse and torture of prisoners, foreign or domestic, is unacceptable. I believe that Bush knew what was going on in the Iraq prisons, he might not have known the exact details, but he knew that the interrogators weren't just asking questions. He knew they were softening their prisoners up. Rumsfeld knew as well. I would like to see Bush and Rumsfeld take responsibility for their actions/policies/decisions/lack of actions. And what I mean by responsibility is more than say the words "I'm sorry." Those words don't mean a thing. He can say them all he wants but he doesn't necessarily have the sentiment that is supposed to go with them. They need to make reparations to the prisoners, not just the ones in the pictures but all who were tortured. However, the troops who actually did the torturing also need to be held accountable and responsible for their actions. They don't have the right to question and/or disobey LAWFUL orders. The key word there is "lawful". According to the Geneva conventions and laws within the US, torture and softening up of the prisoners is not lawful.

What did he think was going to happen when he sent troops into Iraq? I seriously hope he didn't think the people were going to jump with joy and welcome the US with open arms. Many people, who have kept up with world news, knew that it was going to turn ugly. That many Iraqis would not accept any government the US set up. Many people also knew that the fighting wasn't going to end with the Iraqi amry's surrender. The big army wasn't the main threat, it was the forces that did guerilla warfare that Bush should have been worried about.

I don't believe Americans have the right to just march into any country they please and take over.

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.

I'm ashamed of what our government has done. I sincerely hope that our troops are allowed to come home soon. I support our troops and am saddened by the losses and sacrifices their families have suffered.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:44 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by fireflywildcard1:

Where are the WMDs? That is the sole reason Bush started this war, he stated that as the reason in his State of the Union address. I would really like to see the pictures that the intelligence community allegedly showed Bush. Because so far, the forces in Iraq haven't found any. Nor have they found traces of such weapons.



Sole reason? Its been awhile but maybe you should review the text of the speech. Here:

"Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.

If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Thanks to CNN for providing the transcript.

Bush also mentions WMD's. However, it is Saddam's failure to follow the 1991 cease fire agreement or comply with Security Council resolutions, his connections to terrorism, and his countless acts of war against the United States from 1991-2003 that justified the eventual conflict.

H

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:06 AM

SERGEANTX


Putting aside the shell game of 'why we went to Iraq', I'd like to focus on something that bothers me about our foreign policy in general.

Isn't it the case that a population must take at least some responsibility for the nature of its leadership? That's the reason so many of us are upset about the abusive actions of the MP's at Abu Ghraib; They represent the taxpayers and citizens of the United States, and when they botch that up we raise hell.

We seem to completely ignore this concept when we're looking for excuses to invade another country. Saddam was an evil SOB, no doubt about it, but if the Iraqi people weren't willing to rise up and resist his rule why should we send our sons and daughters over there to die for theirs? Even if we're successful, people rarely have much appreciation for something they didn't earn themselves.

So we set them up a nice democratic government. The same cultural pressures and attitudes that paved the way for Saddam Hussein will exist after we're gone and most likely result in another dictator rising to prominence.

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  

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:19 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Certainly abuse and torture is a terrible thing. I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it. But I’m confidant that will be brought to life and the soldiers punished, in some cases, regardless of their actually fault. So far, I’ve seen pictures of prisoners that seem to being humiliated by American troops. As unsettling as some of these photos are, if such action helps save the lives of American soldiers or innocent Iraqis then I certainly support it, as long as it does not extend into the use of pain.

I am reminded of similar photos and film footage of the kinds of abuse and torture that was conducted by the Iraqi government prior to US intervention. Men with arms and legs hacked; men bound and thrown off two or three story buildings and then their broken bodies dragged through town. And then there is Fallujah, where American were tortured and killed, their hacked-up bodies deemed to horrendous for television by the evening news. Then I’m reminded of the stories of children being tortured in order to keep their parents in line. Their fingernails pulled off, their genitals electrocuted, their eyes gauged out and their lifeless bodies returned to their parents as warning.

Where was the outcry over those actions from certain people who now claim to be harbingers of morality? Perhaps we need to show those photos on the evening news, as well.

I’m not justifying the acts of soldiers in these photographs, but I can’t help but wonder how these Iraqi prisoners really feel, because I’m sure that they know that if this were the tyrannical Saddam Hussein regime they supported, it would far, far worse then just pictures of the genitals. I wonder, if they are not actually relieved that the US is doing the torturing.

Certainly, let’s get to the bottom of this torture debacle. Let’s find out what actually happened, and if punishment is deemed appropriate then we should punish those involved. I think we should also keep our prospective here. Because if a little bit of hazing produces information that saves lives, that’s might very well be considered noble if yours is the life it saves, and in the world of Rogue nations and Tyrant governments, torture certainly has a far different meaning then we are giving it today.


I'd stay and write more, but I have to get to work.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:24 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Coward:
Hero:
Is it really possible that you think of your country as better than the rest of the world? Is it really possible that you without scrutiny accept this as a universal truth?



As I said, America and the United States are two different ideas. My country is not 'better then the rest of the world. There is no reason why Iraq or any other nation can't be America's equal, and as an equal take its share of leadership of the free world. The reason they fall short is because their leaders and failed ideologies have made them less. We seek to liberate their bodies from the whims of the tyrant and their minds from the limitations of 14th century thinking. If they embrace freedom they can join the community of nations as friends and allies rather then enemies.

Granted this idea of international equality is not shared by all the western Democracies. France, for example, has recently sought to remind the many smaller nations from the former eastern block that they are not supposed to act independently contrary to French policy.

Quote:


Believing that you are superior in every way possible is called nationalism.



Guess I'm not a nationalist. I don't believe my country is superior in every way to other countries. Japan, for example, is tops in the video game field. Germany makes the best beer. Nobody can do italian food better the real Italians. I'm partial to Canada when it comes to perscription drug prices. Nobody does oil better then the Saudis (though I think the Texans could teach them a thing or two if we let them).

But, given a choice, I buy 'Made in the USA'. Guess that makes me a patriot.

Quote:


Believing that citizens of you country deserve better because your country is superior is called national socialism, not something anyone would generally want to associate themselves with.



If believing in freedom and equality of the races makes me a national socialist, then Hitler must have been President of the NAACP. Give me a break.

National Socialism is an ideology that advocates racial purity, nationalistic expansion (look out Canada), and mystical "hero-cult" worship of the "leader".

Quote:


I have never claimed that any country is the greatest, best or "most perfect" in the world,



I said "more perfect" not "most perfect". Big difference not the least of which is Constitutional.

Quote:


I do not doubt your reasons, bringing democracy and equality to the rest of the world is a noble cause. Just never ever assume that your way is the right way. It may be the right way for you, but consider whether the Iraqi people are really better of without Saddam. Remember the months without water or electricity, the collapse of infrastructure and oil-production. Remember how the next governament will undoubtedly have a more extremist interpretation of Islam than Saddam, where women will be oppressed more than they were before, then consider whether it was all really worth it.



Sorry for the big quote but I wanted your words in full context. If Iraq chooses to lapse into extremism then they will remember these days fondly. The days when any destiny, be it one of peace and prosperity or ignorence and conflict, was their's for the taking. Saddam's policies where suffocating the Iraqi people. We have freed them.

As for water and power and life in general, I think most Iraqis agree its better now then under Saddam. The first months were hard, but there was a war after all. Now it'd be a whole lot easier if these foriegn terrorists would stop blowing up water and power lines. But what can you do? The terrorists can't have a free and stable Iraq. An Arab Democracy.

The Iraqi people didn't want the war on terror to come to their door. But like everything else, it was Saddam's choices that put them in this position. Now its their choice what direction their future will take.

H

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 6:26 AM

HKCAVALIER


Finn mac Cumhal wrote:
Quote:

I won’t say that I don’t support limited torture, because I do, but I have mixed feelings about this, principally because I’m uncertain as to the reason or extent of it.


"Limited torture" is kinda like saying someone is "somewhat raped" or "a little bit pregnant." I don't think you really understand what it is. The difference between fraternity style hazing and what's been going on in Iraq is that the boys being hazed, mostly, do not fear for their lives. The promise of hazing is that if they endure whatever they're put through, they'll be allowed to join the frat and inflict the same kind of suffering on new pledges themselves one day.

Of course, the moment the hood goes over your head in Iraq, it is absolutely natural to believe that you will be killed and forgotten. In fact, the current torture of Iraqi prisoners by Americans takes full advantage of that country's previous policies, particularly at the notorious prison in question, for its affect on the detainees. Saddam Hussein started the "softening up" process years ago and when we threaten Iraqi men and boys with torture today they know very well what torture is. Do you see how it makes us complicit with Hussein? Apparently, Americans have beaten and killed as well as raped prisoners over there, and people want to quibble that we didn't pour acid over their bodies beforehand?

As far as torture's effectiveness as a means of gaining information, man is it inefficient (not to mention illegal in every "civilized nation" on Earth)! Torture puts a person into immediate fear for his or her life and what a person does in that frame of mind is entirely dependant on what kind of person he or she is and has nothing to do with the "extent" of the torture. Once you have succeeded in making a person fear for his or her life, every further action is meaningless cruelty and punishment.

I can't believe we're still talking about torture like it's a coherent policy, an "effective tool" and not simple sadism expressive of the desire to destroy another human being whether spiritually or physically.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 9:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I understand completely what I meant by limited torture. It is not like saying "somewhat raped," at all. There is a big difference between using techniques to exhaust a person's willpower and using techniques to inflict pain. They are worlds apart. In fact, it is perhaps inaccurate to even refer to this as torture, because it is so clearly not defined by the connotation of the word torture. And if it saves lives to extract information from terrorist by intimation and humiliation then I support this technique. These are terrorists and militants who would sooner kill Americans, and very likely their own people, as look at them. From some of the comments, one would imagine we were talking about innocent victims. I have far less sympathy for them then I do for the innocent Iraqis and Americans they killed or were complicit in killing or will be killed without their cooperation. Cooperation that is not likely to be forthcoming without some kind of persuasion. If a little intimidation will extract information from these people and save lives then I believe that there is something very self-righteous about refusing to proceed, and instead posing these men as innocent victims.

The use of such practice does not in any way make the US complicit with Saddam Hussein’s use of torture. That's an absurd statement. And I have yet to see any evidence at all of American soldiers killing or raping prisoners as a means of torture, and such statements are very irresponsible without evidence.

I hope that these photographs do not represent any more then intimidation and humiliation. Time will tell, but one should not ignore the larger picture and paint the US in a vacuum. To do so will not serve the truth, only an ideology.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:05 AM

ZORIAH


Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

Bush himself has been reported as saying there are far worse photos than those published and that there is even video footage, and stuff that is of a 'disturbing sexual' nature.


If you haven't seen the photos already published by reputable news sources I suggest you go look at them and come back and tell us it's all just a bit of 'hazing' intimidation and humiliation.


I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

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.”



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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:35 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
Have you not seen the recent pics of the prisoner being deliberately threatened (while naked and blindfolded) and apparently bitten by a vicious dog? Or the dead body on ice that has numerous bruises and wounds to the face and upper torso (a death being investigated). Or the prisoner forced to stand on a box with electrical wires attached to him and warned that if he stepped/fell off the box he would be electrocuted.

No I’ve not seen those photos, but I am aware that such photos might exist. I am concerned by them. If it is the case that torture involving the inflicting of pain was used on these prisoners, it is not something I would condone or justify. The offending US soldiers are receiving court-martials and I’m sure more court-martials are to come. These soldiers will be prosecuted, probably whether their actions were paramount to torture or not. If it turns out, as you claim, that US soldiers conducted real torture on these prisoners, the only thing it will change is that I will feel better about their court-martials.

However, none of this changes the fact that the individuals in question are killers and I have far less sympathy for them then I do for their victims. None of this changes the reality that information obtained from these killers has certainly been used to save innocent lives. No one denies that torturing prisoners is bad, but so is killing and torturing American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi civilians. Are we to avoid completely an avenue that will save these lives, so that we may self-righteously proclaim ourselves good people to terrorists who could care less if we were good or not?
Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
I'm sorry but this is TORTURE. Torture is not only a physical abuse, but also mental. Check out the Geneva convention, I believe that mental torture of prisoners is also deemed unlawful.

If "mental torture," as you say, of killers and terrorists will save lives then I am completely in favor of it. I will not confuse the topic with Peter-Pan logic. We do not live in a world that affords us the ability to act always as saints, though we may wish to do so. There are no good actions taken in war, but an action that helps save a life is as close as you might be able to get.

And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:42 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:


And the Geneva Convention applies to declared wars, and uniformed soldiers and innocent civilians. It does not applied to non-uniformed combatants without a recognizable banner.



So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?



" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:03 PM

SERGEANTX


"Life is Beautiful"

What a great movie. One of the things I found most remarkable about it was the portrayal of ordinary Italians in the years and months leading up to the Holocaust. How ordinary people, rather nonchalantly tolerated people in their midst having serious discussions about culling out the inferior elements of the race and the need to put aside selfish moral concerns for the greater good of the nation.

I wonder how far it went before they realized that it had gone too far. Is it like the story about boiling the frog? Does it just get hotter and hotter until we realized we're cooked? I don't know, but I'll be damned if I'll back down and shut up because some people might label me 'alarmist' or 'paranoid'. I see some creepy fucking stuff going on these days and I see more and more people looking the other way so as not to seem out of line.

Reminds me of the Bob Dylan song: "It's not dark yet.... but it's gettin' there."

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  

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 4:44 PM

RUE

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


Of the evils recognized in American slavery is stripping people naked for public display - like animals - and keeping them shackled and naked. Of the evils of Nazi Germany, is recognized people being made to strip - en masse - and being examined and herded like animals to their fate. Unquestionably, this is done under threat since no one would do this voluntarily.

Perhaps there are those who didn't see my earlier post, but this supposedly 'mild' degradation is unlawful under the Geneva Convention (which the US signed).

But more was done that that. People were burned with chemicals; males and females, old and young, were raped. People were beaten, bitten by dogs.

This is not just the sick fantasy of a few individuals. There is probative documentation from soldiers saying they were acting under direction of interrogators. And who supplied the hundreds of hoods? the photography equipment and supplies? the dogs? 'Stress and duress' is official US policy.

As for the presumption prisoners MUST be guilty - one of the people in the prison was an elected mayor. However, the US doesn't like the mayors to be elected, they want them US-appointed. So the US appointed a mayor, and the first thing the new mayor did was to claim the elected mayor was a terrorist. And off he disappeared. Most people are there for similar reasons - on the say-so of someone who may or may not have a grudge. And no real investigation is done into the truth of the allegations.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 5:53 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So if I grabbed a couple of your " civilian contractors " or " mercenarys "

How much torture can I put them through before you'd object?

Hey just looking to help out the guys on my side so that makes it ok, right ?

Key word: civilian. Civilians, unlike unlawful combatants, are recognized under the Geneva Conventions, but it makes little difference, because few of the people we are fighting in Iraq have any intention of recognizing the Geneva Convention, were it to apply or not. And that's the reason the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to most of them.

I want to see evidence of this torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers that exceeds intimidation and humiliation. I also want to see evidence that these prisoners are not terrorists and insurgents but instead innocent duly elected mayors.

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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 7:13 PM

ZORIAH


For your perusal Finn mac Cumhal

The International Red Cross details Abuse claims made in report to US and UK officials in February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm

The allegations include-

Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities

Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight

The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some

The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions

The report also says some troops told the Red Cross that 70% to 90% of those detained had been arrested by mistake.



Amnesty International claims that UK troops shot civilians while under no threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701351.stm

Some Highlights: British troops have been involved in the deaths of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, Amnesty says.

Only half of these are being fully investigated by the armed forces.

The most tragic case in the report was that of eight-year-old girl Hanan Saleh Matrud, alleged by her family to have been killed by British soldiers who had been stoned by mobs. No investigation was made.

Amnesty highlights the case of Hassan Hameed Naser, killed as he walked near a demonstration where stones were being thrown at a British armoured vehicle. No investigation was made.




CNN's latest article on the investigation into the Abuse by Maj Gen. Taguba
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/politics.abuse.main/index.ht
ml


Note this little tidbit:

Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense -
Cambone said that the U.S. government "made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country" and said that "members of our armed forces should have been aware of that.



BBC's report of Taguba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703751.stm

Highlight - Gen Taguba told the committee: "A few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international laws and the Geneva Convention."

Detainees at Abu Ghraib prison were forced to commit sexual acts, were threatened with torture, rape or attack by dogs, and were hidden from Red Cross visits, "in violation of international law", according to his 53-page report which focused on blocks where interrogation took place.




And as for pics - check out the New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

Some graphic detail on a few of the images as described by the publication:

Another image shows that the man, an Iraqi prisoner, is naked. His hands are clasped behind his neck and he is leaning against the door to a cell, contorted with terror, as the dogs bark a few feet away. Other photographs show the dogs straining at their leashes and snarling at the prisoner. In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate’s leg. Another photograph is a closeup of the naked prisoner, from his waist to his ankles, lying on the floor. On his right thigh is what appears to be a bite or a deep scratch. There is another, larger wound on his left leg, covered in blood.

Don't take my word for it though, how about President Bush himself:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041400746.html

"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"It does not represent our United States military and it does not represent the United States of America."

Bush said in his public remarks: "The conduct that has come to light is an insult to the Iraqi people and an affront to the most basic standards of morality and decency."





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

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 8:40 PM

NRKANGEL


Discourse and a sandwich make for an interesting, if not intellectually taxing, evening!

It's funny. You can ask a dozen people who share the same interests (like FFF) about something like this and you get a spectrum of opinions wide as the 'verse.

One person says it's our duty and responsibility as the advocates for a free world...would we be as faithful to that if someone invaded us and told us that they were just trying to better our lives by making us live their way?

Another says that we're just being the bully on the block when we go in and turn their world up-side down. Does that mean that we should ignore the screams next door as a neighbor beats his wife to death?

Maybe the argument is about how we tell the world to "do as we say, not as we do". Of course, we could say that this fight is against an extremism that would wipe us out for simply existing where as we fight for everyone's right TO exist.

Listen, don't go breaking this down line by line because I'm not attacking any position on this board or making any point by my choice of examples. I'm just trying to say that we're not different from folk anywhere else in the world. We want the same basic things and have the same basic problems. I've seen it in the poorest places like Thailand and Ecuador and in some of the most developed like Japan, England and Australia.

Ain't a place yet I've found free of racism, poverty, corruption, hunger or crime. (Isn't that part of the bible according to Firefly? 500 years in the future and we're still just trying to find a way to live along with the rest of humanity.)

Each of you has an opinion to share and a point to make and that's a good thing. Not agreeing is a good thing. The evolution of society starts with the sharing of different ideas and seeing which get run up the flagpole and are saluted. But success is being open enough to listen to the other opinion and using the best parts to make a place better for everyone and not just those who think, look or act like you. Otherwise you may be guilty of the same thing you demonize in others.

Enough damned moralizing...I'm starting to sound like a gorram Shepherd. I'm thinkin' that it might be pleasurable to find out a little more about what's going on wih that new FF Movie...anyone got a plot outline?

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:34 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


ZORIAH:

Thank you for the links.

I was sort of hoping to find something a little more specific to the charges being made in this thread.

Certainly, the situation in Abu Ghraib got out of hand and something needs to be done about it; the problem is that there is little evidence to the extent that some people are claiming. Threatening the use of torture and using it are two different things. As far as being bitten by dogs, I don’t really know what happened in that case. Dogs are used by the military to control prisoners. If a prisoner got out of hand he might very well have been put down by a dog. There is nothing wrong with that, as far as I’m concerned. To claim that that is representative of torture is premature. As far as shooting from watchtowers, once again I don’t know what happened. Perhaps there was an attempt at a revolt, in which case I would have fully supported shooting from watchtowers. Some of what you present is collateral damage, not torture. I've not seen any evidence beyond intimidation and humiliation techniques. It’s possible that things might have gone too far even in those meager regards, but I'm interested in the more specific charges.

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:53 AM

JASONZZZ



Before anyone make anymore comments, you should be aware of an experiment done by Stanford psychologists in 1971 in a simulation of a prisoner and prison guard environment.

Basically, a sample of 24 college students were randomly splitted up into two teams: 1 set simulated being the prisoners and the second set simulated being prison guards. All of the students were "healthy, intelligent, middle class, males". Again no distinguishable differences between the 'prison guards' and the 'prisoners' at the outset of the experiment.

As the experiment progressed, the 'prisoners' increasing fell into the roles of mental anguish caused simply by being subordinated and the 'prison guards' increasingly stepped up their own 'disciplining' measures and became increasingly brutal and sadistic - all of their own without outside coersion.

http://www.prisonexp.org/


This is what can happen when human beings are put in charge of each other under those types of circumstances when there is no training, when there is a complete lack of discipline, when the leadership fails to enforce proper understanding of the limits of their roles.

The same type of situation likely applied at Abu Ghraib (please do also remembered that the problems were confined to Abu Ghraib with one particular MP company; the rest of the prisons/detention units in Iraq performed in outstanding manners.). The local leadership there failed miserably in getting the MPs in their units the proper training in running a detention center (remember, being a policemen and being a prison guard are different things - even in real life civilian world), these were also National Guard units that do not have much proper training and practice other than 2 days out of every month. Furthermore, the national guard units were also rapidly demoralized from being told several times that their tour would be over RSN (real soon now).
The local leadership there also relaxed discipline and (against Army Regulations) banned saluting, allowed the soldiers to wear civilian clothes while carry weapons and on duty.

All of these added up to a bunch of kids running their own show - left along to their own devise and kept dreaming up 'what else can I do to pass for the time?'. Without the proper training and with the complete lapse of military discipline coupled with bad morale, they were also very susceptable to outside ideas on prison treatments.



Don't take my word for it, take the Stanford experiement within context and read Maj General Taguba's report yourself:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/taguba.pdf

In particular, on Page 48, read how Steven Stephanowicz and John Israel lend their hands in suggesting to the local units in the different things they can do to 'soften up' the prisoners.

No, I am not saying that everyone single on of them were prone to the behavior. Read the report. It states very clearly that, some soldiers found the behavior repulsive and reported it accordingly. The behavior were also only prevalent to the one unit (372nd MP company), other MP battalions (774th and the 530th) were excellent in what they were able to accomplish despite what the cards they were dealt.

Don't let one single horrific act (acts here) bring down your beliefs in what fine accomplishments the rest of the Military Units are doing there.





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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:09 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
For your perusal Finn mac Cumhal

The International Red Cross details Abuse claims made in report to US and UK officials in February
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3700975.stm




If we are set out to condemn the entire US or maybe just the entire US armed forces for the stupid incomprehensible acts of a few, then I am suppose to trust the IRC? These bastards have been drumming up cash and misspending/misapplying them all over the place for years.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


The allegations include-

Prisoners were kept naked in cells, in darkness and without facilities




It's called solitary confinement. What's the rest of the context for this particular treatment? How many prisones, was it a correctable mistake, oversight, or a policy to treat all prisoners this way?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:



Prisoners were held for prolonged solitary confinement in cells with no daylight




I would say no daylight in Iraq might be a good thing. Next thing there will be complains about "too-much" daylight, not enough fresh air, too much dust in the air.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


The actions of coalition forces in arresting suspects appeared to go beyond any legitimate use of force

Prisoners were beaten, in one case leading to death

Soldiers fired on unarmed prisoners from watchtowers, killing some




This in particular was a mistake in a mixed up on the ammunition used, the report is filed and the soldier reprimanded. No, it doesn't bring back the dead, but sometimes costly mistakes can be made.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


The ill-treatment was widely tolerated, especially with regard to extracting information from Iraqis

Methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by the military intelligence to gain confessions




hmmm... I think the same type of coersion and tactics are used by even police interrogators. They ask you confusing questions, they tire you out, they might not feed you regularly, they might withhold bathroom breaks. I am not saying that I like these things, but what are they suppose to do? Cozy up to you and whisper sweet nothings all the while cuddling up and tell you how great you look?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:



The report also says some troops told the Red Cross that 70% to 90% of those detained had been arrested by mistake.




Isn't there a word for this? Oh, it's hearsay..

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:



Amnesty International claims that UK troops shot civilians while under no threat
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3701351.stm

Some Highlights: British troops have been involved in the deaths of 37 civilians since 1 May 2003, Amnesty says.

Only half of these are being fully investigated by the armed forces.

The most tragic case in the report was that of eight-year-old girl Hanan Saleh Matrud, alleged by her family to have been killed by British soldiers who had been stoned by mobs. No investigation was made.

Amnesty highlights the case of Hassan Hameed Naser, killed as he walked near a demonstration where stones were being thrown at a British armoured vehicle. No investigation was made.




CNN's latest article on the investigation into the Abuse by Maj Gen. Taguba
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/politics.abuse.main/index.ht
ml


Note this little tidbit:

Stephen A. Cambone, undersecretary of defense -
Cambone said that the U.S. government "made clear that the Geneva Conventions apply to our activities in that country" and said that "members of our armed forces should have been aware of that.



BBC's report of Taguba:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3703751.stm

Highlight - Gen Taguba told the committee: "A few soldiers and civilians conspired to abuse and conduct egregious acts of violence against detainees and other civilians outside the bounds of international laws and the Geneva Convention."

Detainees at Abu Ghraib prison were forced to commit sexual acts, were threatened with torture, rape or attack by dogs, and were hidden from Red Cross visits, "in violation of international law", according to his 53-page report which focused on blocks where interrogation took place.




And as for pics - check out the New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040517fa_fact2

Some graphic detail on a few of the images as described by the publication:

Another image shows that the man, an Iraqi prisoner, is naked. His hands are clasped behind his neck and he is leaning against the door to a cell, contorted with terror, as the dogs bark a few feet away. Other photographs show the dogs straining at their leashes and snarling at the prisoner. In another, taken a few minutes later, the Iraqi is lying on the ground, writhing in pain, with a soldier sitting on top of him, knee pressed to his back. Blood is streaming from the inmate’s leg. Another photograph is a closeup of the naked prisoner, from his waist to his ankles, lying on the floor. On his right thigh is what appears to be a bite or a deep scratch. There is another, larger wound on his left leg, covered in blood.




We don't have context for these pictures... We can all make up our own captions and draw up the punchline. It's not fair to the people doing the work there. Maybe the prisoner did not provide any provocation, maybe he did.


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:



Don't take my word for it though, how about President Bush himself:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/11/1084041400746.html

"The president's reaction was one of deep disgust and disbelief that anyone who wears our uniform would engage in such shameful and appalling acts," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

"It does not represent our United States military and it does not represent the United States of America."




It certainly *does not* represent our US military. It was a few nuts and goof-balls who did all of these dumb acts. Get those people disciplined and let's make sure that it can't happen again.

Let's move on with things.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:



Bush said in his public remarks: "The conduct that has come to light is an insult to the Iraqi people and an affront to the most basic standards of morality and decency."









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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:49 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Point One, even the US admits many of their prisoners held without charge were rounded up for questioning, or simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so that would make them civilians right ?

Point Two, The legal definition of mercenary is a civilian who performs a military function. In other words any contractors providing logistic support, communications techs, drivers, security guards, etc would fall into this catagory. In this catagory they have no status or protection under the Geneva Convention.

My point with the previous post is that I feel that stating " it is ok to torture prisoners if it save American lives " is pretty weak, and if it is accepted then the opposite must be applied and it is acceptable to torture Americans to save Iraqi gurellias.

Only the US seems to accept this definition of " Unlawful Combatants " and as a point of law, should be debated in an International Court.

Otherwise there are other International Coventions which would still apply even if the Geneva Convention does not
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm

" Thats not fair !!!!
I didn't even have a soul when I did that!"

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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Let's say we have a group of USA Christian missionaries traveling to Pakistan. They get caught up at a checkpoint, somebody doesn't like their papers, and they get their *sses tossed in jail until whenever. While in jail, they're stripped, forced to have sex, set upon by dogs, beaten, and a few are killed.

Are we likely to be telling ourselves, "Well, Pakistan is a violent and confusing place and those guards are doing the best they can suppressing terrorism" or "You know, that's really not so bad, ALL of them could have gotten killed" or even "They were in jail so they must have been guilty"? I think you already know the answer to that question, and some of you no doubt are thinking RIGHT NOW of ways to say "Well that's different!"


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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:53 PM

ZORIAH


Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?

The New Yorker didn't publish the ones that show the same man wounded and bleeding and being sat on. I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

I abhor what Saddam and his cronies got up to when he was in power, and I abhor this blatant misuse of power as well.

Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.

Yes, I suspect there will be the usual absolution of blame from the higher ups. The lowly reservists and other personnel who are charged will likely bear the brunt of it and be labelled as 'bad apples'.



Some tidbits from the Taguba Report which point to the fact that the prison was overcrowded with detainees of which many were deemed no longer a threat but where still being detained:


"33. The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (Annex 53)"

"24. The screening, processing, and release of detainees who should not be in custody takes too long and contributes to the overcrowding and unrest in the detention facilities. There are currently three separate release mechanisms in the theater-wide internment operations. First, the apprehending unit can release a detainee if there is a determination that their continued detention is not warranted. Secondly, a criminal detainee can be released after it has been determined that the detainee has no intelligence value, and that their release would not be detrimental to society. BG Karpinski had signature authority to release detainees in this second category. Lastly, detainees accused of committing “Crimes Against the Coalition,” who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces. The release process for this category of detainee is a screening by the local US Forces Magistrate Cell and a review by a Detainee Release Board consisting of BG Karpinski, COL Marc Warren, SJA, CJTF-7, and MG Barbara Fast, C-2, CJTF-7. MG Fast is the “Detainee Release Authority” for detainees being held for committing crimes against the coalition. According to BG Karpinski, this category of detainee makes up more than 60% of the total detainee population, and is the fastest growing category. However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board’s recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release. According to BG Karpinski, the extremely slow and ineffective release process has significantly contributed to the overcrowding of the facilities. (ANNEXES 40, 45, and 46)

25. After Action Reviews (AARs) are not routinely being conducted after an escape or other serious incident. No lessons learned seem to have been disseminated to subordinate units to enable corrective action at the lowest level. The Investigation Team requested copies of AARs, and none were provided. (Multiple Witness Statements)"



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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 6:32 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?




I saw the picture, I can come to the conclusion that you have as well. But we don't know that, does it matter if a man is naked or clothed? He can still punch, jab, kick, bite, scratch, maim, blind, and/or otherwise hurt someone just as well with or without clothes. It doesn't make him more or less dangerous, the picture is only one snapshot, we don't know what he did before that or after that. I know what you are saying, but I would very much like to know the context surrounding it and reserve my judgement on this particular picture.


Did you get to read the Stanford Prison Experiment as well? I am curious as to what you thought of that...


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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:02 PM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
Geee I guess a NAKED unarmed terrified man surrounded by multiple guards and 2 barking dogs was posing some kind of threat hmmm? Have you actually looked at that picture?

The New Yorker didn't publish the ones that show the same man wounded and bleeding and being sat on. I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

I abhor what Saddam and his cronies got up to when he was in power, and I abhor this blatant misuse of power as well.

Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.




but how do you think this happened? were the MP's 'bad people'? were they 'ordered to do it' and they stupidly and blindly followed along? We should all abhor these behaviors universally, but how did this happen?

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


Yes, I suspect there will be the usual absolution of blame from the higher ups. The lowly reservists and other personnel who are charged will likely bear the brunt of it and be labelled as 'bad apples'.




The local commanders there are absolutely at fault for not providing the training the soldiers needed for their job - heck even the commanders themselves didn't know what the heck they were doing. But I believe truly no one understood that a simple lack and breakdown of discipline can lead to these sort of power abuses. If anyone is at fault, I think it is those two civilian contractors. The local commanders certainly laid the groundwork and the environment and made the entire scenario possible, the soldier themselves were just dumb drones being manipulated, but those two (Mr. Steven Stephanowicz and Mr. John Israel) took advantage of the situation and manipulated the MPs into doing their dirty work.

At the end of the day though, without a better understanding and acknowledging, on that dark part that we, as humans, possess, we can't really get a better grip of the situation and to avoid these types of cruelty.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


Some tidbits from the Taguba Report which point to the fact that the prison was overcrowded with detainees of which many were deemed no longer a threat but where still being detained:




These people were continued to be detained because they were at some systematic and sadistic whim of these people or so that they can be further humiliated - they were there because of the stupidity and the inadequacies of the system there. They didn't know who they have, how many, and when some one had escaped. The MP's running that one place were a bunch of damned untrained and undisciplined fools.

Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:


"33. The various detention facilities operated by the 800th MP Brigade have routinely held persons brought to them by Other Government Agencies (OGAs) without accounting for them, knowing their identities, or even the reason for their detention. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center (JIDC) at Abu Ghraib called these detainees “ghost detainees.” On at least one occasion, the 320th MP Battalion at Abu Ghraib held a handful of “ghost detainees” (6-8) for OGAs that they moved around within the facility to hide them from a visiting International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) survey team. This maneuver was deceptive, contrary to Army Doctrine, and in violation of international law. (Annex 53)"

"24. The screening, processing, and release of detainees who should not be in custody takes too long and contributes to the overcrowding and unrest in the detention facilities. There are currently three separate release mechanisms in the theater-wide internment operations. First, the apprehending unit can release a detainee if there is a determination that their continued detention is not warranted. Secondly, a criminal detainee can be released after it has been determined that the detainee has no intelligence value, and that their release would not be detrimental to society. BG Karpinski had signature authority to release detainees in this second category. Lastly, detainees accused of committing “Crimes Against the Coalition,” who are held throughout the separate facilities in the CJTF-7 AOR, can be released upon a determination that they are of no intelligence value and no longer pose a significant threat to Coalition Forces. The release process for this category of detainee is a screening by the local US Forces Magistrate Cell and a review by a Detainee Release Board consisting of BG Karpinski, COL Marc Warren, SJA, CJTF-7, and MG Barbara Fast, C-2, CJTF-7. MG Fast is the “Detainee Release Authority” for detainees being held for committing crimes against the coalition. According to BG Karpinski, this category of detainee makes up more than 60% of the total detainee population, and is the fastest growing category. However, MG Fast, according to BG Karpinski, routinely denied the board’s recommendations to release detainees in this category who were no longer deemed a threat and clearly met the requirements for release. According to BG Karpinski, the extremely slow and ineffective release process has significantly contributed to the overcrowding of the facilities. (ANNEXES 40, 45, and 46)

25. After Action Reviews (AARs) are not routinely being conducted after an escape or other serious incident. No lessons learned seem to have been disseminated to subordinate units to enable corrective action at the lowest level. The Investigation Team requested copies of AARs, and none were provided. (Multiple Witness Statements)"





Exactly, these MPs didn't know what the heck they were doing - no training whatsoever - even the basics of incoming receiving and basic accounting/paperwork, etc wasn't being done correctly. Some of the other units figured out what they needed to do (mostly), but this one unit really fell thru.

Whether the lowliest of drones believe it or not, the Military, all thru its levels, relies on discipline, training, and regulations to get its job done. Everything from the basics of communications, supplies and logistics, transport and movement, tactics and doctrine. Without them, what you see splashed on the frontpage is what you get.

Oh, and it doesn't help that the media is right there sensationlizing it and the politicians are using it as jabbing points at each other.



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

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:12 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
I wish they had, I hope that all the torture pictures come out so that nothing can be hidden behind.

So do I. I hope they release ALL the imagines, including those of civilian and coalition personal being tortured, beheaded, chopped up, dragged through the streets and burned to death by men very probably similar to those in these pictures.
Quote:

Originally posted by Zoriah:
Cruelty, barbarism, and the abuse of power over the weak and the helpless should be universally condemned no matter which side the perpetrators are on.

Yes, well if I may be blunt, this is the real world. And in the real world if stripping a terrorist down to his birthday suit, tying his hands, and surrounding him with armed guards and dogs will get this terrorist to reveal information that will save innocent lives then I am 190% in favor of it, as I imagine would very likely also be those innocent lives.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, November 27, 2024 23:34 - 4775 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:47 - 7510 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:43 - 32 posts
Joe Rogan: Bro, do I have to sue CNN?
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:41 - 7 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, November 27, 2024 16:36 - 4845 posts
Biden will be replaced
Wed, November 27, 2024 15:06 - 13 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL