It's called "torture" Mr. Bush

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 15:55
VIEWED: 24994
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 12:25 PM

Hi,
It's been a wild week of torture fun in Iraq! Found this rather well done article that details some of the things that have been going on. I hope this is OK to post in "General Dissin'" *chuckle*.

Things I've learned...
Torture is policy in Iraq for the US Army.
The Pentagon, President, and Rumsfled knew about it since January.

IMPEACH GEORGE DUBYA BUSH!

BUSH IN PANIC BID TO CURB TORTURE SCANDAL

May 6 2004

Arab fury at President's grovel on TV

From Anthony Harwood Us Editor In New York

PRESIDENT Bush went on Arab TV yesterday in a desperate attempt to quell the growing scandal over abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

But as he condemned it as "abhorrent" and not a reflection of "the America I know", more disturbing details were emerging of savagery at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.

A captive is said to have been battered to death and then wrapped in ice and Cellophane in an apparent bid to disguise the brutality.

At least 14 deaths of US captives in Afghanistan and Iraq are now put down to American ill-treatment or are under investigation. Ten possible cases of abuse are being probed.

Yesterday - heightening Mr Bush's discomfort - US military investigators revealed a full rundown of the abuse at Abu Ghraib, from where pictures of sexual humiliation shocked the world when shown on CBS last week.

The dossier detailed more than 20 kinds of offence, including the pouring of chemicals on detainees, use of dogs to intimidate captives, acts of sexual assault and violent beatings.

Labour MP Ann Clwyd is also investigating the case of a 73-year-old Iraqi woman at Abu Ghraib who says she was hooded, made to go on all fours, told she was a donkey and was then "ridden" by her tormentors.

Amid the tide of allegations against his country, Mr Bush gave a grovelling interview to the US-funded Arabic TV station, Al-Hurra: "The actions of these few people do not reflect the hearts of the American people.

"The American people are just as appalled as Iraqis over images broadcast around the world of naked detainees and gloating US soldiers at the prison."

Bush, clearly on the spot but stopping short of an outright apology, added: "It's important for the people of Iraq to know that in a democracy everything is not perfect. Mistakes are made. But in a democracy as well, those mistakes will be investigated and the people brought to justice."

Al-Hurra's output is generally viewed in the region as propaganda. But a second Bush interview was broadcast later on the more popular Al-Arabiya channel.

Bush, speaking from the White House, told the Dubai-based station: "This is a serious matter, a matter that reflects badly on our country. This is a free country. We do not tolerate this kind of abuse."

He dismissed the suggestion that Americans were no better than Saddam Hussein. "A dictator wouldn't be answering questions about this," he said.

"The people in the Middle East must understand this is horrible but we are dealing with it in way that will bring confidence to not only our citizens...but confidence to people in the world that this situation will be rectified and justice will be done."

Later, White House spokesman Scott McClellan used the word "sorry" a half dozen times.

"The president is sorry for what occurred and the pain it has caused," he said. Asked why Bush himself had not apologised, McClellan said: "I'm saying it now for him." In a separate interview with Al-Arabiya, US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said: "We are deeply sorry for what has happened to these people, and what the families must be feeling.

"It's just not right. And we will get to the bottom of what happened.''

Last night, as the Arab world lashed out at Bush's attempts to placate them. Middle East expert Patrick Seale said the address was "totally unconvincing and ineffective".

Jordanian Jumana Ahmad said: "Talk is cheap. What's been done has been done and Bush's talking to an Arab network does not make it go away."

Sari Mouwaffa

AURAPTOR

Friday, May 7, 2004 12:44 PM

It's little more than "hazing", not torture. Sorry, but this is war.
I'd write a big long bit about how some soldiers clearly did over step their bounds and should ( make that WILL ) get punishment,but whats the point, most of what I'd say would be ignored anyways.

It's the information that is MISSING from your post Ghoulman, as much as what is exaggerated or taken out of context, that I think is important to understand. Not all prisoners are the same. Whether some know more than others and it's vital that we try to assertain what that prisoner knows, or whether some have tried to kill their guards, those things get completely ignored by the general public.

There is no basis what so ever to post nonsense like this or to ask for the Impeachment of President Bush, Ghoulman. And this is nothing but a clear attempt by your kind to politicize EVERYTHING for the sole purpose of gaining the White House, not for the good of the country, but merely for the good of the Democratic Party. I only hope most Americans are wise enough to see through the blind partisanship like yours. Makes it kinda tough when the left wing media offers its own spin/commentary when it delivers the ' news'.

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

NOOCYTE

Friday, May 7, 2004 12:56 PM

Oy.

Department of Redundancy Department

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, May 7, 2004 2:15 PM

Any abuse, mistreatment, or torture of prisoners or detainees in U.S. custody should be punished, and all those involved should be held accountable.

Bush said in his statement that this is a "mark on the honor of the United States" and he is correct, moreso than he probably knows. I can only hope that he uses every resource to investigate these crimes and bring the guilty to justice.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

LIZ

Friday, May 7, 2004 2:18 PM

thank you Browncoat1. i was thinking the same thing.

DTT

Friday, May 7, 2004 2:18 PM

By the way, it's PRESIDENT Bush. You salute the rank, not the man.

"You didn't have to wound that man."
"Yeah, I know. It was just funny."

KNIBBLET

Friday, May 7, 2004 2:49 PM

Murder is not hazing. Torture is not hazing. Physical abuse is not hazing.

Everything that was done in these incidents is illegal. Starting in basic training, one is taught what is legal and what isn't.

This is a systematic problem and one where enlisted people are going to be sacrificed to save the sorry asses of the folks who really need to be in jail.

Who needs to be pursued? The CIA, authorities in Military Intelligence, Diplomats, executives and of course, Rummy.

We go to war based on a pile of stinky lies. We hear continuous justification for the war - those justifications changing every day as more lies are exposed. We learn our government engages in torture and other lovely activities and to protest all this is somehow unAmerican?

To point out lies and object to torture is anti-Bush spin?

Support Our Troops - Impeach Bush

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:11 PM

Hazing? *Ghoulman quickly throws a bag over AURaptor then masterbates and comes onto AURaptors' head. All the while riding him like a donkey*

Ya know... there is this thing called the Geneva Convention...

ASTRIANA

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:14 PM

Normally I don't get involved in these conversations, and y'all know I love ya more'n my luggage, but I'd just like to point out to Ghoulman that there are CHILDREN on this board, reading the same posts we are. Please do us all a favor (but especially Haken), and refrain from the kind of nonsense in your latest post.

~A~

El Jefé Magnifico de la ThisLand Brownitopia' Mistress... of Communications and Harems! (Browncoats, you got some smutty minds! )

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
This is a systematic problem and one where enlisted people are going to be sacrificed to save the sorry asses of the folks who really need to be in jail.

Who needs to be pursued? The CIA, authorities in Military Intelligence, Diplomats, executives and of course, Rummy.

Nicely put. And weird... these powerful leaders are the people AURaptors is protecting. Why?

Rumsfled should have resigned yesterday... no question the rest of the world (and the majority of Americans I suspect) will see this as a rubber stamp of approval for torture policy and crimes commited by the USA abroad.

Wow, it just gets worse and worse the more you find out about what's going eh?

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Knibblet:
Murder is not hazing. Torture is not hazing. Physical abuse is not hazing.

Everything that was done in these incidents is illegal. Starting in basic training, one is taught what is legal and what isn't.

This is a systematic problem and one where enlisted people are going to be sacrificed to save the sorry asses of the folks who really need to be in jail.

Who needs to be pursued? The CIA, authorities in Military Intelligence, Diplomats, executives and of course, Rummy.

We go to war based on a pile of stinky lies. We hear continuous justification for the war - those justifications changing every day as more lies are exposed. We learn our government engages in torture and other lovely activities and to protest all this is somehow unAmerican?

To point out lies and object to torture is anti-Bush spin?

Support Our Troops - Impeach Bush

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

Unfortunately, none of the things going on right now in Iraq or which implicate the Bush administration, are new to the federal government.

Our forefathers warned long ago that a central government with too much power was the road to ruin. There are many instances in history of abuse of that power and the outcry of the people at injustices. Starting w/ the Lincoln administration in the 1860s, right up to today the federal government has proven time and again that they will abuse the power they took for themselves.

I truly hope those responsible for these crimes are punished, but knowing the feds, sacrifices will be made of soldiers, and lower ranking officials, while the politicians and high ranking officials skate right out of harms way.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Astriana:
Normally I don't get involved in these conversations, and y'all know I love ya more'n my luggage, but I'd just like to point out to Ghoulman that there are CHILDREN on this board, reading the same posts we are. Please do us all a favor (but especially Haken), and refrain from the kind of nonsense in your latest post.

~A~

El Jefé Magnifico de la ThisLand Brownitopia' Mistress... of Communications and Harems! (Browncoats, you got some smutty minds! )

Are you serious?

ASTRIANA

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Are you serious?

As a heart attack, my friend.

Note: The post referred to is the one directly preceding my original statement.

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:26 PM

^^^ Sorry. I think it's just fine. I will not edit it. Sorry if you disagree but I believe you're being incredibly prudish. No, I don't make a habit of this sort of thing but it's so in context with this thread (and funny and insults that jerk in context... boy I'm good!)! Again, I don't think kids would be 'hurt' in any way reading this. In fact, I hope kids are reading this.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:29 PM

All slams towards your President aside, this situation generates several problems.

Credibility in the minds of the Arab world. In order to maintain any relationship other than hostile, you will likely have to punish the offenders very publicly and very harshly.

The second is treatment of prisoners on the other side. So far this has been a little mixed as the enemy force consists of such a mixed bag of groups. The recent escape of the Haliburton truck driver shows that some prisoners have been treated relatively well, after this fiasco will the treatment of these prisoners change? Will they be subjected to the same crap as their Iraqi counterparts?

Incidently, I believe the US has been very reckless in its used of Civilian contractors in military positions. Using these people as Security, Driving Logistics, etc places them in a Military function. Mercenarys in other word and as such they have no legal status or protection under the Geneva Convention. Not that I want to see things happen to these people, I would suggest pulling them out and replacing them with proper troops if the US stays in Iraq, or Afganistan for that matter.

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

ASTRIANA

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ Sorry. I think it's just fine. I will not edit it. Sorry if you disagree but I believe you're being incredibly prudish. No, I don't make a habit of this sort of thing but it's so in context with this thread (and funny and insults that jerk in context... boy I'm good!)! Again, I don't think kids would be 'hurt' in any way reading this. In fact, I hope kids are reading this.

You are free to believe what you like, and I'll support that with my last breath. I was not making a commentary on whether your post would "hurt" anyone, simply that it might be considered inappropriate material and could cause Haken considerable trouble. Edit it or don't as you choose.

Please note distinct lack of snarky tone.

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
All slams towards your President aside, this situation generates several problems.

Credibility in the minds of the Arab world. In order to maintain any relationship other than hostile, you will likely have to punish the offenders very publicly and very harshly.

The second is treatment of prisoners on the other side. So far this has been a little mixed as the enemy force consists of such a mixed bag of groups. The recent escape of the Haliburton truck driver shows that some prisoners have been treated relatively well, after this fiasco will the treatment of these prisoners change? Will they be subjected to the same crap as their Iraqi counterparts?

Incidently, I believe the US has been very reckless in its used of Civilian contractors in military positions. Using these people as Security, Driving Logistics, etc places them in a Military function. Mercenarys in other word and as such they have no legal status or protection under the Geneva Convention. Not that I want to see things happen to these people, I would suggest pulling them out and replacing them with proper troops if the US stays in Iraq, or Afganistan for that matter.

^^^ sounds like Lou Dobbs *chuckle*. Speaking of Mercenaries... anyone notice the American Mercenary arrested for the train bombings in Spain?

Who are these people???

Things that make you go... Hmmmm.

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:42 PM

Thanx Astriana, certainly if Haken comes along and wants it gone... well, his house.

And Firefly is a rather mature show, I wonder just what you might find appropreate considering this show has featured the sort of sex act I mentioned above (sort of). So I'm a little surprised you think this. Anyho, gotta love ya for standin' up.

TALVIN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:46 PM

OK, guys. This is doing nobody any good.

There are plenty of valid forums for discussion of this topic, and I am the last person to say that the topic should not be discussed.

But not here.

I'll even say this, because this started with a condemnation of the CinC:

I am a Democrat.

I suppose I am technically a Liberal.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS (explosive diarrhea of an elephant) ON THIS BOARD. It's not the appropriate place for it, ever.

Haken, please put a ban on these threads? They are taking over what should be a place for Browncoats to discuss their favorite show and come together as a community. It saddens me that some people on both sides of the political fence can't get that.

"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."

"And I vote."

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:47 PM

Man, this kind of thing really irks me. I was at a republican debate last night where one of the candidates criticized the press for reporting on the incident. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Heaven forbid we report on the abuse of military power. The things these "soldiers", and I use that term loosely, did are unprofessional and immature.

Of course party politics plays into it. It's an election year. But that's a two-way street, my friend. Make no mistake, by putting off these irresponsible acts as mere partisan politics, the republican party is playing that game just as much as the democrats. Don't give me the "but, this is war" rhetoric. Sure, war involves killing and death and atrocities beyond naming, but we're referring here to prisoners of war. How do you feel about the beatings the POW's in Vietnam suffered?

All that being said, administration is not to blame unless it knew of the abuse and did nothing to correct it. Until proven otherwise, I refuse to believe that's the case here. Though I voted for Gore last time, Bush has my support — and my vote — because he's done a phenomenal job with the taxes and offered incentives for auto companies to develop altenative fuels.

Speaking of fuels, that's something else that bothers me. I think the foreign nations are raising the price to spur popular opinion and get Bush out of office. I have no evidence or proof of this. That's just how it seems.

GHOULMAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:52 PM

To TALVIN - Well, I can't but ask why not? Are browncoats just TV geeks with no interest outside a TV show? Why can't browncoats get together on politics? Religion? Sex? You know... issues that are very well represented by Firefly.

Firefly isn't a childrens show, it's got all these things as integeral elements in the lives of the characters. Just as these things are integral to you and me.

I can see where you are right of course, it might seem like a 'positive' thing to keep the BBS a nice, quiet, geeky fanboy discussion site. But for me, and I suspect the more mature Firefly audience, I can only discuss Serenitys' engine proporties for so long.

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 3:55 PM

I was afraid of this; any warped person that dislikes the US will now come forward and claim, "I was 'tortured'" "I was forced to wear a doggie chain and howl at the moon." "they slapped me with a balonie" "they turned me into a newt.. well, I got better." It was just a matter of time.

The thing that urks me the most is that somehow these reports of abuse are "extremely horrible", more horrible than anything ever, but if we instead released the prisoners shot them, burned them at the stake, dragged their burn bodies around in the streets and then hung them from bridges, that would be ok, because that's in the battlefield and it's war.

Shouldn't this behavior not be offensive at all to Iraqis.. after all "they are not ready for democracy" "They are only used to trannical rule" right? It's the Americans that should be the most offended because we expect better of ourselves and our enemies.

Our enemies are using this incident to it's full advantage... to fan hatrd both here and in the middle east. It doesn't matter if Bush had taken personal responsiblity and offered to compensate these "victims"; Bush could have lay protrate at their feet and apologized and it would do no good. They hate, they hate, they hate.. just like the liberals. Even if the US pulled out now they would still hate and still fight against their "great satan".

And they do look at the USA as their "great satan" which has nothing to do with president Bush.. That's just they way they have been raised... they were raised like KKK children.. kids being taught "who do we hate?" "we hate the USA!" Long before George Bush was a public figure the USA was hated by Muslims..
They would be a much different group without the hate which they will never let loose of.

MAUGWAI

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:02 PM

I agree that the torture is horrible and we should investigate it and own up to it. However, I would like to know the publication where you found this article. As someone who works in journalism, I have to say this reporter has a very unprofessional technique. If I had to guess, I'd say he writes for an Arab newspaper. So we need to keep that in mind. This reporter clearly has an agenda, so some of his information is probably exaggerated.

I am not trying to imply at all that the abuse didn't happen or that it is in any way excusable. I just want to point out that we need to separate the propaganda from the facts.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

TALVIN

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:06 PM

To GHOULMAN:

Because we are a community, one that you have clearly disparaged and do not consider yourself part of. If you feel this is so important, go start your own. "Browncoats against Bush" if you like, or whatever.

This community has nothing to do with "engine properties" and a great deal to do with support and friendship. Your reply to my post shows that your main interest is in starting a fight, and that means you do not belong here.

Now leave.

"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:08 PM

Ghoulman wrote:

Quote:
^^^ sounds like Lou Dobbs *chuckle*. Speaking of Mercenaries... anyone notice the American Mercenary arrested for the train bombings in Spain?

Who are these people???

Just because this mercenary can claim American citizenship, does not mean his actions were done w/ the knowledge or support of other American citizens or what passes for our government in Washington, DC. Big difference.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

SUCCATASH

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:10 PM

Talvin,

Stop telling people what to say and how to act.

ASTRIANA

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Thanx Astriana, certainly if Haken comes along and wants it gone... well, his house.

That's all I'm sayin'...

Quote:
And Firefly is a rather mature show, I wonder just what you might find appropreate considering this show has featured the sort of sex act I mentioned above (sort of). So I'm a little surprised you think this.

That's a topic for a whole other thread, but suffice it to say I'm not nearly the prude you might think I am, darlin'.

Quote:
Anyho, gotta love ya for standin' up.

There's that Browncoat spirit!

---We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...

---

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

KNIBBLET

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
They hate, they hate, they hate.. just like the liberals.

Pardon me? What exactly do I hate?

I am an American from a long line of military veterans. I am a veteran married to a military retiree.

My volunteer job is recording college text books for the blind. I volunteer teaching children to read. I go to church (sometimes), I am active in my community. I've voted in every election since I turned 18.

I love my country. I love what is left of my constitution. I believe that we should live by a higher standard. We signed the Geneva Conventions - we are bound to uphold them.

Thank you for pointing out to me that I'm a liberal hater. What exactly is liberal about wanting freedom of religion and power over my own destiny. What exactly do I hate?

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

HKCAVALIER

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:21 PM

Geez AURaptor,

So all the abused prisoners "had it coming?" Because they had attacked guards and the like? Is this what is called "the punishment fitting the crime?"

You say:

Quote:
I'd write a big long bit about how some soldiers clearly did over step their bounds and should ( make that WILL ) get punishment,but whats the point, most of what I'd say would be ignored anyways.

Is this a plea for pity? Nobody cares about what the poor little reactionary has to say? Sorry, but your persecution complex is showing. Well, in the unforgettable words of Luke Skywalker, let me say this: "I care."

You do have some kind of a point, because even though hazing is illegal on every college campus in the land as well as at every millitary academy, it is still a big part of these cultures. It is what goes on. No one should be too surprised.

But one of the reasons hazing continues to flourish in spite of strict laws forbidding it is that the hazees, for the most part, willingly participate as part of their innition into the group. That's what differentiates the torture that goes on as part of hazing and mere torture. Furthermore, in actual hazing, those doing the hazing have themselves been subject to the same abuse when they joined the organization (at least, that's how it's supposed to work). And, indeed, I'm sure that the men in these organizations have and will justify the rape of female caddets, for instance, as hazing as well, even though such women will never be in a position to continue such "traditions" themselves. But just because you torture pledges with broomhandles and call it hazing, doesn't mean you can just torture with broomhandles anyone you feel like and call that hazing. See what I mean?

But, as you say, this is war. As a soldier it is your job to destroy people. When you are faced with an enemy that is wholely in your power and at your mercy you may continue trying to destroy them because that's what you are conditioned to do. But that's why we have what is called "international law."

That you, AURaptor, could call what is happening to the POWs in Iraq "hazing" is a hateful misuse of the term. These are prisoners of war, they have committed no crime, they are not Saddam Hussein, and they are not being invited to join a frat. They are human beings worthy of respect. What part of "worthy of respect" don't you understand?

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.

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:42 PM

"Pardon me? What exactly do I hate?"

If you are a liberal you hate George Bush; you hate him because he won the election.. you hate him because he's President.. and it's really all boils down to that.

All the anti George Bush crap is put forth many times without any real documentation mainly as a product of Bush hate. I'm sorry but I do buy the Bush is really evil arguement.

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:44 PM

It is not about whether someone "had it coming" or it was "payback" for some reason or another. It is about honor and about holding ourselves to a code of conduct and being accountable for infractions against others basic rights.

A soldier is a warrior. He has the obligation of protecting those that can not protect themselves, and to defend the rights of those unable to defend themselves. A soldier wages war against other soldiers, not civilians or non-combatants. Non combatants of course includes prisoners of war and detainees. That is not to say that the soldier should let his guard down or being drinking buddies w/ prisoners. A soldier has every right to defend themselves and their comrades, but not to overstep the bounds of human rights or the Geneva Conventions.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

HERO

Friday, May 7, 2004 4:50 PM

I can't put it better then everybody else has already done.

Here's my take, or as I call it, the correct opinion.

What happened to the Iraqi prisoners was a violation of international law. So what? The US is not a signatory to the International War Crimes court. There is no international remedy for the crimes abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

A nation is bound by treaty only so far as it chooses to be or is forced by other nations to be so bound, a fact Saddam has recently learned. The United States chooses to hold itself responsible for its conduct in war and its treaty obligations. The abuses committed by members of the US military will be remedied using the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The crimes will be investigated, soldiers will be charged and the guilty convicted and punished. If the involvement of higher officers and administration officials can be proven, they to will be tried and punished.

As for the alleged participation of "civilian contractors" they will be likewise charged in civilian courts for violations of Federal Laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

It is important to note the following. We are the good guys. Hence the rule of law and transparency of process will govern all aspects of this investigation.

Bad guys don't play by these rules. When they commit similar or more heinous crimes, there are no repurcussions. Take a moment to consider the mass graves and as well as the inclusion of a torture chamber in every govt building in Iraq. These existed and were in use for twenty years with little if any comment by the press.

I am greatly disappointed in the conduct of our soldiers and I welcome the media scrutiny. Never the less the failure is one of local leadership rather then national policy. It is a criminal matter, not political, and should be handled as such.

H

WEERWOLF

Friday, May 7, 2004 5:38 PM

To Auraptor: I got a quote for you. You need to extrapolate a bit to the value of human life though to get my point:

"How we treat our dead is part of what makes us different from those that did the slaughtering."

Replace "our dead" with "the living" and no doubt you'll get my point.

Besides, you got Saddam, what else would you want to be degrading/torturing prisoners for? I thought the soldiers were there to guide the Iraqi people to democracy and a stable government. Now.

How d'you expect to get the Iraqi people to take you serious as a 'guiding force' if you give them the example as published in many newspapers? Isn't practices like those shown in the pictures the reason that Saddam was deigned unfit to run a country? Aren't the foreigners in Iraq supposed to show that things will be better once Saddam's away? Instead of the same-old same-old?

Pictures like that will prove to the Iraqis opposing the invasion that they were right all along: US and British (and maybe other countries' as well...) soldiers are rabid dogs that should be put down because they got no respect for the Iraqi people. I can hear the slogans already, people in the streets of Bagdad and Fallujah waving placards with those pictures.

Great going! Get those Iraqi people who were still unsure about whether the invasion was a good thing or not, over on the opposing side! Kill them in job lots! 'd Be easier than guiding them through a democratic process, for sure.

Yeah, great role modelling there. Huzzah!!!

"Besides, if I mess up, it's not likely you'll be able to yell at me."

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:24 PM

I would have to argue that our enemy has dictated most of our conduct. After all they have tortured and killed civilians.. they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them.. and now well, Osama has just upped the antie..

Osama bin Laden is offering rewards to those 'good' Muslims who manage to kill senior coalition figures? He has also said that any Muslim who captures a female coalition soldier can keep her as his sex slave. How many times have we heard denial of the Al Qaida connection in Iraq?

So is this next, are we going to see the USA capturing terrorist women to be used as sex slaves?

DORAN

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:27 PM

For the jihadists, at stake in the war against the infidels is the control of women. Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts..."

This is what it is really all about to Osama.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040507.shtml

KNIBBLET

Friday, May 7, 2004 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
I would have to argue that our enemy has dictated most of our conduct... they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them..

Perhaps you were too busy slurping up all of Bush's lies, but it's been proven - strongly proven - that Al Quaida and Saddam DID NOT conspire, work together or otherwise cooperate with one another.

Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with the September 11th attacks.

*this just in* Saddam is also not responsible for the Chicago fire. (Mrs. O'Leary's cow has also been cleared).

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 7, 2004 7:55 PM

Quote:
By the way, it's PRESIDENT Bush. You salute the rank, not the man.

DTT, Oh, I'm sorry, my mistake. I always thought they were saying "RESIDENT" Bush! I thought for sure that was his rank.

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

Quote:
However, I would like to know the publication where you found this article.

Ahh, Mugwai. Ever wanting to know who said what to discern the truth. I guess that's the difference between journalists and scientists. If I want to know what two plus two is, I do the math. You, on the other hand, would want to see the textbook where it originated!
However, FYI altho I don't know WHERE the article came from, I saw much of the same reporting on Asia Times.

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

Quote:
All the anti George Bush crap is put forth many times without any real documentation mainly as a product of Bush hate

Without documentation???

Without documentation? What kind of docs are you looking for???

Quote:
they have killed 3000+ civilians that that never offened them

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Quote:
.. and now well, Osama has just upped the antie..

Did you mean "upped the ante" or "upped the auntie"?
heh heh heh

Quote:
Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts...

I suppose you never listened to the far religious right here in the good-old USA?

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

Quote:
The US is not a signatory to the International War Crimes court

Hero, we DID sign the "Geneva Convention"?

Quote:
As for the alleged participation of "civilian contractors" they will be likewise charged in civilian courts for violations of Federal Laws regarding the treatment of prisoners.

There is at this point NO LAW concerning CIA contractor's actions in foreign countries. The law only covers military contractors.

Quote:
It is important to note the following. We are the good guys

How many bad things do you have to do before you ARE a "bad guy"? Or are we "good guys" because our MOTIVES are good, even if our MEANS are fatal? Could never figure that one out, so any help is appreciated.

MAUGWAI

Friday, May 7, 2004 8:35 PM

SIGNYM, please stop making your responses so condescending and personal. If you have a contribution to the conversation, try to do it in a respectful fashion. Most of the people who disagree here do it with respect for each others' opinion. Try to do the same, and we will respect your opinion as well.

Quote:
Ahh, Mugwai. Ever wanting to know who said what to discern the truth. I guess that's the difference between journalists and scientists. If I want to know what two plus two is, I do the math. You, on the other hand, would want to see the textbook where it originated!

Perhaps that's my journalistic background, to always try to see both sides of the issue. I do that by obtaining as many facts as possible and determining whether or not the source of those facts is reliable. Do scientists not use that method?

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

SIGNYM

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:08 PM

You're right, I was condescending and I'm sorry and I edited my post to be respectful. Well, I HOPE it's respectful by now!

The answer to your question is ... no, scientists do not (or, at least they shouldn't!) determine the truth by the the reliability of the source. If they do... and there are too many examples where this has happened... then they don't understand the scientific method.

What a scientist does (or should do) is observe the facts, form a hypothesis to explain "How is this happening?" consistent with the facts, and then try to test the hypothesis to see if can be disproven. (A principle of the scientific method is that you can never prove a hypothesis, you can only disprove. If you want to know more, I'll explain later.)

You can test your hypothesis several different ways. The best way is to perform an experiment, and then have other scientists try to repeat the results. However, if we're dealing with something like mass psychology it's a little difficult to experiement! So you try to predict something based on your hypothesis (we will go to war) and see whether you have predicted properly. If not, it's back to the drawing board!

I'll give you a couple of examples of how scientists did NOT follow the scientific method, but in fact looked to "authority" for the answer, and got it all wrong:

Plate tectonics (drifting) was actually hypothesized by Wegener in 1915. His idea was laughed out of existance by European and North American authorities of the day.

H. pylori (bacteria) was originallly proposed as the causative agent of peptic ulcers by Dr Marshall (Australia) about 1980. However, because his paper didn't meet with American gastroenterology "expert" opinion, it took more than a decade for medicine to catch up with the facts.

In both cases, the "authorities" were wrong. Some simple experiments could have easily established the facts.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, May 7, 2004 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Talvin:
To GHOULMAN:

Because we are a community, one that you have clearly disparaged and do not consider yourself part of. If you feel this is so important, go start your own. "Browncoats against Bush" if you like, or whatever.

This community has nothing to do with "engine properties" and a great deal to do with support and friendship. Your reply to my post shows that your main interest is in starting a fight, and that means you do not belong here.

Now leave.

"I give up. I admit it. I'm a Browncoat."

Although I disagree with the manner of GhoulMans first post I definitely support the discussions of politics on this board. If it doesn't suit you fancy then don't post to the threads, don't read them and don't harass those who do.

Oh, and by the way, 'Tash and I seem to support Ghoulman. So then, wouldn't that make him belong after all?

And if this community has nothing to do with Serenity's engine properties (eg Firefly related things) then why even call it a Firefly community. It should then just be the stuff community. You might note that there is at least one other thread going right now that deals with the matter of Serenity's engine or engines in the FF 'verse in general.

But as have been basically said before, there is only so much Firefly that we can talk about since the content related to it is quite limited. And what do intelligent people do when faced with such things? They discuss politics, religion, etc. Those that don't want discuss something don't. Perhaps you should join that particular camp when it comes to these things and not let it bother you so much as the only thing you will succeed in doing is raising your blood pressure.

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

MAUGWAI

Friday, May 7, 2004 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer to your question is ... no, scientists do not (or, at least they shouldn't!) determine the truth by the the reliability of the source. If they do... and there are too many examples where this has happened... then they don't understand the scientific method.

Thanks for the courteous response.

I heard a story on NPR the other day about scientific studies to prove that one drug is better than another, but the studies were paid for by the winning drug. On closer investigation, the studies turned out to be skewed. So I think even in science, the source of your information is still improtant.

In the end, of course, you draw your conclusions your way, I'll draw mine my way. You're into science, I'm into research.

And I never thought this torture didn't happen. I just want to clarify the difference between what did happen and what is anti-American propaganda. People are so fond of blaming everything on the "liberal media". But there is no way that article was published by a legitimate American newspaper. I still want to know who did publish it. It's just my way to be very thorough. I tend to not believe anything unless I know where the information comes from.

"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."

AURAPTOR

Friday, May 7, 2004 10:58 PM

Quote:
Nicely put. And weird... these powerful leaders are the people AURaptors is protecting. Why?

Why? I'll tell you why. For starters, because of the SPECIFIC example you just gave. I said there WERE abuses, and those who committed those should and WILL be punished. Yet you want to gloss over the fact that there is no fake moral outrage by the media and the world opinion over....

- REAL murders, tortures , mutilations ..etc, that DID occur in Saddams prisons. Any deaths which occured while prisoners under US care were trying to escape, incite riots and attack guards. Sorry Charlie, but there was no systematic, routine dismemberments going on here. Just photos of chicks hauling around hooded naked guys on dog collars. Maplethorpe would be proud.

- Where are the photos of U.S. sevicemen/women who weren't treated so well ? They were shot in the back of the head and stacked up like lumber..geee, why is there no Congressional hearing on THOSE?? Oh yeah, because it was those bastards we caught and had in prison who DID THOSE crimes.

- Why is it that all those prisoners photographed didn't have fingers, hands or other parts of their bodies missing ? HMMMMM???? Because there was no gorram torture, you idiot. As occurs in WAR, what went on was no worse than psychological war fare for those guys, photos taken to show OTHER prisoners what would happen to them if they didn't cooperate. In fact, one of the prisoners says he wants to move to the United States, because he was treated so well by EVERY SINGLE ONE of the other MP's except for a very few sick a-holes who got caught and will get what they deserved.

So, lets compare: Under Saddam, a political dissident could be beaten, lose a eye, a tongue, a hand, a foot ( especially if he was on a losing Iraqi Olympic Soccer team - ouch! ), get electricuted in all sorts ways.....

Under US control, 99% of all prisioners were treated extremely fair, polite and with respect ( THEIR WORDS, NOT OURS ), except the very few which were mistreated. All of those folks came out with all their fingers and toes, both eyes, a tongue..etc... just a bit humiliated. Wow, given the choice of losing a body part ( under Saddam ) or being forced to participate in an naked cheerleading stundt...I'll take the latter.

Finally, if it comes to protecting Sec Def Rumsfeld or Islamic terrorist...I'll take the side of Rumsfeld, every time.

P.S. And Ghoulman, keep your sick sexual fantasies about others to yourself. There are kids who come here and read these boards. Try thinking about what you say BEFORE you open your pie hole,for once.

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

DESANGRO

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Talvin,

Stop telling people what to say and how to act.

Agreed, definitely. I enjoy reading posts about the Firefly 'verse, but I also enjoy reading about what my fellow Browncoats have to say about RL issues. It helps me get to know y'all a bit better.

Ghoulman hasn't done anything serious enough for a 'go now, and never come back' order, and if anyone is going to tell him to leave, it would be Haken who makes that decision.

That being said, I think that the photos of torture (yes, TOTURE, there is NO OTHER WORD FOR IT) are disgraceful and frightful. There's no curse in any tongue suitable for this. The saddest thing is the sheer sadistic selfishness of the torturers: they were having their sick little photo shoots while other American soldiers were dying and fighting. These photos will only make the troops' job on the ground more hellish. The possibility of my cousin Simone going over to Iraq (she is a National Guardswoman) makes me sick.

May God have mercy on the souls of those torturers, because the Justice Department should hit them for all that they're worth.

SMOKIN

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:13 PM

Tourture....BAD

But I'd pay to see that stuff done to Osama and Hussain.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
- REAL murders, tortures , mutilations ..etc, that DID occur in Saddams prisons. Any deaths which occured while prisoners under US care were trying to escape, incite riots and attack guards. Sorry Charlie, but there was no systematic, routine dismemberments going on here. Just photos of chicks hauling around hooded naked guys on dog collars. Maplethorpe would be proud.

- Where are the photos of U.S. sevicemen/women who weren't treated so well ? They were shot in the back of the head and stacked up like lumber..geee, why is there no Congressional hearing on THOSE?? Oh yeah, because it was those bastards we caught and had in prison who DID THOSE crimes.

I could be wrong here, but, you seem to me to be minimizing the offense here. We are not debating what Saddam did, we are debating what the US did do, period.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
- Why is it that all those prisoners photographed didn't have fingers, hands or other parts of their bodies missing ? HMMMMM???? Because there was no gorram torture, you idiot. As occurs in WAR, what went on was no worse than psychological war fare for those guys, photos taken to show OTHER prisoners what would happen to them if they didn't cooperate. In fact, one of the prisoners says he wants to move to the United States, because he was treated so well by EVERY SINGLE ONE of the other MP's except for a very few sick a-holes who got caught and will get what they deserved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, electro-shock doesn't make people lose appendages does it? Again correct me if I'm wrong, but, is electro-shock a kind of torture?

And if you are likening this torture to psychological warfare then I'd have to say that I think that you are a fairly sick-minded individual. And you're going to have to provide proof of what that prisoner said. So, source please.

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
just a bit humiliated. Wow, given the choice of losing a body part ( under Saddam ) or being forced to participate in an naked cheerleading stundt...I'll take the latter.

Your fallacy here is that you are making judgments on what these people think by western culture standards. This couldn't be more wrong as there culture is just too (and I mean way too) different for this to be justified.

And just for the record. This humiliation - as you put it - for them is pretty much worse than death. So, if you thought April was bad, just wait. The US has really called these guys out now, it's go time for the militant groups over there. And it won't matter to them whether it was just one or a couple that did it.

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

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, May 7, 2004 11:52 PM

AURaptor, I quote you from here http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=5084#61093

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
I just come here to as a welcome escape from the "real" world, and it really bothers me that some of the most active threads are the ones where people have endless arguments over who is right or wrong.

I could not agree more. There is an entire net out there for folks to post their views on what goes on in the real world. This crap about " if you don't care to participate .....then don't click " is horse shit. This is a FIREFLY fans board. We're here to discuss FIREFLY and such related topics. If the owners would care to put up a politics board to discuss earthly matters, that's fine. But I see no reason to pollute this fine board with political myrmidons with their pointless hyperbole and posturing.

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

Aren't you being a hypocrite right now? I mean, you speak of people polluting this board with political discussions yet you contribute.

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

PBI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:04 AM

There's been a lot of hyperbole on both 'sides' of this issue. The assertion that this series of incidents was a deliberate policy decision made at the top levels of the US government is a bit hard for me to swallow, and I'm not a huge fan of the current US goverment.

Having said that, using the term 'abuse' to describe what's in those photos is very much an understatement, and is just as politcally motivated as the people accusing the US of doing this deliberately.

What happened to those prisoners - 'detainees' is also a euphamism to avoid following the Geneva Conventions, to which the US is a signatory - is torture, plain and simple, and a war crime. It's hard to face up to, no doubt about it. No one likes to admit that their soldiers have committed such acts, but when sch things occur, it's best to admit it, to deal with it, and move on.

Canada went through a similar incident in Somalia in 1993, and the episode was not easy to digest or admit to, and we made the same, or similar, mistakes the current US administration is making by not revealing the incident at once and by foot dragging and ultimately punishing only the grunts that did the deeds. Those in command bare as much responsibility, particularly if they knew or should have known, and did nothing. That particular doctrine, by the way, has been a more or less accepted Western military practice that grew out of the Nuremburg trails after WWII.

I'm a former soldier, a former NCO, and there is no way in hell any of those pictured in those photos have any legitimate defence. What was pictured in those photos was obvious torture. Best to admit it, it'll make the pain last much less longer.

If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 12:31 AM

One thing that bother me is that the US went out of their way to not have their prisoners condition montiored by the International Red Cross. While some will no doubt argue why should they, prisoners held by the Iraqis don't get this, I would say that it would have provided independant third party verification that these prisoners were not mistreated. Right now with these pictures in the press, any prisoners held by Iraqi resistance groups are likely to be treated in the same or worse fashion, where as up to now, as in the case of the recently escaped Haliburton driver, they were not treated badly.

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

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:24 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, electro-shock doesn't make people lose appendages does it?

A non sequitur. We didn't shock anyone, Saddam did. That is the point I'm making. We don't know in what context those pics were taken. We see a prisoner standing w/ electrodes connected to him at one end....and the other end..nothing. The wires weren't connected up to a car battery ...there was no electrode shock therapy going on. That is my point. It was psychological. I didn't say it was pretty, and I DID say bounds were overstepped by some US Reservist guards.[bold] But this IS war.[/bold] Sorry, but I'd rather strip a prisoner naked and make them BELIEVE something bad was going to happen if they didn't give us information that would save 1 American life. If that's sick , then fine by me. Better harrass 1 prisoner w/ psychology than to allow 10's of civillians / US Soldiers die from a car bomb. I'll make that choice EVERY time.

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

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:30 AM

Quote:
Aren't you being a hypocrite right now? I mean, you speak of people polluting this board with political discussions yet you contribute.

I didn't start this thread. Me not contributing to it won't make it go away. If lies ,distortions and absurdities are going to be posted here that are in reference to my country, I will make a choice on whether to respond or not, according to the terms of this board.

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

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Aren't you being a hypocrite right now? I mean, you speak of people polluting this board with political discussions yet you contribute.

I didn't start this thread. Me not contributing to it won't make it go away. If lies ,distortions and absurdities are going to be posted here that are in reference to my country, I will make a choice on whether to respond or not, according to the terms of this board.

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

I never said you started the thread.

I wasn't referencing the terms of the board. I was referencing the terms that you stated in your post in another thread that you think people should abide by.

I find it funny that you would defend your choice to post on this thread (which I didn't challenge by the way) and not the little detail that you are being a hypocrite by doing so.

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

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:53 AM

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. "

PBI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
A non sequitur. We didn't shock anyone, Saddam did. That is the point I'm making. We don't know in what context those pics were taken. We see a prisoner standing w/ electrodes connected to him at one end....and the other end..nothing. The wires weren't connected up to a car battery ...there was no electrode shock therapy going on. That is my point. It was psychological. I didn't say it was pretty, and I DID say bounds were overstepped by some US Reservist guards.[bold] But this IS war.[/bold] Sorry, but I'd rather strip a prisoner naked and make them BELIEVE something bad was going to happen if they didn't give us information that would save 1 American life. If that's sick , then fine by me. Better harrass 1 prisoner w/ psychology than to allow 10's of civillians / US Soldiers die from a car bomb. I'll make that choice EVERY time.

I hear what you're saying, and there is some justification in it in that stress, physical or mental, can be used during interrogation, but what those pictures show went across the line. In fact, I remember a report stating that the electrodes were not hooked up to anything, but the threat violated the Conventions.

It's worth noting that the Geneva Conventions were developed, at least in part, in order to protect prisoners as an attempt to break from the past where prisoners were often executed on the spot, if they were given the chance to surrender at all.

The other question that must be posed to those that say this episode is nothing major is, how would you react if it was US soldiers on the receiving end? Adhering to the Geneva Conventions is done as much because of enlightened self-interest, perhaps more, than it is for pure humanitarian reasons.

If you can survive death, you can probably survive almost anything.

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:10 AM

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

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:02 AM

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. "

ZORIAH

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:19 AM

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.

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:43 AM

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

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:21 AM

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

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:29 AM

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:30 AM

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.

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 6:12 AM

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

PERSEPHONE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 7:15 AM

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."

WEERWOLF

Saturday, May 8, 2004 8:35 AM

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!"

WEERWOLF

Saturday, May 8, 2004 9:05 AM

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.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 8, 2004 10:38 AM

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.

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 1:54 PM

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

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 2:04 PM

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

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:28 PM

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

SKYDANCE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 3:39 PM

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.

SERGEANTX

Saturday, May 8, 2004 4:27 PM

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

FLYINFREE

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:12 PM

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

LEMAT

Saturday, May 8, 2004 5:42 PM

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)

SIGMANUNKI

Saturday, May 8, 2004 7:15 PM

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

FLYINFREE

Sunday, May 9, 2004 12:02 AM

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

DORAN

Sunday, May 9, 2004 3:37 AM

"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.

ZORIAH

Sunday, May 9, 2004 3:44 AM

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

RUE

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:08 AM

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.

WEERWOLF

Sunday, May 9, 2004 8:11 AM

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."

DORAN

Sunday, May 9, 2004 2:54 PM

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.

DORAN

Sunday, May 9, 2004 3:04 PM

"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.

SIGMANUNKI

Sunday, May 9, 2004 5:28 PM

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

COWARD

Sunday, May 9, 2004 6:36 PM

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, May 9, 2004 8:03 PM

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.

DORAN

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:25 PM

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.

DORAN

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:45 PM

"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.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:48 PM

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.

DORAN

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:50 PM

"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

DORAN

Monday, May 10, 2004 4:53 PM

"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.

SIGNYM

Monday, May 10, 2004 5:03 PM

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.

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:57 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,

ZORIAH

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 11:02 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

RUE

Tuesday, May 11, 2004 10:12 PM

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).

HERO

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:29 PM

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.

H

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:04 PM

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

DIEGO

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:21 PM

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

FLYINFREE

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 4:51 PM

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

HERO

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 5:36 PM

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

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:50 PM

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.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 9:22 PM

I really got a kick out of this. It's from the onion.

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4019

"They wanted to provide Iraq with a smooth transition to democracy. We couldn't just plunge them into a non-torture-based society with no time to adjust."

"I’m sure Bush was deeply saddened by the fact that American soldiers were stupid enough to document their acts of cruelty."

"Thank God Saddam's in jail so he can't commit atrocities like this anymore."

"Some people want to make military prisons into country clubs— instead of the S&M clubs they are now."

"If we hadn’t tortured those prisoners, we could never have achieved the post-war stability Iraq is currently enjoying."

"It's not like they made a 70-year-old woman get down on all fours, then climbed on her back and called her a donkey. What? Oh, no."

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

GHOULMAN

Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:36 PM

^^^ bwaaahahahahaha.. nice 1.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE