Barbaric doesn't even begin to describe this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953015
Printable View
Barbaric doesn't even begin to describe this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953015
I saw the video.
Kind of makes you question what we're doing in Iraq.
The united states cannot ever win this type of war either.
I suppose this is expected retaliation for our actions. I'm not saying I approve of either actions but.....
I'm not accusing him of knowingly allowing the tortures, but I would like to take this oppertunity to thank dear President Bush for this pointless war. I really feel that my tax dollars are being put to good use.
Pointless and poorly planned.
I think it's the government's job to protect the people.
With that said, our military could've been put to better use elsewhere.
Is anyone else afraid of the idea of being alienated from the United Nations? I've always thought that was one of the few good things out there, just some sort of collective working together between countries.
*shrug*
>>The united states cannot ever win this type of war either.
It's too bad really...I can't see any good resolution to this. We can't really just pull out without stopping or at least significantly slowing the violence (well we could, but it wouldn't look very good if we just gave up), but at the same time I don't see any way for the violence to stop. The people over there see us killing and even abusing their people and then they take revenge. Of course if we do nothing when something like that happens the cycle just repeats itself. Hmm, isn't that sort of how things have been happening in the middle east for all these years?
And what do you suppose we do? Do you say we just leave Iraq like it is. Have the whole world look at us like idiots. Bush had a reason to go to Iraq. Even if their is no "weapons of mass destruction" Isn't the world better off without Sadam in office. He helped terrorist all the time. Would you want a 1st world country not help you because, "it is a lost cause" I would be infuriated. That is why we are America we protect. We can win this war it isn't impossible the left-winged media just makes it seem that way. I don't like people dying, but I don't want something like 9/11 happen again.
>>It's too bad really...I can't see any good resolution to this
one possible resolution is that our "boys" should be able to use any means necessary to win this war, and not to worry about "media scandals" and such. This includes killing anyone who might be a suspected enemy. Now it seems that our military is scared of what the media will make of any of their actions. I really don't care about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners either...put yourself in the positions of those soldiers...if you saw your buddy's head exploded from enemy fire, you would do the same if put in that position. "But that’s not ethical", "you're a mean and heartless bastard axon" - I know what you're thinking but I know for a fact that 99% of us if put in that situation would behave the same. ITS WAR FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!!
Sure I know that these statements might seem cruel, and many of you more liberally minded folks will jump to my throat for it...but this is war, and not a freagin movie or book. Also some of you know that in the beginning I was strongly for the war, now my views changed a bit - but I still think that we cannot just leave right now and leave that region as is. Too much was done already, and a fast, "media acceptable", resolution is out of the question. I propose that all of us - believers, atheists, and agnostics, pray for the fast and safe return of our military personnel.
Would you take a picture of yourself robbing a house? Or mugging someone?
Why not?
Look at the pictures. See the people standing round as if this is normal?
This is a military prison and what these soldiers are doing is illegal. Yet no one stopped them photographing and videoing it. The officers did not stop them or stop the pictures.
Why?
Because they did not think it was wrong and because they were ORDERED to do this.
That says this is SOP in all US military prisons.
Before you complain about the one US killed, ask about the 50 Iraqis civilians killed while in US prisons, including the two confirmed cases of murder.
Heard of them? If not, WHY?
Note the rhetoric and language used in the article.
“It shows the true nature of the enemies of freedom. They have no regard for the lives of innocent men, women and children. We will pursue those who are responsible and bring them to justice.” White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.
“I knew he was decapitated before. That manner is preferable to a long and torturous death. But I didn’t want it to become public,” Michael Berg said.
Preferable to three years in Guantanamo Bay, held without charge, while tortured and abused?
Preferable to being an innocent bystander caught in the explosion when the US / Israel assassinate its enemies?
>>I'm not accusing him of knowingly allowing the tortures, but I would like to take this oppertunity to thank dear President Bush for this pointless war.<<
Rumsfelt knew since January but did nothing.
The point was to ensure US oil supplies and ensure all the Arab states know what will happen if they step out of line.
A bonus was that now the ‘terrorists’ would now have good targets that were military (not civilian) and located off US soil. That is no repeat of S11.
Saudi Arabia allowed US military in to protect them against Iraq in 1990. The Saudis paid the US billions, bankrupting the nation, for this protection. The US has no mandate to stay in Saudi, but used the presence of Sadam in Iraq as an excuse. GWB’s support Sharon (and his ‘peace’ plan) was the last straw in a long line of betrayals by the US and the US military was asked to leave Saudi. Similar to King Fassal shutting off the oil to the US (and the US military) during Vietnam because the US supplied Israel will more arms when it seemed Israel would loose the fourth Arab war.
That’s when Sadam suddenly became a problem again.
linuxdude, the thing is that large scale killing (like 9/11) are not all that infrequent. Most of them are not nearly as widely publicized, and many happen over the course of a couple months or a couple years instead of a single day, but nevertheless, they happen. Some of the "terrorists" in these situations, we support, others are enemies. To say, "That is why we are America, we protect," is foolish. We protect our interests. I'm not saying we should not protect our interests -- we would be foolish not to -- but it is very difficult to justify many of our actions as protecting others. On the humanitarian side, the US is certainly no saint.
>> I know what you're thinking
Uh huh... Sure...
>> I still think that we cannot just leave right now and leave that region as is.
Very true. We have committed ourselves to bringing some sort of stability to Iraq. If we left now, it would be a complete disaster. But it doesn't look too good right now; reeks of poor plnning.
just saw the video. can you imagine how much that hurts when someone takes a dull blade and takes 30 seconds to fully saw off your head while your screaming in agony? to see americans suffer like this really ........es me off. and this is only when they went public about it. apparently this is revenge for all the 'abuse' we put those poor iraqi terrorists through. This guy died in vain.
i can't believe axon your such a jerk bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla geneva bla bla bla hippy democrat blaQuote:
"But that’s not ethical", "you're a mean and heartless bastard axon" - I know what you're thinking but I know for a fact that 99% of us if put in that situation would behave the same. ITS WAR FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!!
If anybody wants to see the full video, head over to Ogrish.com
Be warned though, it's not a pleasant sight.
you can see the guy sitting there cowering in fear while the dumbass reads off his stupid proof-read arabic essay. the guy knew he was going to die. just watching the guy lay there in the beginning in fear makes me think about how this relates to an unorginized skirmish like vietnam. There hasn't been a real war since world war II if you think about it. Now adays if an actual nation rather than little pigs hiding in caves were to threaten our country, we'd blow the <Mod edit> out of them with nuclear warheads. In real wars, nobody gets beheaded. just pounded with immense radiation.
I wonder if this post made any sense...
thanks for that... I've been looking for a while... not exactly the full video, but it has all the major... um... plot points?
this war is completely and utterly useless...
first, it's not a war, and second, if it was, what would you consider winning? ousting current leadership and taking control? wait... we already did that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Axon
Treating prisoners like that is wrong, and you can't take the mentality that 'oh this is war, people get hurt' because once you are a prisoner you are no longer fighting.
I agree with what Jawib said in his first post and what Zach said about the widespread killings. Everyone re-read those statements, and everyone else type less, nobody will read everything you write.
and before anybody acts like a retard and disagrees with him, he's sort of right because we never declared war...although, if this isn't a war, I don't know what is (ol dubya refers to it as the war on terror doesn't he?).Quote:
first, it's not a war, and second, if it was, what would you consider winning? ousting current leadership and taking control? wait... we already did that...
yeah, all i got out of it is that you're a <Mod edit> idiot... do you really believe the united states would nuke any other country?!
yeah. better them than us. let's imagine for a second...the US destroying every non-democratic and terrorist nation. the only problem i can see from this is the large numbers of people who thought it was unethical to nuke the enemy, thus trying to rebel. but hey, we've got mob squads.Quote:
Originally Posted by major_small
can somebody please point out what when then go wrong? there we go, we've got world peace. people won't begin to understand this for hundereds of years. go ahead, call me crazy.
oh, so you want one empire with all the power in the world... good... then nobody has to get along or agree, because we'll all be told what to do and what to think... that's great... we have the power to take over the world, so why not? we're right all the time anyway, aren't we? even if we're not (which could never happen because we're always right), we're the ones in charge, so you can't say we're wrong because we'll kill you.
right or wrong we may be, there can't be two sides contradicting eachother, or there'll be wars.
I'm kind of getting sick of the nuke everybody" attitude. I also don't think that the people that condone it are really dumb enough to believe it...I think they just don't care and are making a mockery of a world situation.
EDIT:
I do.Quote:
do you really believe the united states would nuke any other country?!
that's the very basis of balance... the essence of our government... one side is supposed to disagree with eachother so nobody jumps into things... if the president wants to nuke people, there will be the environmentalists and educated (hippies, as you would call them) that would try to stop him. eventually, the debate tips in favor of one side enough to make it happen.
maybe you should look at the model your very own government follows.
yeah, we can follow the rules of democracy, after the 3rd world waring countries are all gone, along with the terrorists they harbored. it makes you think, how much better would the world be without all those regions? had macarthur gotten his 50 nukes he asked for all of our enemies would be gone to this day. but why didn't he do it? because of the 'educated' people.
you're so completely ignorant and close-minded... I don't know why I even bother talking to you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jawib
Quote:
Originally Posted by linuxdude
While reading these posts I was reminded of the Vietnam War and also the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zach L.
First of all I would like to comment on Zach's quote where he says, "the US is certainly no saint." I believe he is 100% correct in saying that. We (the USA) have gotten ourselves into so many political blunders it is hard to count.
Right now I want to focus on the Vietnam War and then the Khmer Rouge. There are many facts about both of these things that most people simply do not know. Everyone knows that Ho Chi Minh was a supporter of Communism, and that the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia in the 70's, and that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide in Cambodia. Those are indisputable and widely known.
However most things people here are one-sided and bias. Most people don't know that although Ho Chi Minh was a supporter of Communism, that was not his main goal, but his main goal was for a united Vietnam, not a seperated South and North Vietnam. Americans can equate that to the American Civil War. Abe Lincoln's single goal during the way was to have a united country. He was not fighting to abolish slavery. The difference between the two (in the scope of this discussion) is the style of government they supported.
What many also do not know is that the USA supported the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge was a Communist regime. They committed a massive act of genocide in Cambodia. And America still supported them. In fact when the Khmer Rouge took power Vietnam warned America not to support them, but America did not listen. When genocide began to take place, Vietnam invaded Cambodia to stop it (among other political reasons), because it could not sit back and watch the people get killed. America continued to support the Khmer Rouge for many more years.
There is no doubt that the United States has entered into political blunder after political blunder. Our record is in no way clean.
I also, like Jawib, cannot see any good resolution to the current events in the Middle East. When the war began, I was pro-war. As I see the events that have taken place since that time, I think back and many times wish we had either done things differently or not gone into Iraq in the first place.
I do not dispute linuxdude's argument that Saddam's regime needed to be stopped, however, it almost seems we have gotten ourselves into a larger conflict than we expected. And I do not mean that in a military way. Militarily we very easily dominate the situation, but politically it seems as if our position is getting weaker and weaker.
It makes me think back to what George Washington said in his farewell address. He warned against meddling in foreign affairs too much. Certainly some affairs require our attention, however, must we be so attentive? I don't know. I will have to think about it. I don't have any conclusions right now, just a lot of observations that need thinking about.
There is one thing I would like to point out to everyone, however. Go to:
www.ourdocuments.gov
It is an excellent website that contains the 100 most important milestone documents of American history. It is really a great website. Take a look at George Washington's Farewell Address. I think it provides some valuable insights.
I think we should stick to discussing code on the board because of threads like this. All I can say is I saw the video and I feel very sorry for the man and his family..it truly is horrible.
It is horrifying what the human race is capable of regardless of race, creed, nationality, etc. Perhaps one day we will learn that deep down we all want the same things out of life. Perhaps one day we can focus our efforts on more important things than just finding new way to kill one another. We all have to live on planet Earth...why not make it a pleasant experience?
There are no words.
Wow axon, I am surprised to see you spout such garbage. In a war where you are defending yourself, one could argue that you should be able to use any means necessary in winning. But we are the aggressors here! We supposedly went to Iraq to liberate the iraqi people, and then we just go and shoot whoever looks at us funny?!Quote:
one possible resolution is that our "boys" should be able to use any means necessary to win this war, and not to worry about "media scandals" and such. This includes killing anyone who might be a suspected enemy.
And its interesting how you miss the irony of your comment in the wake of what happened to the american. You say we should be able to use "any means necessary" to win, well that is probably the exact sentiment that those who are attacking our soldiers, who beheaded that american and even all the islamic terrorists in general use to justify their actions.
So your saying the stress of war excuses the abuse at that prison? Well, firstly, those guards at that prison werent the ones on the front lines so they dont have that excuse. Also, you seem to forget that there were rapes and murders at that and other prisons. The stress of war by no means justifies that. Furthermore, that argument will just as easily justify abuse and torture of american POWs and noncombatants in the hands of iraqi fighters. Mistreatment of unarmed prisoners is unjustifiable under and circumstance.Quote:
put yourself in the positions of those soldiers...if you saw your buddy's head exploded from enemy fire, you would do the same if put in that position
Of course, it cant be avoided in every situation, but thats why we are supposed to have commanders oversee prisions like that to make sure any abuse or potential abusive situations are resolved before they get to the level that they reached at Abu Ghraib. Apparently there werent any there.
I agree, I think whoever turned the other cheek with the tortures forgot the US facade of stern/all knowing/helpfull, I would guess this is a retaliation, and that there will be more to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by kermi3
This tragedy makes me question our nation's policy against negotiating with terrorists. According to the murderers in the video, Nick Berg, 26, of West Chester, Pa., would still be alive today had the United States traded him for some prisoners our nation is detaining. Why again is it that we don't negotiate with terrorists? I'd think that if we can save lives, we should do so.
Also, I wonder how it is that civilian Americans are being captured. With something like 150,000 military troops there, why is our nation not providing protection to our citizens in Iraq? I'd think that assigning military bodyguards to our citizens there is well worth it rather than lose innocent civilians.
Well... it looks like... war ?Quote:
Barbaric doesn't even begin to describe this.
I know it's highly unamerican and unpatriotic to say that "war is hell" ( bad american this Mr. Sherman ), but it seems to be true.
Appeasement never works. Ask France.
Where are these terrorist websites I always hear about? I've yet to actually come across one
ok, besides that, what kind of problems would lay in such a solution? there aren't any.Quote:
Originally Posted by major_small
Didn't we try for about 12 years to stop Saddam politically? And when Clinton sent those bombs over to the middle east, did we complain? I'm just curious about that. I mean, if we tried to stop Saddam for 12 years, with no success it seems to me like military action is the only way.
WTF's wrong eith these people... Chopping the head is in no way going to solve theri problems...
Quoted from FD: (hope you don't mind DK!)Maybe the media should start telling the truth.Quote:
when i frist got word from cnn about this i felt bad for the guy.
then my good buddy, npr told me some more details and i no longer feel bad for him. npr told me that he was a small business owner over in iraq of his own "free will" (i.e. he decided to go over there to try to find a job he can do). the iraqui interim gov't found him and told he to leave, as it would be in his best interests. american troops found him and told him to go home, as it was too dangerous for him to be out there. guess what - he didn't.
i'm sorry, perhaps i am a jaded heartless [edit], but you have got to be some special kind of stupid to be in a war zone and expect sympathy.
i feel bad for his family b/c they have to deal with this b/c he made stupid decisions.
Characterizing him as a small business owner looking for work is a bit disingenuous according to the New York Times.Quote:
Originally Posted by ober
From the article linked below, this quote:
Second, the media did "tell the truth", if by truth you mean that he was warned to leave Iraq.Quote:
Friends and family of Berg said he was a ``free spirit'' who wanted to help others -- working in Ghana, in one example -- and that his going to Iraq fit with that ideology.
It's somewhat unclear what the timeline of his stay in Iraq was, and to what extent his motivations were mercenary or altruistic, but the media did a fairly full job of reporting on the story at least from the aspect of what Berg was told.
oh man, first link doesn't work, second one you need to register to read
linky-poo to the us warnings to get out of iraq (i haven't read it)
Ok, first of all, I think this is an important topic, and I haven't replied yet...so this may be a bit long, sorry.
(post by post...)
axon:
There's a reason that you don't do it, and it's taught to every soilder. The reason the anti-torture rules and Genovena convention rules are in place (and the reason we follow them) is to avoid retaliation in kind. I realize that we aren't fighting an enemy that is going to follow them 100%, but the more ammunition we give them the more they will retailate and the easier time they will have recruiting more people to attack us.Quote:
you saw your buddy's head exploded from enemy fire....ITS WAR FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!!
While I agree with you that we can't leave now that we're in, that doesn't mean use any means nessicary to maintain peace. After we leave, if the new Iraqi government, Iraqi people, and the rest of the Arab world is ........ed off at us because of our tactices, we are in trouble. We cannot afford to have instability in the Middle East, or have them dislike us that much. Not only does it breed terrorism, but it also threatens our oil supply (Insert eviromental arguement here).
Novacain -
I'm not totally convinced we knew about the torture, and I certainly don't think that the war was a good idea. However, prior to the war, Saddam was a threat to the area. I'm not saying that the current situation is preferable, but I think some of the bases were warrented. Of course, it was Saudi's land, if they wanted us gone, we should have left.
From Zach L.'s post -
I absolutely agree. The biggest arguement I hear now from those in the US who support the war is that we had to protect them from Saddam (whoops no more WMDs...). To be frank, I think that arguement is bull. I agree Saddam was a terrable dictator, but there are a lot of terrible dictators out there. The US is not the world's police. The entire world is made of different cultures and beliefs, and it is not the US's place to say who is wrong and who needs to leave power. Moreover, we can't afford to enforce it. War ain't cheap, and I'm not just talking about money or the lives of soilders. The negative PR (to put it lightly) from ignoring the rest of the world and getting people mad at us is going to hurt or global trade and going to increase terrorism.Quote:
To say, "That is why we are America, we protect," is foolish. We protect our interests. I'm not saying we should not protect our interests -- we would be foolish not to -- but it is very difficult to justify many of our actions as protecting others. .
While this is certainly true (as DavidP so eloquently detailed), the US isn't all bad either. We give out a lot of forgien aid, (See the http://www.usaid.gov/]US Agency for ...al Development).Quote:
On the humanitarian side, the US is certainly no saint
I'm not going to really drone on much longer...but for many of the arguements that I've already made, plus the enviromental ones (you can call me an educated hippie if you must...) nuking ain't an option....
Anyway, there are some of my broad views....feel free to pick them apart if you wish.
I'm pretty sure I'm not registered with the NY Times and both of the links work fine for me. Here are the URLs:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow12345
first link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...ed-Victim.html
second link: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/inte...l/AP-Iraq.html
Also, these are actually AP articles, rather than articles written by Times reporters, so the text introducing the link should read "According to the AP" rather than "according to the New York Times". Sorry for confusing the sources.
No, I'm pretty sure you are registered with NY Times. I get a screen telling me to register.
echo ober.
Well I'll be darned. I sure don't remember registering. I have to finish some work, but later on I'll find those articles from another source.
same here... I was considering signing up to see the story until I got to the "select exclusive benefits" part... I would have even gone past the "tell us about yourself" part until I saw that...
just register, it takes like 30 seconds.
wow we have both webmaster and kermi active in this thread, that doesnt happen often :p
I would, but like I just said, I don't like registering for things that offer a page and a half of "exclusive benefits"Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidP
dude, notice that those things are opt-in and not opt-out, you dont have to mark any of them. if you dont mark any of them, then you dont get any of them. it is not that hard.
You could just copy the articles and post them here for us. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by webmaster
I came into this thread late, but I agree with Axon.
Also, if the enemy is using a mosque to hide in and attack from, I do believe the soldiers should blow the hell out of it. Unleash hell.
Hmm, let's think....nuclear war maybe. There are 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world right now all pointed at each other. If one country nukes another, it's nuclear holocaust. THAT, my dear friend, is why we don't go around nuking each other.Quote:
ok, besides that, what kind of problems would lay in such a solution [nuking]? there aren't any.
Brendan
no, i'm just talking about nuking countries that harbor terrorists. there won't be any world wide holocaust if we just don't nuke the chinese. i mean hey, we've been taking in their goods havn't we(MADE IN CHINA)?
Okay, that's a really silly position. For the sake of argument, I'll assume that the nuclear fallout from several dozen to several hundred nuclear weapons would not be extremely deterimental to the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xterria
First off, most of the inhabitants of any terrorist-harboring country aren't actually terrorists. For most people, this should be a sufficient reason not to nuke those countries. You could argue that we don't care about those people anyway. I'm not sure how you could justify this and maintain your self-respect, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you might have a really clever argument tucked away.
Now, you still have to be sure you actually kill the people you want to kill. It's not very easy to be sure that you actually kill the terrorists if you nuke the country. For instance, take Afghanistan -- unless you start to bombard every mountain and cave, you're not doing any good. But if you start using that much firepower, you're really wasting a lot of nuclear weapons. Of course, you could just do a quasi-thorough job and assume that everything will get taken care of by radiation sickness. But if you're not going to use nuclear weapons to be thorough, you might want to just use more precision-guided weapons and ground troops.
So maybe you don't want to send in ground troops for whatever reason. You still have to consider that a lot of the countries that harbor terrorists don't intend to harbor terrorists. I imagine that Pakistan has a lot of Al-Qaeda operatives, along with Saudi Arabia and probably a host of other countries. We couldn't nuke Pakistan and not risk retaliatory strikes. Plus we'd really screw up the subcontinent, especially India. If you don't like outsourcing, maybe you think this is a plus. Just remember that if your Dell breaks, you'll be in trouble. What's that? You have a Sony?
So maybe figure that the risk of upsetting Pakistan is OK. Well, don't forget that Saudi Arabia is a member of OPEC and hitting them will almost certainly curb oil production. Plus, hitting anywhere else in the Middle East would presumably result in similar cutbacks.
d = mass over volume. Subsequently xterria either a) has a lot of mass or b) not a lot of volume, because bub, you're dense.
actually, I think that you are an idiot. That is my humble opinion however.
yeah, but what happens when russia sees we're throwing nukes around like candy... they don't like that we're doing that, so they put their finger over the button... we're happily launching, and one nuke's trajectory looks like it may land somewhere nead russia... russia releases 20 nukes on us, we release 30 on them, and then every other country that's sick of it all releases their nukes against every other country with and without nukes... good job...
>>I'm not totally convinced we knew about the torture, and I certainly don't think that the war was a good idea. <<
Rumsfelt admitted he knew in January 2004. The Red Cross complained to the US admin., officially in October 2003, but starting in March 2003.
““Upon witnessing such cases, the ICRC interrupted its visits and requested an explanation from the authorities,” it said. “The military intelligence officer in charge of the interrogation explained that this practice was ‘part of the process.’ ”
Source
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
The pictures were to be used as an interrogation tool ie 'talk or this is what we will do to you'
Now it’s the seven reservists who will take the fall. Not those who ordered the acts, nor those who covered them up.
>>We give out a lot of forgien aid
BUT,
1. USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world.
2. Aid has been a foreign policy tool to aid the donor not the recipient
3. Most going to Israel, the 16th richest country in the world (in arms). In 2000 $967 million of $2506 mill in US gov. aid went to Israel.
“As in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for Israel, most is for military credits.”
“[U.S. Senator Patrick] Leahy noted that two-thirds of US government aid goes to only two countries: Israel and Egypt. Much of the remaining third is used to promote US exports or to fight a war against drugs that could only be won by tackling drug abuse in the United States.”
Source
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
>>if the enemy is using a mosque to hide in and attack from<<
These sites are the equivalent of the Vatican or Holy City. Do you think the GWB would order the Vatican to be bombed?
I'm not going to touch teh nuke issue. I thin kthe webmaster made the point....
Novacain -
Thank you for pointing out the torture issue. While they should have been doing what they are doing now to correct the problem, I can't say that I blame them for not telling. Making that kind of information public threatens the security of US troops on the ground (like the man whostarted this thread). I do want to make clear though, I do NOT think they should have tortured anyone. If upper echolans knew of the problem, they should ahve been quietly, but aggressively, addressing the problem.
I agree that the US could give more aid, and we give ti as a tool as much as anything. However, I wonder what those numbers would look like if you factored in aid given by private orginizations.
>>These sites are the equivalent of the Vatican or Holy City. Do you think the GWB would order the Vatican to be bombed?
I disagree that this is the same thing. A simple mosque equates more to a church. If there were people shooting me from a church would I shoot back? Of course. If it demanded destroying the church to protect myself would I? Yup. As for the truely holy sites, I think that caution should be used, and perhaps they shouldn't be attacked. However, I question anyone who would use their holiest sites as a military base. That doesn't seem overly religious to me.
So limited nuclear conflict is ok ?Quote:
no, i'm just talking about nuking countries that harbor terrorists. there won't be any world wide holocaust if we just don't nuke the chinese. i mean hey, we've been taking in their goods havn't we(MADE IN CHINA)?
Russia nuking Chechnya ?
India nuking parts of Pakistan ?
Pakistan nuking India back ?
How about throwing a nuke at mexico, those illegal immigrants are unnerving, right ?
Oh, and don't forget to finish of Hamburg, Germany, where a terrorist of 9/11 studied. Eradicating it once was not enough, was it ?
While you are at it, nuking the Den Hague war tribunal might be a good idea, too. Just a preemptive strike in case they ever get hold of US war criminals.
And I never liked the soccer team of Munich, can you nuke them, too ?
I don't think you are aware what a nuclear warhead does. I don't think you know what your conventional ammunition that has uranium cores does to the environment. If an Apache wastes a tank, the environment will have 8 times the maximum allowed radiation values. But we can let some kids play there, because it will go away.... in approximately 4 Billion years.
WOW! I don't care at all about those nukes but It is amazing that the one word description of this thread brought me here. I skimmed pages 1 and 4 just thought I would tell Lurker that he is analogous to those rightwing sensationalists in the media. GO SENSATIONALISM! WHoOoOoO!!!!! Yeah, we rock!!!
By the way... my 2 cents says: We ended WWI with an armistice with Germany...Then WWII happened, right? Then it ended with an unconditional surrender. We ended the Korean War with an armistice...now whats going to happen? (WWIII?) Just gimme a plane ticket and a markII luger with an 8" supressor... j/k but we do need to do something about kim jon il (<--sp?).
Oh yeah.... saw something on this on 60 minutes last month, maybe two. look half way down the page about the "Diary of Ann Frank."
North Korea, Ann Frank
I am angry about this because some stupid grunts are going to take the fall, to make sure GWB's re-election chances are not hurt. Watch as this is now swiftly wrapped up with some school girl going to goal because she followed orders OR it disappear until after the electon in the US.
What happens, now the Geneva convention is dead, when our servicemen are captured?
>>I disagree that this is the same thing. A simple mosque equates more to a church. <<
Najaf is the Muslim equivalent of the Vatican. Ali Modammad 4th 'Pope' of Islam and son in law to the prophet Mohammad is buried there (among other things). The Shiite form of Islam originated with those who believe Mohammad selected Ali as his successor (not Abu Bakir).
""Najaf for Shia Muslims is like the Vatican for the Christians, Roman Catholics. It has that level of sacredness and they consider it as their highest authority," says Abbas Kadhim, a UC Berkeley doctoral student, who hails from Najaf. "
source
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1217625
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099573/
i would say more but i keep getting the feeling that it is absolutely pointless talking about it.
Well, calling that an armistice is like calling blackmail a free trade agreement. It was as much an unconditional surrender as WWII. The only "conditions" were set by France in some kind of revenge movement.Quote:
We ended WWI with an armistice with Germany...Then WWII happened, right? Then it ended with an unconditional surrender.
Matter of fact, my great grandfather whose name I don't even know might have fought in that war 90 years ago. He might not even have been asked about it, as Germany was kind of a monarchy back then. And if it would have been for France's intentions of revenge, a part of my taxes would still go to France as reperations. Today !
The thing you called armistice was one reason why it was easy to win the Germans for another war. Especially the section about who's fault WWI was.
I don't think there is such a potential for Korea.
Sorry I haven't been entirely following this thread, but:
If all you are saying is that they should have done more when they found out or told us sooner, maybe they should have. Still, I don't see how it helps to tell everyone now...I can see why they wouldn't want the story to be public--just look what terrorists are using it for now! It can't be making things any better for our troops over there...Quote:
Originally Posted by novacain
I really, really hope that you're joking/trolling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xterria
However, I cannot be 100% sure, and that is what scares me. It really, really scares me.
What if you won a great sum of money and made yourself president?
>>If all you are saying is that they should have done more when they found out or told us sooner, maybe they should have.<<
I believe this is not an isolated incident but is Standard Operating Procedure.
You can't take 1800+ images in a US military prison, with many other servicemen standing round unless it is officially sanctioned. Let alone ones containing illegal acts.
The grunts on trial did this because they were ordered to.
The real criminals are those who allowed it to happen and when informed did not stop it. That is Sec of Defense, Donald Rumsfelt.
But this will be handled in the manner that minimises its impact on GWB's re-election chances.
To that end, I expect the people in the photos to do some serious time (for simply following a superiors order).
>>Still, I don't see how it helps to tell everyone now...I can see why they wouldn't want the story to be public--just look what terrorists are using it for now! It can't be making things any better for our troops over there...<<
You realy think that the Iraqis did not know this was happening to friends and relatives?
The Red Cross knew for over a year that this was systemic to US military prisons.
The UK and Australia knew.
Legal action is currently being taken against the US over POW abuse, by UK citizens released from Camp X-Ray.
The Australian citizens there have both reported abuses to the Red Cross but are barred from revealing the details by the US administration.
Until the pictures it was just the 'terrorists' word against the US military denials.
Who do you think was being believed?
Just to provide a few relevant news articles -- here's a CNN.com piece on an article to be printed in The New Yorker on May 24, already available online.
Since the New Yorker article is really long, I'll try to summarize the main points.
The first paragraph of the The New Yorker article summarizes its claims pretty well:
The rest of the article focuses on a history of how Rumsfeld and the Defense Department created a special force to rapidly act on intelligence and more efficiently extract information from high value targets.Quote:
The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. Rumsfeld’s decision embittered the American intelligence community, damaged the effectiveness of élite combat units, and hurt America’s prospects in the war on terror.
A brief picture of how the setupworked:Quote:
Rumsfeld reacted in his usual direct fashion: he authorized the establishment of a highly secret program that was given blanket advance approval to kill or capture and, if possible, interrogate “high value” targets in the Bush Administration’s war on terror. A special-access program, or sap—subject to the Defense Department’s most stringent level of security—was set up, with an office in a secure area of the Pentagon. The program would recruit operatives and acquire the necessary equipment, including aircraft, and would keep its activities under wraps. America’s most successful intelligence operations during the Cold War had been saps, including the Navy’s submarine penetration of underwater cables used by the Soviet high command and construction of the Air Force’s stealth bomber. All the so-called “black” programs had one element in common: the Secretary of Defense, or his deputy, had to conclude that the normal military classification restraints did not provide enough security.
The article points out that the insurgency was taking place outside the domain of US intelligence. The solution, according to the article: turn Iraqi prisons into interrogation centers.Quote:
In theory, the operation enabled the Bush Administration to respond immediately to time-sensitive intelligence: commandos crossed borders without visas and could interrogate terrorism suspects deemed too important for transfer to the military’s facilities at Guantánamo, Cuba. They carried out instant interrogations—using force if necessary—at secret C.I.A. detention centers scattered around the world.
According to the article, the scope of the operation expanded until it was getting out of hand, and threatening the cover of the program.Quote:
Rumsfeld and Cambone went a step further, however: they expanded the scope of the sap, bringing its unconventional methods to Abu Ghraib. The commandos were to operate in Iraq as they had in Afghanistan. The male prisoners could be treated roughly, and exposed to sexual humiliation.
“They weren’t getting anything substantive from the detainees in Iraq,” the former intelligence official told me. “No names. Nothing that they could hang their hat on. Cambone says, I’ve got to crack this thing and I’m tired of working through the normal chain of command. I’ve got this apparatus set up—the black special-access program—and I’m going in hot. So he pulls the switch, and the electricity begins flowing last summer. And it’s working. We’re getting a picture of the insurgency in Iraq and the intelligence is flowing into the white world. We’re getting good stuff. But we’ve got more targets”—prisoners in Iraqi jails—“than people who can handle them.”
I think it's interesting that The New Yorker article actually shows that the program was helping uncover elements of the insurgency. In a lot of ways, it brings out the gray areas of the situation pretty well. It's not completely clear, from the article, just how effective the interrogation program was -- it seems to have provided a picture of the insurgency, but it's hard to say how many innocent Iraqis were also victimized.Quote:
The C.I.A.’s complaints were echoed throughout the intelligence community. There was fear that the situation at Abu Ghraib would lead to the exposure of the secret sap, and thereby bring an end to what had been, before Iraq, a valuable cover operation. “This was stupidity,” a government consultant told me. “You’re taking a program that was operating in the chaos of Afghanistan against Al Qaeda, a stateless terror group, and bringing it into a structured, traditional war zone. Sooner or later, the commandos would bump into the legal and moral procedures of a conventional war with an Army of a hundred and thirty-five thousand soldiers.”
One source summarizes it this way:
The pentagon strongly denies everything, as quoted from CNN.com in the article linked above:Quote:
“This [profanity deleted] has been brewing for months,” the Pentagon consultant who has dealt with saps told me. “You don’t keep prisoners naked in their cell and then let them get bitten by dogs. This is sick.” The consultant explained that he and his colleagues, all of whom had served for years on active duty in the military, had been appalled by the misuse of Army guard dogs inside Abu Ghraib. “We don’t raise kids to do things like that. When you go after Mullah Omar, that’s one thing. But when you give the authority to kids who don’t know the rules, that’s another.”
Quote:
"Assertions apparently being made in the latest New Yorker article on Abu Ghraib and the abuse of Iraqi detainees are outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture," Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said.
>>It's not completely clear, from the article, just how effective the interrogation program was -- it seems to have provided a picture of the insurgency, but it's hard to say how many innocent Iraqis were also victimized.<<
Intel from POWs is considered very low grade, especially if you had to 'torture' them to get the intel. This is because anybody who knows something will not tell until you have to go too far and those who don't know anything will make something up so you will stop.
Here is the first grunt up on charges.
Looks like the standard PR response, first, divide to conquer (the patsies) and second, create a 'pausable deniability'.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f...25-2918500.php
I found this link to US servicemen currently suing Iraq for POW abuses interesting.
"The plaintiffs said they want to expose the abuses, hold the Iraqi leadership accountable and spare others from the same fate."
"Seventeen former and current service members and 37 family members"
"The suit, the first such complaint by Desert Storm prisoners of war, seeks damages of over $750 million for physical and emotional pain, economic loss and other suffering."
http://www.armytimes.com/archivepape...ER-1805363.php