NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

bullshit, if it was true you think the Military would let pics like that get out into the public?

We say court mashall them... which is what they're planning on doing. 17 have been charged total so far, IIRC.

bullshit, if it was true you think the Military would let pics like that get out into the public?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40099000/rm/_40099113_prisoners22_frei_vi.ram

Here? You want to see them? Click above.

A select few U.S. Soldiers are war criminals.

And they are being punished for it.

What more do you want?

EDIT: Though I'm looking at these things - not all of them look overly authentic.

A select few U.S. Soldiers are war criminals.

And they are being punished for it.

What more do you want?


I'd say it's a little more widespread than that. One BBC report even quoted a source as saying that Iraqis of a 'military age' were being arrested in their droves without evidence or even reason in some areas as a method of combating insurgency. In this case we are talking about the goings on of an entire prison, interrogators asking for prisoners to be 'prepared' for interrogation and violence being frequently used to break prisoners within a matter of hours.

The source: Newsnight.

It's a bit like a kid rattling a hornets nest with a branch and then being surprised when all the hornets try to sting him.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

just one more of the many attrocities carried out by thye military.

I don't expect civilized actions from people trained to kill and hate

I've a few friends still in the military..made some calls, and this story can not be independently confirmed on anything in the US, I don't recall any CBS program with this material in it...and believe you me...it CBS had it, they'd be blaring that thing nite and day...

I'll wait for more corroboration...some of those pictures look clearly staged...and for damn sure I can't accept that anyone would be so monumentally STUPID as to take pictures that might be presented at any court-martial...and just what prison is this..it mentions no name..just..outside Baghdad...way to many holes in this...it smells like bad cheese.

Addendum:.I just saw on Fox news regarding 6 soldiers, and the Brigadier General (who will almost certainly be retired if these charges pan out)..have been charged......so...I don't think anyone has said that Americans...indeed...any nation doesn't have military personnel who could abuse a prisoner?...The military is after all a microcosm of the greater society..and if their are people that abuse on the outside, then it is possible there are military personnel who would abuse...I'll peruse military legal sites to see the evidence obtained before I give any decision one way or another.

I'm not exactly very trusting of a news agency that is already biased against American involvement in Iraq.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind
Remember the Romans, how they used to slaughter entire towns?

Yeah, I do too.

Good thing it dosen't pertain to this thread.

i smell bullshit

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil

And another thing. (I've a few friends still in the military..made some calls, and this story can not be independently confirmed on anything in the US, I don't recall any CBS program with this material in it...and believe you me...it CBS had it, they'd be blaring that thing nite and day...)


that is sooo true. Do you believe every thing you hear? and if you do you are an ideot. So if you don't like the U.S. goverment that bad than move to china and find out how bad things are!!!!!

HERE IS SOMBODY THAT IS PROUD TO ME AN AMERCAN. (Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil)


So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

HERE IS SOMBODY THAT IS PROUD TO ME AN AMERCAN. (Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil)


So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

[/funny]

I've a few friends still in the military..made some calls, and this story can not be independently confirmed on anything in the US, I don't recall any CBS program with this material in it...and believe you me...it CBS had it, they'd be blaring that thing nite and day...


A link at CBSNews.com itself:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main614063.shtml

(EDIT: CBS also has video/pictures at http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml . Select "Army Probes POW Abuse" link on that page.)

what do cigarettes have to do with anything?

i stand corrected

TGA, please, I beg of you, don't take facts someone else posted, pretend they're your own, and then say you're proud to be an American in the same paragraph. (Or was that the same sentence?)

Because, well, I'm proud to be an American, but quite frankly, I'm not even proud to share a species with you.

I certainly wouldn't want a nuke dropped on me and everyone I know so that the nukers can have a shorter war.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I hope they all get prison time and I especially hope they are butt-raped in prison daily.

I certainly wouldn't want a nuke dropped on me and everyone I know so that the nukers can have a shorter war.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Oh...so you would have preferred up to one milllion more Allied deaths, not to mention the millions of Japanese deaths that would have occured had we had to land on the Japanese Home Islands?

I don't know why people make such a big deal about the nuclear bombs in particular anyway. I could understand attacking the whole strategic bombing program, however the nuclear bombs in themselves sometimes caused less deaths (and, also in some cases, less painful deaths) than massive conventional bombing raids like those on Dresden or Hamburg.

Thats because people on this board enjoy complaining about everything.

This is hardly an isolated incident: if it were, the soldiers performing these atrocious crimes wouldn't have been so desensitized to it. The fact is that it is the interrogation officers and their commanders that are to blame for violating the rules of law. This is SICK and only proves that the US has no business running Iraq.

Is it any wonder that they REVOLT against the occupation? Is it any wonder that over half of Iraqis say that the US should leave?

The second crime here is the fact that the media isn't making it into a big deal: the cable news cartel seems to gloss-over it, and that's only when they mention it at all. Fair and Balanced -- yeah right!

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

Accuracy please. The report said simulating sodomy - not actually performing it. A not so minor point were it your butt in the picture.

Speaking of asses, they are some MP's and any superiors who looked the other way whose asses will go to Leavenworth where they belong for breaking military law.

They is NOT the entire military and it is NOT the US government.

So what is your point?

:shock:

It's ludicrous..a few soldiers are allegedly guilty of prisoner misconduct and Texas implicates the entire US military serving in Iraq?...I would venture to say that in Texas's own municipal police force you've at least 10% of dirty cops who are either on the take, addicted to drugs, engaged in criminal actions..etc..would that therefore mean that none of police should be there enforcing municipal law?

So what is your point?
:shock:

At first, the knee-jerk reation is denial: bullshit, if it was true you think the Military would let pics like that get out into the public?

Then, the knee-jerk reaction is justification:
They are a few MP's and any superiors who looked the other way whose asses will go to Leavenworth where they belong for breaking military law.
They is NOT the entire military and it is NOT the US government.


I guess my point is that this happened in March and it's almost May before the story broke: not only that, but media has barely -- if at all -- put this story out!

How can you be so sure that this is an isolated incident? Isn't it more likely that this is a recurring event that just so happend to get photographed once?

It's ludicrous.. [bla bla bla]

so...

First it's "This never happened, it's a lie!" and now it's "What's the BIG deal?"

Is it me, or is this thread making very little sense? First it was Iraq, then Japan, then cigarettes... :?

It's ludicrous.. [bla bla bla]

so...

First it's "This never happened, it's a lie!" and now it's "What's the BIG deal?"

No...I never said it never happened...others said that...I said I'd wait for more corroboration...and you are the one who stipulated that 6 soldiers somehow equates to the entire US military in Iraq being no less then criminal thugs...so who is bs'ing whom?

Are you trying to tell me that no corruption occurs in your local police, county jail, state or federal prison in your homestate?

This is hardly an isolated incident: if it were, the soldiers performing these atrocious crimes wouldn't have been so desensitized to it.

.....

That's a pretty stupid hypothesis.

It's also a logical fallacy.

"Because people are insensitive to this, this is therefore a common occurence".

Wouldn't the logical assumption be "these soldiers are insensitive to this, because they are sick?"

No you have to jump to the oddball conclusion that the entire government pulls this kind of stuff and that America somehow condones this. Congratulations on jumping off the high end.

The fact is that it is the interrogation officers and their commanders that are to blame for violating the rules of law.

Eh? A few soldiers had had enough of the Iraqis and had lost a few screws, so started mistreating the prisoners. Had nothing to do with interrogation.

This is SICK and only proves that the US has no business running Iraq.

Uh...

You do realize that ten times worse things were happening in Iraq before the U.S. ever arrived right? I hate to sound harsh, but I'd rather 17 terrorists go through this once than hundreds of thousands of civilians go through this hundreds of times a year.

As well...again the actions of a dozen or so do not dictate the morality or cause of those who are there.

Is it any wonder that they REVOLT against the occupation? Is it any wonder that over half of Iraqis say that the US should leave?

Right it couldn't possibly be that this is the same Fedaeen that has been fighting us since the invasion and have simply refused to surrender. And are therefore still striking out to try to re-establish a muslim run regime of chaos and terror?

No it has to be because the Iraqis have this telepathic link with the Fedaeen prisoners and know something that only about a dozen people knew about, and so revolted without telling anyone.

Hate to break it to you, but Iraq isn't revolting, a select few are.

But people like the BBC like to shine a bad light on it and exaggerate.

The second crime here is the fact that the media isn't making it into a big deal: the cable news cartel seems to gloss-over it, and that's only when they mention it at all. Fair and Balanced -- yeah right!

Uhh...they ARE making this a big deal you moron.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?

You sick bastard.

So what is your point?
:shock:

At first, the knee-jerk reation is denial: bullshit, if it was true you think the Military would let pics like that get out into the public?

Then, the knee-jerk reaction is justification:
They are a few MP's and any superiors who looked the other way whose asses will go to Leavenworth where they belong for breaking military law.
They is NOT the entire military and it is NOT the US government.


I guess my point is that this happened in March and it's almost May before the story broke: not only that, but media has barely -- if at all -- put this story out!

How can you be so sure that this is an isolated incident? Isn't it more likely that this is a recurring event that just so happend to get photographed once?

Tex, take a step back. Let's say we have 150,000 personnel in Iraq. Let's say .01% are guilty as you charge. That would be 150 individuals participating in criminal behavior. That would still be a ten fold increase over what we are talking about.

It is hardly an indictment of the entire military or government sanctioned behavior. Why does making that point, in the face of your broadside, appear to be justification?

I clearly stated that there is no justification for this and they belong in a military prison where there will be a much harsher sentence than even Texas would give.

Might the problem be more widespread than this group of individuals? Perhaps. Might the military or government cover it up? Perhaps. Does that amount to sanctioning it? No.

Keep your head about you man. You are sounding quite desperate and hysterical. There is a bigger picture that needs to be considered and flying off the handle is unbecoming of someone of your intelligence.

:shock:

Well, at least these sick bastards are being court-martialed. These soldiers can burn in hell for all I care. In any case, make the ride quicker, and give them life sentences or the death penalty at a brig somewhere. But watch, the ICC will step in, and with its highly political structure, they'll find a way to prosecute our generals or Bush, whether or not any of them had anything to do with this or not (and I'm sure not many beyond the squadron command at the prison was in on this).

A few soldiers had had enough of the Iraqis and had lost a few screws, so started mistreating the prisoners. Had nothing to do with interrogation.

No, going after the six guys in the photographs isn't enough: it's like going after the 12 year-old drug dealer on the corner and not the gang leaders forcing him to sell the dope or the Mafia guys delivering it to the gang...

What we need is justice, not scapeg-oating!

Mr Myers said that the accused men, all from a reserve military police unit, were told to soften up the prisoners by more senior interrogators, some of whom they believe were intelligence officials and outside contractors.
Gary Myers, the lawyer for one of the enlisted men who has been charged, said the military had treated the six enlisted soldiers as scapeg-oats and had failed to deal adequately with the responsibilities of senior commanders and intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?
You sick bastard.

ah, the best way to defend censorship:
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?

Tex, take a step back. Let's say we have 150,000 personnel in Iraq. Let's say .01% are guilty as you charge. That would be 150 individuals participating in criminal behavior. That would still be a ten fold increase over what we are talking about.

You're missing the point that this isn't about the 6 guys who were "following orders," it's about the Brigadier-General telling them to "soften up" the Iraqis for interragation.

It is hardly an indictment of the entire military or government sanctioned behavior. Why does making that point, in the face of your broadside, appear to be justification?

The militaries actions on the field have nothing to do with this: This is about the biggest Prison in Iraq -- I think it holds weight.


I clearly stated that there is no justification for this and they belong in a military prison where there will be a much harsher sentence than even Texas would give.

Again, "just following orders" is no excuse -- however, I think the big-wigs at the top handing out those orders deserve more punishment.

Keep your head about you man. You are sounding quite desperate and hysterical. There is a bigger picture that needs to be considered and flying off the handle is unbecoming of someone of your intelligence.

The bigger picture is that the US is operating torture rooms inside of the a Prison in an occupied country (it doesn't matter how you spin it)

Beyond that, you have to realize that the US is already allowing interrogaters to torture "terrorist" -- they even send some suspects to foreign countries where anti-torture laws don't exist.

Also, if this is happening in Iraq -- THINK about what is happening at Guantanamo Bay!

Meh!

So we have a few bad apples in the bunch. This is not a unique experience.

A friend is a retired Brigadier who fought in Korea. He was captured and they thought he had troop and truck movements.

He didn't.

They just about broke everything in his body. To this day he walks like a 120 year old man and he is only 60.

Was anybody punished over that? Nope?

Does it justify what the Americans did? Of course not!

The point is sadists can be found anywhere. The US for all it's "evil" is going to punish them.

The point is sadists can be found anywhere. The US for all it's "evil" is going to punish them.

The only ones being punished are the grunts -- The bigger problem is with the Brigader-General and the officers ordering them to commit war crimes.

Texas I've had it up to here with your conspiracy theories.

No one is telling these people to do anything. They did it, of their own accord, free of the chain of command.

The command staff had no involvement.

What was it, 17 soldiers doing this because they were sick bastards?

Stop trying to involve the entire government and the COs of the military. There were no orders for this thing.

A few soldiers had had enough of the Iraqis and had lost a few screws, so started mistreating the prisoners. Had nothing to do with interrogation.

No, going after the six guys in the photographs isn't enough: it's like going after the 12 year-old drug dealer on the corner and not the gang leaders forcing him to sell the dope or the Mafia guys delivering it to the gang...

What we need is justice, not scapeg-oating!

Mr Myers said that the accused men, all from a reserve military police unit, were told to soften up the prisoners by more senior interrogators, some of whom they believe were intelligence officials and outside contractors.
Gary Myers, the lawyer for one of the enlisted men who has been charged, said the military had treated the six enlisted soldiers as scapeg-oats and had failed to deal adequately with the responsibilities of senior commanders and intelligence personnel involved in the interrogations.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?
You sick bastard.

ah, the best way to defend censorship:
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?

OK, OK Tex - I give up! I'll tell you what I know about it all. Just promise not to let the BBC break the story.

Darth (his real name) Cheney passed the word to Count "Donald" Dooku that those who opposed Darth Sidious' will had to be made to suffer. They were clear that Jar Jar Powell could have no clue as to what was to be done as he would undoubtedly give them away to the Jedi knights who masquerade their efforts behind the curtain by acting as the BBC's Board of Governors. Wanting plausable deniability they dispatched Darth Maul to Iraq to do their bidding.

Maul, a contender in his own right, sought out a cadre of particularly cruel star troopers led by the murder of Bambi's mother to carry out the deed. The last report is that he is inside Fallujah satisfying his canabalistic tendencies while awaiting further orders.

Thank you for this opportunity to purge myself. I feel much better now.

:shock:

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!

Actually records of the Japaneese decision to surender show that they were more concerned with the Russian invasion of Korea then the atomic bomb blast in Nagasaki, both of which happened on the same day. Although what might have been can never be known, it is most likly that the war would have ended with out the atomic bomb, or an invasion of the home islands

So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

This is not acceptable.. please knock it off.. consider yourself warned.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind
Shut the fuck up moron. WWII was a REAL war, and anything had to be done to effectuate a favorable political outcome. The Jappers got what they deserved. If they didn't want to die, the idiots should've have attacked Pearl Harbor.

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!

Actually records of the Japaneese decision to surender show that they were more concerned with the Russian invasion of Korea then the atomic bomb blast in Nagasaki, both of which happened on the same day. Although what might have been can never be known, it is most likly that the war would have ended with out the atomic bomb, or an invasion of the home islands
Yeah right. The Japanese military staged a coup when the Emperor tried to surrender, if it hadn't been for a Japanese man that refused to air the broadcast ordering Japan to fight to the death, we would've had to finish them off. At any rate, the Japanese brought it on themselves.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind
Shut the f--- up moron. WWII was a REAL war, and anything had to be done to effectuate a favorable political outcome. The Jappers got what they deserved. If they didn't want to die, the idiots should've have attacked Pearl Harbor.

You're so right--the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki voted unanimously for the attack on Pearl Harbor and thus are personally responsible. It's a little-known historical fact.

Shut the f--- up moron

This is also not acceptable.. you may consider this an warning. I have noticed some of your posting to be rather flamey.. knock it off.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

OK, OK Tex - I give up! I'll tell you what I know about it all. Just promise not to let the BBC break the story.

Darth (his real name) Cheney passed the word to Count "Donald" Dooku that those who opposed Darth Sidious' will had to be made to suffer. They were clear that Jar Jar Powell could have no clue as to what was to be done as he would undoubtedly give them away to the Jedi knights who masquerade their efforts behind the curtain by acting as the BBC's Board of Governors. Wanting plausable deniability they dispatched Darth Maul to Iraq to do their bidding.

Maul, a contender in his own right, sought out a cadre of particularly cruel star troopers led by the murder of Bambi's mother to carry out the deed. The last report is that he is inside Fallujah satisfying his canabalistic tendencies while awaiting further orders.


:lol:

Uhh...they ARE making this a big deal you moron.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?

You sick bastard.
Don't flame.

EDIT: Oh yes, this is a warning. And Viciousdolphins should be aware that (s)he now has two. We are being generous.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

It's ludicrous..a few soldiers are allegedly guilty of prisoner misconduct and Texas implicates the entire US military serving in Iraq?...I would venture to say that in Texas's own municipal police force you've at least 10% of dirty cops who are either on the take, addicted to drugs, engaged in criminal actions..etc..would that therefore mean that none of police should be there enforcing municipal law?
You are the same person who supports the death penalty even though innocent people might be executed? However, when soldiers are caught with their pants down doing sick things to Iraqis, you come to the soldiers defence, first by suggesting that the incidents were "staged", and second by attacking another poster in reference to their police force. Even if Texas's local police force was corrupt in any way, how does that dimish or negate what the soldiers are doing in Iraq? Well it doesn't.

If you were truly a consciencious law and order guy that you proclaim to be, shouldn't you be focusing on the wrong doings of the soldiers involved and screaming for their scalps? Your credibility suffers from your inconsistencies.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

Sick.


But...

The biggest difference between the U.S. and the former Iraqi government is that the former court martials the sickos. The latter gives them medals. :P

"Friends endure sick toture from Lunatic Goofballs"




(and vice versa)

"Friends endure sick toture from Lunatic Goofballs"




(and vice versa)

True, but not at gunpoint. :?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

Whew, that is best thing I have seen all week, I didnt think those boys had it in them to get really mean.
Hopefully they keep up the good work.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

Whew, that is best thing I have seen all week, I didnt think those boys had it in them to get really mean.
Hopefully they keep up the good work.

I hope that this is sarcasm or deliberate trolling. But I've learned that there is no limit to how low some people will sink.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/29/1083224523783.html

They're doing everything from attaching electrical wires to genitals to forcing men to sodomize each other...

How does a nation react to this?

Whew, that is best thing I have seen all week, I didnt think those boys had it in them to get really mean.
Hopefully they keep up the good work.

I hope that this is sarcasm or deliberate trolling. But I've learned that there is no limit to how low some people will sink.
My post was genuine as that picture is a genuine representation of G.I. conduct, draw your own conclusions.

It's ludicrous..a few soldiers are allegedly guilty of prisoner misconduct and Texas implicates the entire US military serving in Iraq?...I would venture to say that in Texas's own municipal police force you've at least 10% of dirty cops who are either on the take, addicted to drugs, engaged in criminal actions..etc..would that therefore mean that none of police should be there enforcing municipal law?
You are the same person who supports the death penalty even though innocent people might be executed? However, when soldiers are caught with their pants down doing sick things to Iraqis, you come to the soldiers defence, first by suggesting that the incidents were "staged", and second by attacking another poster in reference to their police force. Even if Texas's local police force was corrupt in any way, how does that dimish or negate what the soldiers are doing in Iraq? Well it doesn't.

If you were truly a consciencious law and order guy that you proclaim to be, shouldn't you be focusing on the wrong doings of the soldiers involved and screaming for their scalps? Your credibility suffers from your inconsistencies.

I'm not inconsistent?...Where did you get that idea....I and every other person on here agrees that these men allegedly.and I say allegedly because nothing yet despite the recent information is proved in a court martial..but let's assume for arguments sake that they are indeed guilty of the misconduct...Texas's statements are a sweeping indictment of the entire military establishment in Iraq..my points are designed to put it squarely on the backs of those who committed any acts.

I wasn't attacking his police force...I implied that even on a local municipal police force you'll have bad apples..would that then imply the entire police force is corrupt?...Texas would have you think so as it regards the US Army. Don't you think his comments were way to generalized?

In the bad old days, Iraqis were tortured by a lousy two-bit dictator and his family and cronies.

These days, they can be tortured in the comfort of their own homes by a democratic superpower.

Who says they've gained nothing from the war?

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind
Shut the f--- up moron. WWII was a REAL war, and anything had to be done to effectuate a favorable political outcome. The Jappers got what they deserved. If they didn't want to die, the idiots should've have attacked Pearl Harbor.

You're so right--the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki voted unanimously for the attack on Pearl Harbor and thus are personally responsible. It's a little-known historical fact.
The Americans that died on Dec. 7th didn't vote to be killed by a bunch of Japs. It was a war, one must do everything possible to win. I frankly don't give a damn what the Japanese civilians did or did not want, they were producing weapons and supplying manpower for Japanese military. The Jappers lost, and brought it on themselves. Seriously, what kind of idiots attack a power with 10x their industrial capacity, many more resources than them, and many times their population? We put paid to the Japanese Empire, some civilians had to die to assure the completion of that noble goal.

In the bad old days, Iraqis were tortured by a lousy two-bit dictator and his family and cronies.

These days, they can be tortured in the comfort of their own homes by a democratic superpower.

Who says they've gained nothing from the war?

Excuse me...to be fair and balanced...don't you mean "tortured in the comfort of their own homes by 6 soldiers", and that the other over 145,000 troops didn't torture them?

Texas I've had it up to here with your conspiracy theories.

No one is telling these people to do anything. They did it, of their own accord, free of the chain of command.

The command staff had no involvement.

Stop trying to involve the entire government and the COs of the military. There were no orders for this thing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1055663,00.html

A British businessman arrested as a suspected terrorist has told the Guardian that US agents threatened him with beatings and rape in an attempt to break him.

The account also challenges US denials of the use of torture or the threat of torture on terrorist suspects, thousands of whom have been detained and interrogated across the world.


http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/15/eu8432.htm


The governments of Austria, Canada, Georgia, Germany, Sweden, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States have all sought to return terrorist or national security suspects to countries where torture is a widespread or systematic problem, including Egypt, the Philippines, Russia, Sri Lanka, Syria and Uzbekistan. Some individuals returned have been tortured or seriously ill-treated upon return, and Human Rights Watch said there is real concern for the safety of many more.

it's time to WAKE UP!

Torture is a STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

Uhh...they ARE making this a big deal you moron.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?

You sick bastard.
Don't flame.

EDIT: Oh yes, this is a warning. And Viciousdolphins should be aware that (s)he now has two. We are being generous.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator
Oh, what, since two moderators warn me about the same post it counts as two strikes? Nice. Though maybe you're referring to another time. :)

Excuse me...to be fair and balanced[sic]...don't you mean "tortured in the comfort of their own homes by 6 soldiers", and that the other over 145,000 troops didn't torture them?

Yes, we realize that there are 145,000 troops!

Anyway, back to the point: This happend inside a MILITARY PRISON and was ordered by the interrogation team to "soften up" the Iraqis.

The same outlandish aqusations that were made by the Brits rescued from Guatanamo Bay (forced sodomy, electricuting genitals, attacked by dogs) are photographed happening INSIDE of a MILITARY PRISON COMPOUND!

Now, let's think about who conducts interrogations: Intelligence Officers!!

THUS, Intelligence Officers, under the command of the General, ordered the Privates to torture these men!!!

In the bad old days, Iraqis were tortured by a lousy two-bit dictator and his family and cronies.

These days, they can be tortured in the comfort of their own homes by a democratic superpower.

Who says they've gained nothing from the war?

Excuse me...to be fair and balanced...don't you mean "tortured in the comfort of their own homes by 6 soldiers", and that the other over 145,000 troops didn't torture them?

To be fair and balanced, if we have come to hear about 6 soldiers, how many do you think we may not have heard about? Or may hear about in the future?

To be fair and balanced, could some have been killed after torture, so we will never hear of what has happened?

Or detained somewhere away from any access to any court, any right of trial, any way of having their story told, soewhere like a US base in Cuba perhaps.

Its not as if the army has a free and transparent way of disseminating information is it?

[bla bla bla] I frankly don't give a damn what the Japanese civilians did or did not want, they were producing weapons and supplying manpower for Japanese military. . [bla bla bla]


Okay, if you want to talk about Pearl Harbor (and how FDR arranged for it to happen) then make a thread devoted to that...

This thread is about American War Crimes today, not FDR's crime against America!

Its not as if the army has a free and transparent way of disseminating information is it?

Who do you think really controls the government?

Why do you think it is that the NSA and CIA can dodge indictment after indictment without a scratch?

Who do you think profits of off the wars?

Who do you think brings the drugs into America?

Why do you think there was such a big push for prison labor at the same time as there was a push for 'manditory minimum sentencing?

Who do you think creates the terrorist?

Who do you think creates the terror?

Who do you think really controls the world?

Its not as if the army has a free and transparent way of disseminating information is it?

Who do you think really controls the government?

Why do you think it is that the NSA and CIA can dodge indictment after indictment without a scratch?

Who do you think profits of off the wars?

Who do you think brings the drugs into America?

Why do you think there was such a big push for prison labor at the same time as there was a push for 'manditory minimum sentencing?

Who do you think creates the terrorist?

Who do you think creates the terror?

Who do you think really controls the world?

i smell paranoia :D

Who do you think really controls the world?

The NWA (http://www.eminemitalia.it/images/hiphoptimeline/nwa.jpg).

Or did I get a letter wrong :wink:

It's ludicrous..a few soldiers are allegedly guilty of prisoner misconduct and Texas implicates the entire US military serving in Iraq?...I would venture to say that in Texas's own municipal police force you've at least 10% of dirty cops who are either on the take, addicted to drugs, engaged in criminal actions..etc..would that therefore mean that none of police should be there enforcing municipal law?
You are the same person who supports the death penalty even though innocent people might be executed? However, when soldiers are caught with their pants down doing sick things to Iraqis, you come to the soldiers defence, first by suggesting that the incidents were "staged", and second by attacking another poster in reference to their police force. Even if Texas's local police force was corrupt in any way, how does that dimish or negate what the soldiers are doing in Iraq? Well it doesn't.

If you were truly a consciencious law and order guy that you proclaim to be, shouldn't you be focusing on the wrong doings of the soldiers involved and screaming for their scalps? Your credibility suffers from your inconsistencies.

I'm not inconsistent?...Where did you get that idea....I and every other person on here agrees that these men allegedly.and I say allegedly because nothing yet despite the recent information is proved in a court martial..but let's assume for arguments sake that they are indeed guilty of the misconduct...Texas's statements are a sweeping indictment of the entire military establishment in Iraq..my points are designed to put it squarely on the backs of those who committed any acts.

I wasn't attacking his police force...I implied that even on a local municipal police force you'll have bad apples..would that then imply the entire police force is corrupt?...Texas would have you think so as it regards the US Army. Don't you think his comments were way to generalized?
First, you completely missed the point I was making regarding your apparent inconsistencies.

Second you want me to agree that Texas' comments are too generalized?

If you recall your comment regarding the dragging of those contractors bodies at Fallujah, you were suggesting that the whole "Sunni triangle" be wiped out as retribution, for the acts of a few Iraqis. That would make you the king of generalization?

If these soldiers have committed these atrocities, you shouldn't be looking to defend their actions as vehemently as you have? Remember that it is you who wants to retain a flawed death penalty that would execute innocent people.

Your first reaction on this thread was one of denial that it could ever have happened. In other words, you wanted to maintain the innocence of the soldiers yet you are willing to let innocent people be executed. Interesting.

Its not as if the army has a free and transparent way of disseminating information is it?

Who do you think really controls the government?

Why do you think it is that the NSA and CIA can dodge indictment after indictment without a scratch?

Who do you think profits of off the wars?

Who do you think brings the drugs into America?

Why do you think there was such a big push for prison labor at the same time as there was a push for 'manditory minimum sentencing?

Who do you think creates the terrorist?

Who do you think creates the terror?

Who do you think really controls the world?

i smell paranoia :D

I love the smell of parinoia in the morning.

i smell paranoia :D

awareness...


perhaps you've never heard of the Iran-Contra Scandle, the Nicargauan Conrta hearings, Rumsfeld's oil deals with Saddam (Bechtel), Bush's oil deals with the Saudi's, Bush's missile defense deals with bin Laden family (both are members of Carlyle Group, and met on 9/11)

but then again, you'll never know the difference untill you do the research...

Uhh...they ARE making this a big deal you moron.

But quite frankly, I don't want my 8 year old sister seeing naked sodomized men on Television, do you?

You sick bastard.
Don't flame.

EDIT: Oh yes, this is a warning. And Viciousdolphins should be aware that (s)he now has two. We are being generous.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator
Oh, what, since two moderators warn me about the same post it counts as two strikes? Nice. Though maybe you're referring to another time. :)

Maybe the other was for this (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=141793&start=20)?

i smell paranoia :D

awareness...


perhaps you've never heard of the Iran-Contra Scandle, the Nicargauan Conrta hearings, Rumsfeld's oil deals with Saddam (Bechtel), Bush's oil deals with the Saudi's, Bush's missile defense deals with bin Laden family (both are members of Carlyle Group, and met on 9/11)

but then again, you'll never know the difference untill you do the research...
nope. i still smell the paranoia issuing forth from you

perhaps you've never heard of the Iran-Contra Scandle, the Nicargauan Conrta hearings, Rumsfeld's oil deals with Saddam (Bechtel), Bush's oil deals with the Saudi's, Bush's missile defense deals with bin Laden family (both are members of Carlyle Group, and met on 9/11)

but then again, you'll never know the difference untill you do the research...

BUt these don't prove a New World Order...

Hiroshima was somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 killed. In that instant. By now, due to cancer and other radiation side-effects the toll stands at well over 200,000. Nagasaki (the other city) was originall something like 74,000... who knows how much that is now.
Anyhow, that is besides the point...

About these atrocities by GIs: String them up from the highest tree. Anyone care at all about Geneva? The rights of POWs and so on and so forth? We instituted those rights and regulations partaining to the treatment of POWs for a reason... to prevent atrocities like these. Now, why is it these damned American GIs think that it doesn't apply to them? I say... take them out in the parking lot and lodge a bullet in their brain.

I respect the American ground-soldiers that are stationed there a lot. I mean, it is not easy to try and straighten out a ruined country. However, that does not give you the right to be evil. And atrocities like these... are evil. Wholly evil.

Who do you think really controls the government?

Nobody. Way to big to be controlled by anyone or any group.

Why do you think it is that the NSA and CIA can dodge indictment after indictment without a scratch?

Incompetence, apathy, and ignorance, the greatest forces in all of human history.

Who do you think profits of off the wars?

No one. (Yeah the MIC may make a buck in the short run, but such spending is ultimately a drag on the economy.)

Who do you think brings the drugs into America?

What is brought in, is brought in by criminal gangs. A lot is grown or manufactured at in the US.

Why do you think there was such a big push for prison labor at the same time as there was a push for 'manditory minimum sentencing?

Unrelated.

Who do you think creates the terrorist?
Who do you think creates the terror?

Terrorist exist for a very, very wide number of reasons. The answer to this has filled many books, and has still not been answered.

Who do you think really controls the world?

No one. The suggestion that anyone actually can contol the world shows a poor grasp of human nature.

Overall, the implied answers show a poor grasp of human relations, international relations, and history.

bullshit, if it was true you think the Military would let pics like that get out into the public?

I think Thomas Mann called this kind of reaction 'glaubensunwilligheit'. Rather depressing to see it slumber in a society that i used to admire for its healthy self-critical side. But hey, times change don't they?

the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

That's the very definition of a criminal government that, the American Founding Fathers would argue should be overthrown, by force if necessary.

(Sometimes I wonder why I moved here to America from Japan . . . Ah yes, it was the Constitution!)

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

and remember a thing called the Batann Death March, and how the japanese treated all of our captured GIs like crap. With this Iraqui thing, im in the military myself but im not for torture but i have a hard time feeling sorry for people that dance and celebrate in the street when one of our vehicles explodes and kills the people in it.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

and remember a thing called the Batann Death March, and how the japanese treated all of our captured GIs like crap. With this Iraqui thing, im in the military myself but im not for torture but i have a hard time feeling sorry for people that dance and celebrate in the street when one of our vehicles explodes and kills the people in it.

Neither act justifies the other. In both the opposing viewpoints that you have quoted.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

and remember a thing called the Batann Death March, and how the japanese treated all of our captured GIs like crap. With this Iraqui thing, im in the military myself but im not for torture but i have a hard time feeling sorry for people that dance and celebrate in the street when one of our vehicles explodes and kills the people in it.
I suppose there are no high fives or whooping it up when US jets deliver their payload of "smart bombs" and destroy their targets?

How about after shooting a wounded Iraqi?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

No I am sure none of that would happen?

How many Americans rushed home from work to watch their nightly "shock and awe" program, when the bombing of Iraq began? Did any of them feel a tad proud of the superior weapons capability of their country?

The very fact that Iraqis are shown celebrating the death of intruders to their country belies the stories that would have us believe that the Iraqis would welcome "western freedom" with open arms, especially if they had just witnessed the death of a loved one at the hands of these “liberators”.

Anyone who supported the war for the legitimate reasons for liberation and humanitarianism can feel thoroughly betrayed by this. For me this incident is symptomatic of a wider problem prevalent within the US (particularly the military) - the disdain and lack of consideration for civilian life in other countries, particularly Arabs. The continued support for Israel's "surgical strikes", the methods used to combat insurgency in Iraq and the kind of rhetoric made popular by channels like Fox are symptomatic of this and the hostile nationalism with which the US conducts its foreign policy. There will be no peace in the Middle East until this characteristic is eliminated.

yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...the rules dont apply to the people making them keep that in mind

and remember a thing called the Batann Death March, and how the japanese treated all of our captured GIs like crap. With this Iraqui thing, im in the military myself but im not for torture but i have a hard time feeling sorry for people that dance and celebrate in the street when one of our vehicles explodes and kills the people in it.

Wait... I thought the whole point of this war was to "liberate" people because you loved them so much? No wait, it was weapons of mass destruction...no wait, it was the "terrorist" thing...

Oh well, at least you've got gasoline to fill up your SUV when you need to travel further than a block or two.

Just a question.

The articles I've read on this weren't too clear on who exactly the prisoners are, but if they were Saddam's henchmen, someone explain to me why they deserve any better than this--and if you can't do that, then explain to me why they shouldn't be treated the way they deserve.

(here's a hint: You can't).

The argument of "it's only a few bad apples" is amazingly dense. Yes, it's only a few bad apples that got caught on film. If these dudes were caught on film you can just imagine how much of this that goes on that isn't caught on film.

If I recall correctly Iraq only had a few bad apples too.. Saddam and his sons and some top Generals..

Just proved my point I was making yesterday.. all sides commit war crimes... the victors just never seem to have to answer for theirs. :?

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

Just a question.

The articles I've read on this weren't too clear on who exactly the prisoners are, but if they were Saddam's henchmen, someone explain to me why they deserve any better than this--and if you can't do that, then explain to me why they shouldn't be treated the way they deserve.

(here's a hint: You can't).

Ah...yes...Screw the geneva convention and all that. Let some drooling idiot american soldiers decide on what people deserve.
"Arbeit macht frei".

:roll:

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

...in case anyone was wondering how common these "bad apples" might be...

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Iraq didn't do ANY THING to America.. hello!!!! America invaded Iraq.. who deserves what? Hmmm

Anyone who supported the war for the legitimate reasons for liberation and humanitarianism can feel thoroughly betrayed by this. For me this incident is symptomatic of a wider problem prevalent within the US (particularly the military) - the disdain and lack of consideration for civilian life in other countries, particularly Arabs. The continued support for Israel's "surgical strikes", the methods used to combat insurgency in Iraq and the kind of rhetoric made popular by channels like Fox are symptomatic of this and the hostile nationalism with which the US conducts its foreign policy. There will be no peace in the Middle East until this characteristic is eliminated.

Oh please! I'm no jingoist but you hold that the US is the root of all evil in the world? Next you'll be saying the cure to all the world's ills is everybody should just try to be nicer. A sweet idea if you are a child but a bit naive after the age of ten.

Surgical strikes at legitimate targets are far preferrable to indiscriminate car bombs or blowing up buses with school children on them. But that is different because it's the poor opressed Palestinians. Right?

:shock:

Saddam was the one killing people by the thousands without cause.

Though there is no moral obligation to stop such an atrocity, intervening is certainly morally justified.

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

Well fortunately for the world, most people have evolved beyond this level of racism and apathy for the plight of others. Here's another thing though - do you think that coverage like this will result in a fewer or greater number of attacks against coalition forces. I wonder how many people will die because some twisted guards decided that it would be funny to torture and humiliate Iraqi prisoners.

Saddam Hussein had a similar disdain for the lives of others to the one you have just shown.

Saddam was the one killing people by the thousands without cause.

Though there is no moral obligation to stop such an atrocity, intervening is certainly morally justified.

That's such crap even by your own American laws..

If a criminal attacks your sister and you show up at the courthouse and gun him down, you go to jail... Yes perhaps you're morally right in doing so.. but you're legally wrong.. same here. Perhaps some may have been conned into this "moral high ground" argument that came out of no where after the alleged reason for going into Iraq turned out to be false.. even if you would like to buy that.. it was still illegal by every international law regarding the situation.

So yeah know, believe what you like.. but don't expect us who know better to buy the b*llsh*t.. cause it's just not happening.

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.


The US signed the Geneva convention. These actions are in blatent violation of it. I'm sure if the same would have happened to US troops captured you'd be outraged. Well, it's a two-way street.

Article 13

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.

Article 14

Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers except in so far as the captivity requires.

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Iraq didn't do ANY THING to America.. hello!!!! America invaded Iraq.. who deserves what? Hmmm
The point trying to be made is:
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power? the answer is clearly yes.

2. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam in power? a recent poll among Iraqis found that about two thirds of Iraqis think so.

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.

The argument of "it's only a few bad apples" is amazingly dense. Yes, it's only a few bad apples that got caught on film. If these dudes were caught on film you can just imagine how much of this that goes on that isn't caught on film.

If I recall correctly Iraq only had a few bad apples too.. Saddam and his sons and some top Generals..

Just proved my point I was making yesterday.. all sides commit war crimes... the victors just never seem to have to answer for theirs. :?

Never? Then these guys will get a pass, eh?

Victors? Where were the Japanese War Crimes trials held?

Comparing a dictator and his cadre with low level field personnel is beyond disparity.

The argument seems to have become that either the whole power elite of the US government is involved or it isn't. There are legitimate interrogation techniques and then there is torture. If these interrogators are involved then they too are chargable. But to take that and then to project it out onto the whole kit and kaboodle is ridiculous.

:shock:

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Iraq didn't do ANY THING to America.. hello!!!! America invaded Iraq.. who deserves what? Hmmm
The point trying to be made is:
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power? the answer is clearly yes.

2. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam in power? a recent poll among Iraqis found that about two thirds of Iraqis think so.

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law. The current American government threw morality out the window when they decided to breach international law and invade a country who had done nothing to them. Get off your high horse..perhaps not every one shares your version of morality.

Anyone who supported the war for the legitimate reasons for liberation and humanitarianism can feel thoroughly betrayed by this. For me this incident is symptomatic of a wider problem prevalent within the US (particularly the military) - the disdain and lack of consideration for civilian life in other countries, particularly Arabs. The continued support for Israel's "surgical strikes", the methods used to combat insurgency in Iraq and the kind of rhetoric made popular by channels like Fox are symptomatic of this and the hostile nationalism with which the US conducts its foreign policy. There will be no peace in the Middle East until this characteristic is eliminated.

Oh please! I'm no jingoist but you hold that the US is the root of all evil in the world? Next you'll be saying the cure to all the world's ills is everybody should just try to be nicer. A sweet idea if you are a child but a bit naive after the age of ten.

Surgical strikes at legitimate targets are far preferrable to indiscriminate car bombs or blowing up buses with school children on them. But that is different because it's the poor opressed Palestinians. Right?

:shock:

It's not my contention that the US is the root of all evil in the world, nor have I said anything which would imply that. Merely that when you show a complete lack of consideration for the lives of foreign nationals it is unlikely that you will achieve peace. So sad that you cannot agree to that or that this trait is unhealthily common within the US.

As for the specific issue of Palestine the fact that Palestinian terrorist attacks cannot be condoned does not justify Israel for responding as indiscriminately as it does - approximately 400 Palestinian civilians have died in the last 2.5 years alone as a direct response to Israeli attacks. Is this justified somehow because the entire Palestinian people ought to suffer a collective guilt for the actions of some individuals.

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

Well fortunately for the world, most people have evolved beyond this level of racism and apathy for the plight of others. Here's another thing though - do you think that coverage like this will result in a fewer or greater number of attacks against coalition forces. I wonder how many people will die because some twisted guards decided that it would be funny to torture and humiliate Iraqi prisoners.

Saddam Hussein had a similar disdain for the lives of others to the one you have just shown.
well, i would rather call it Nationalism (which everyone in this forum knows I am very fond of) than racism.

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

Well fortunately for the world, most people have evolved beyond this level of racism and apathy for the plight of others. Here's another thing though - do you think that coverage like this will result in a fewer or greater number of attacks against coalition forces. I wonder how many people will die because some twisted guards decided that it would be funny to torture and humiliate Iraqi prisoners.

Saddam Hussein had a similar disdain for the lives of others to the one you have just shown.
well, i would rather call it Nationalism (which everyone in this forum knows I am very fond of) than racism.


Call it whatever you want, it's still the same.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law. The current American government threw morality out the window when they decided to breach international law and invade a country who had done nothing to them. Get off your high horse..perhaps not every one shares your version of morality.
The UN's and rest of the world's "morality" stood silent while genocide was being commited in Rwanda. The UN's "morality" was silent when Saddam killed 1000s of Kurds. The UN's "morality" did nothing to help them stop the killings of students in Tiananmen Square. The UN's "morality" did wonderful things to prevent to starving of millions of North Koreans caused by a totalitarian regime.

Sometimes doing the right thing takes alot more balls than doing what the rest of the world wants you to do.

The UN, in its current powers, is a failure to humanity. It has all the potential to do great things in this world, but because they will not enforce what "international laws" they make, the type of government on an international level is one of anarchy. One can always count on a country doing what is in its best self intrest when it comes to international decisions, because there is no international police to enforce supposed "international law." The UN has only declared war on a country once in its history and that was over 50 years ago. If the UN was structured like cold-war era NATO, then it will be viewed as the international law making body. Until then, the UN will be a bunch of countries that say what is in the best intrest of the world, but have no way of enforcing it.

The international political scene will always be anarchy as long as there is no one around to punnish the countries who are in the "wrong." Until the UN steps up to the plate, the US will attempt to be that force .

Saddam was the one killing people by the thousands without cause.

Though there is no moral obligation to stop such an atrocity, intervening is certainly morally justified.

That's such crap even by your own American laws..

If a criminal attacks your sister and you show up at the courthouse and gun him down, you go to jail... Yes perhaps you're morally right in doing so.. but you're legally wrong.

Your point?

Illegal != immoral.

Just because you break the law and are punished for it doesn't mean you were wrong to do so. It simply means the law needs to be changed.

Saddam was the one killing people by the thousands without cause.

Though there is no moral obligation to stop such an atrocity, intervening is certainly morally justified.

That's such crap even by your own American laws..

If a criminal attacks your sister and you show up at the courthouse and gun him down, you go to jail... Yes perhaps you're morally right in doing so.. but you're legally wrong.

Your point?

Illegal != immoral.

Just because you break the law and are punished for it doesn't mean you were wrong to do so. It simply means the law needs to be changed.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law.

So morality is simply blind obedience to whatever entity decides to assert authority? That's just disgusting.

Excuse me while I go vomit...

Call it whatever you want, it's still the same.
Its not the same. I am a white male, but I would pull for a black or hispanic boxer from the US in a fight over the whitest motherfucker from any other country.

unless you want to classify American a "race" seperate from white, black, asian, or hispanic, you cannot call me a racist. Do I discriminate against non-Americans? You can bet your ass I do. Does that make me a racist? No, it makes me a nationalist.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law.

So morality is simply blind obedience to whatever entity decides to assert authority? That's just disgusting.

Excuse me while I go vomit...

I'm pretty sure she's right - most of the more conservative forms of morality do incorporate this tenet. She isn't making a statement on how "right" or "wrong" it is, and is essentially criticizing those who do and yet support US actions in Iraq.

unless you want to classify American a "race" seperate from white, black, asian, or hispanic, you cannot call me a racist. Do I discriminate against non-Americans? You can bet your ass I do. Does that make me a racist? No, it makes me a nationalist.

"Hey, it's not slime, it's scum, get it right!"

Dear friends,

1. Soldiers are trained to kill hostile soldiers, to protect themselves
and friendly soldiers, and to follow orders. They are not trained
to hate. That would be a waste of time. Any human knows that
already, so don't be ridiculous.

2. On the other hand, it is absurd to say that those who criticize
the war are 'fags'. Patriotism is not a sex-linked trait or even
a 'lifestyle' linked trait. The arguments against homosexuality
may be strong, but it is childish and stupid to use it as an
insult.

3. The viewpoint most prominently expressed on the Internet
is an unconscious acceptance of one or two moral principles
combined with an avowal that no such principles exist. The
actions of these soldiers, if they did actually happen, do not
violate this philosophy. After all, democracy is a good thing
so torturing its enemies must be okay! The answer is NO.
It will always be NO. If your philosophy does not include
this unvarying NO, you need a new one.

Cordially yours,
G.

The argument of "it's only a few bad apples" is amazingly dense. Yes, it's only a few bad apples that got caught on film. If these dudes were caught on film you can just imagine how much of this that goes on that isn't caught on film.


It's rather obtuse logic to suggest that since they are doing it; then it must be wide spread.

Come on Steph, even with all your prejudice, you usually offer better arguments then that.....

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Iraq didn't do ANY THING to America.. hello!!!! America invaded Iraq.. who deserves what? Hmmm
The point trying to be made is:
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power? the answer is clearly yes.

2. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam in power? a recent poll among Iraqis found that about two thirds of Iraqis think so.

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law. The current American government threw morality out the window when they decided to breach international law and invade a country who had done nothing to them. Get off your high horse..perhaps not every one shares your version of morality.

OHhhhhh...I see...a nation that put women like you in "rape rooms" for uday and osai's pleasure...a nation that has mass graves totaling at last count 300,000 people, you'd have your international law put up as a shield for regime like this?..you must really have decided that the abuses that Saddam gave his people weren't worth breaking international law..

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Justice for who? People that get tortured? Random people being imprisoned? Children killed by trigger happy yanks?

Don't be an idiot: Justice doesn't mean "revenge".
If a random yank decides that someone should be tortured, then it's not justice.

:roll:

Gone for the weekend!

Have a good time & play nice.

:shock:

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Justice for who? People that get tortured? Random people being imprisoned? Children killed by trigger happy yanks?

Don't be an idiot: Justice doesn't mean "revenge".
If a random yank decides that someone should be tortured, then it's not justice.

:roll:
Its also not justice to allow insurgents to use innocent people as deterants for hostile fire. Its also not justice for Mosques to be used as supply depots.

War isn't just. Get over yourself liberal.

The six soldiers are being punished for their crimes.

Torturing Iraqis=bad

End of friggin story.

Anal retentive pricks.

Hopefully there will be a proper court-martial, rather than a white-wash.
If G.W.B.'s stated disgust for these actions is genuine, rather than political, then my respect for him does go up very slightly. Not much, but a bit.
For the record, before some patriot takes my 'if' and uses it to accuse me of Bush-bashing (try saying that in a Carry On film with a straight face), just because I admit I consider the man incompetent, incoherent, megalomaniacally greedy, intolerant, morally deluded, irrationally crusading, and borderline psychotic, doesn't mean I don't think he's capable of sincerity. I hate the man with a passion, but I do agree with him on this one.

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Justice for who? People that get tortured? Random people being imprisoned? Children killed by trigger happy yanks?

Don't be an idiot: Justice doesn't mean "revenge".
If a random yank decides that someone should be tortured, then it's not justice.

:roll:
Its also not justice to allow insurgents to use innocent people as deterants for hostile fire. Its also not justice for Mosques to be used as supply depots.

War isn't just. Get over yourself liberal.

And this is relevant how?
The guy said "justice is more important than justice for someone" which is stupid. It's got nothing to do with tactics...

And forget your stupid american "political" labels when you talk to me... They don't apply to anyone except yanks.

You're missing the point.

Justice is more important than being nice to people who don't DESERVE niceness.

Iraq didn't do ANY THING to America.. hello!!!! America invaded Iraq.. who deserves what? Hmmm
The point trying to be made is:
1. Is the world better off without Saddam in power? the answer is clearly yes.

2. Are the Iraqi people better off without Saddam in power? a recent poll among Iraqis found that about two thirds of Iraqis think so.

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.


So it's your moral obligation to free the oppressed people of Iraq, but as you yourself said you don't give a rats ass what happens to them while they are in the hands of the UK and the US. Isn't that a little contradictory, or perhaps you don't feel morally obliged to care provided that the human rights abuses are not committed by a nation other than your own.

Regarding Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction - time has told. There is absolutely no evidence concerning Iraqi links with Al-Qaeda and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even Bush concedes this point.

Is the world a better place without Saddam?? A misleading question, for example I could pose these:

Is the world a better place now that support for Islamic extremism has increased dramatically and that America is even more widely hated throughout the Middle East.

Is the world a better place now that the west is at far greater a risk of a terrorist attack?

Is the world a better place now that the US has completely undermined international institutions and ignored international laws.

Is the world a better place now that US-European and US-Middle East relationships have been completely wrecked and completely isolated the US diplomatically.

Is the world a better place now that there is a flashpoint for Arab-US tensions to manifest themselves.

Just to inject some balance.

You cannot deal with the issue of Iraq, solely in terms of what has happened in Iraq. Clearly it is a better place because of the invasion, but you have to look at the wider issues as well.

Call it whatever you want, it's still the same.
Its not the same. I am a white male, but I would pull for a black or hispanic boxer from the US in a fight over the whitest f--- from any other country.

unless you want to classify American a "race" seperate from white, black, asian, or hispanic, you cannot call me a racist. Do I discriminate against non-Americans? You can bet your ass I do. Does that make me a racist? No, it makes me a nationalist.

Racism does not just concern skin colour it also concerns country of origin. I think discriminating against people on the basis of their country of origin can be called racism. Do you think otherwise?

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law. The current American government threw morality out the window when they decided to breach international law and invade a country who had done nothing to them. Get off your high horse..perhaps not every one shares your version of morality.

The UN's and rest of the world's "morality" stood silent while genocide was being commited in Rwanda. The UN's "morality" was silent when Saddam killed 1000s of Kurds. The UN's "morality" did nothing to help them stop the killings of students in Tiananmen Square. The UN's "morality" did wonderful things to prevent to starving of millions of North Koreans caused by a totalitarian regime.
The US clearly are the ones circumventing the UN process on a consistent basis. Aside from NOT getting UN Security Council's blessing to attack Iraq, the US kicked the weapon inspectors out and violated the Charter and Geneva Conventions by attacking Iraq.

The US has consistently veoted resolutions by the UN, aimed at Israel.

AND most importantly, the US has failed to back many proposed and/or operational UN Treaties as such:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/unindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

Read'em and weep, then tell me that the UN is a failure and if it is, then tell me why.

Sometimes doing the right thing takes alot more balls than doing what the rest of the world wants you to do.
Invading a countries sovreignity on trumped up charges is doing the right thing? NOT

The UN, in its current powers, is a failure to humanity. It has all the potential to do great things in this world, but because they will not enforce what "international laws" they make, the type of government on an international level is one of anarchy. One can always count on a country doing what is in its best self intrest when it comes to international decisions, because there is no international police to enforce supposed "international law." The UN has only declared war on a country once in its history and that was over 50 years ago. If the UN was structured like cold-war era NATO, then it will be viewed as the international law making body. Until then, the UN will be a bunch of countries that say what is in the best intrest of the world, but have no way of enforcing it.

The international political scene will always be anarchy as long as there is no one around to punnish the countries who are in the "wrong." Until the UN steps up to the plate, the US will attempt to be that force .
NO ONE has appointed the US as the world's policeman. Anarchy comes from taking the law into ones own hands and therefore the US is promoting anarchy by invading Iraq?

The UN would love to enforce International Laws but the US and Israeli actions clearly set that process back by their own agendas.

The UN agenda is not to PROMOTE war but to seek peaceful resolutions to world conflicts. Read the Charter.

The US clearly are the ones circumventing the UN process on a consistent basis. Aside from NOT getting UN Security Council's blessing to attack Iraq, the US kicked the weapon inspectors out and violated the Charter and Geneva Conventions by attacking Iraq.

The US has consistently veoted resolutions by the UN, aimed at Israel.

AND most importantly, the US has failed to back many proposed and/or operational UN Treaties as such:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/unindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

Read'em and weep, then tell me that the UN is a failure and if it is, then tell me why.


Ahhhh ok so the UN's failure to stop genocide in Rawanda is excused since the US did not sign Kyoto and the fact that the current Administration is with withdrawing from some laws! :roll:


Nice attempt at changing the subject!

This must be a sore point!
The defenders of Dubya have gone from denial to justification to minimizing to- now- trying desperately to change the subject, or attempting any other lame spin they can take.

The superiors are to blame. They are the ones who should be investigated, and court-martialed.

What is this with Americans and their so called "morality" well to me morality is following the law. The current American government threw morality out the window when they decided to breach international law and invade a country who had done nothing to them. Get off your high horse..perhaps not every one shares your version of morality.

The UN's and rest of the world's "morality" stood silent while genocide was being commited in Rwanda. The UN's "morality" was silent when Saddam killed 1000s of Kurds. The UN's "morality" did nothing to help them stop the killings of students in Tiananmen Square. The UN's "morality" did wonderful things to prevent to starving of millions of North Koreans caused by a totalitarian regime.
The US clearly are the ones circumventing the UN process on a consistent basis. Aside from NOT getting UN Security Council's blessing to attack Iraq, the US kicked the weapon inspectors out and violated the Charter and Geneva Conventions by attacking Iraq.

The US has consistently veoted resolutions by the UN, aimed at Israel.

AND most importantly, the US has failed to back many proposed and/or operational UN Treaties as such:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/unindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

Read'em and weep, then tell me that the UN is a failure and if it is, then tell me why.

Sometimes doing the right thing takes alot more balls than doing what the rest of the world wants you to do.
Invading a countries sovreignity on trumped up charges is doing the right thing? NOT

The UN, in its current powers, is a failure to humanity. It has all the potential to do great things in this world, but because they will not enforce what "international laws" they make, the type of government on an international level is one of anarchy. One can always count on a country doing what is in its best self intrest when it comes to international decisions, because there is no international police to enforce supposed "international law." The UN has only declared war on a country once in its history and that was over 50 years ago. If the UN was structured like cold-war era NATO, then it will be viewed as the international law making body. Until then, the UN will be a bunch of countries that say what is in the best intrest of the world, but have no way of enforcing it.

The international political scene will always be anarchy as long as there is no one around to punnish the countries who are in the "wrong." Until the UN steps up to the plate, the US will attempt to be that force .
NO ONE has appointed the US as the world's policeman. Anarchy comes from taking the law into ones own hands and therefore the US is promoting anarchy by invading Iraq?

The UN would love to enforce International Laws but the US and Israeli actions clearly set that process back by their own agendas.

Hit the nail on the head! You go CanuckHeaven. Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality. They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one! It's Bullsh*t.. and if more people took the care and time to research the subject as you do, they'd know that! They only go on what they read or hear on the news. They don't bother to have the clarity of mind to look it up themselves. Nor do they take the time IMO to look at the history of relationships between all these people and countries and the UN before 9/11. For some odd reason a large section of the American public (not all) seem to think the world only started on 9/11, well it didn't. Not that 9/11 had any thing to do with Iraq in the first place any way!

This must be a sore point!
The defenders of Dubya have gone from denial to justification to minimizing to- now- trying despreately to change the subject, or attempting any other lame spin they can take.

The superiors are to blame. They are the ones who should be investigated, and court-martialed.

If you mean me, I am no defender of the shrub. I just question a few people statements from time to time. Such as steph's these guys are on film so what else must be going on.....

They should and will be punished.

The US clearly are the ones circumventing the UN process on a consistent basis. Aside from NOT getting UN Security Council's blessing to attack Iraq, the US kicked the weapon inspectors out and violated the Charter and Geneva Conventions by attacking Iraq.

The US has consistently veoted resolutions by the UN, aimed at Israel.

AND most importantly, the US has failed to back many proposed and/or operational UN Treaties as such:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/unindex.htm

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/tables/treaties.htm

Read'em and weep, then tell me that the UN is a failure and if it is, then tell me why.


Ahhhh ok so the UN's failure to stop genocide in Rawanda is excused since the US did not sign Kyoto and the fact that the current Administration is with withdrawing from some laws! :roll:


Nice attempt at changing the subject!

Uhhh, wrong. Canadian General Roméo Dallaire went to the UN and begged for help. The United States blocked it. He wanted UN help before it was too late in Rwanda. Not one of Clinton's finest hours, he had instructed his envoy to the UN to block it in fears of another Somalia, you want some one to blame for the UN not getting to Rwanada sooner, look no further to the last American administration.

Nice attempt at revisionist history.. :roll:

CanuckHeaven
Hit the nail on the head! You go CanuckHeaven.

Gee CanuckHeaven and Steph like to congratulate each other! Wow that is a shock.


Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality.

Hello Pot meet kettle.


They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action

Well neo cons are what they are.

The question of right or wrong is not worth debating. The war has happened and we have to stick it out till some semblance of order is established.

If the US pulls out now only anrachy will follow.


and if more people took the care and time to research the subject as you do, they'd know that!

Eww from the person speaking about the military......


They only go on what they read or hear on the news.

If you had bothered to "study" the american culture. The news media used to be something you could trust. It is only in the last 10 or so years did that change.

Also, more people look around then you think.


They don't bother to have the clarity of mind to look it up themselves.

Oh come on tell us how you really feel?

Nor do they take the time IMO to look at the history of relationships between all these people and countries and the UN before 9/11.

Hmmm you said you were 35? Did you ever consider that a few of the people you are arguing here are teenagers? History is frightfully bad in the US. However, to think that everybody else is the same as the people here is a pretty bad way to evaluate the Americans as a whole.


For some odd reason a large section of the American public (not all) seem to think the world only started on 9/11, well it didn't.

Nice. How many is large? What percentage of of the 250-300 million people are you talking about?

The Black Forrest - I won't respond to petty personal attacks. You have not said one thing in your diatribe that made any valid argument about the situation in Iraq. I will not respond to a personal attack. Make a valid argument or don't bother, you won't bait me in I assure you.

Well, most organizations and nations in the world have a long and illustrious history of violating the UN Charter. While Israel certainly has and the US probably has, so has China (Tiennamen was a major violation), NATO (bombing Yugoslavia was in direct violation of international law), India and Pakistan frequently threaten to nuke each other into wastelands.

The UN itself has been reluctant to act on obvious and clear violations of it's own Charter and the US isn't the only nation to play favorites. North Korea is currently holding the entire world hostage to it's demands and is flagrantly violating UN guidelines, yet China frequently moves to strike down any action against North Korea. Hell, even the UN peacekeepers themselves have been guilty of human rights violations in areas such as the Balkans, Somalia and Cambodia. The UN itself has violated it's own charter by admitting Macedonia to the UN and was ominously silent on the flagrant violations of Saddam-era Iraq.

The point is, the UN only has what power it's member nations give it. It is shortsighted to think that any nation will hesitate to sweep UN convention aside when it doesn't suit it's purposes. This is not a trait of the US solely, but a symptom of the 600 lbs gorilla syndrom that sets in with most economically dominant, militarily powerful nations. Everyone plays by the rules until it doesn't suit them anymore. The US in no more guilty of this than every other country on the planet.

The Black Forrest - I won't respond to petty personal attacks. You have not said one thing in your diatribe that made any valid argument about the situation in Iraq. I will not respond to a personal attack. Make a valid argument or don't bother, you won't bait me in I assure you.

You just did! :P

Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality.

Careful, Steph, you're treading perillously close to a personal attack with this.


They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one!

Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

Also, the whole world dropped the ball on Rwanda, so let's not point fingers at that one. The UN Security council specifically refrained from using the word "genocide" to describe the April 94 killings because not a single member wanted to go in there.

Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality.

Careful, Steph, you're treading perillously close to a personal attack with this.

I would say no it isn't. I didn't personally attack any one.

(Also you spelled "perillously" incorrect, it's suppose to be "perilously", I'm sure it was just a typo. It's ok, I make them too. Some though argue around here that if you make a typo it some how invalidates your argument, I'm not one of them)



They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one!

Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

This has what to do with Iraq exactly, or the current situation? I would say nothing, unless you're trying to compare the governments of the former USSR and China to that of the current American administration.

As for Yugoslavia, active genocide was being committed, it was a completely different situation.

Also, the whole world dropped the ball on Rwanda, so let's not point fingers at that one. The UN Security council specifically refrained from using the word "genocide" to describe the April 94 killings because not a single member wanted to go in there.

To some degree this is true. However it was the Americans who blocked the first resolution...had they not, the UN would got to Rwanda a hell of a lot sooner.

Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality.

Careful, Steph, you're treading perillously close to a personal attack with this.


They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one!

Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

Also, the whole world dropped the ball on Rwanda, so let's not point fingers at that one. The UN Security council specifically refrained from using the word "genocide" to describe the April 94 killings because not a single member wanted to go in there.

Cannot understand the "logic" here.

The Balkans war, the Russian-Afghanistan war, Tibet, Taiwan etc etc are irrelevant to this discussion.

Just because you have one "bad" war or incident, does in no way justify or permit another. It is that same twisted logic that was used by one Adolph Hitler in his early times of claiming slices of territory from his neighbours.

You may as well go back to the colonial occupation of Iraq by the British to attempt to understand their resentment at a foreign army of occupation...hmmm, perhaps there actually is some real connection here.

But, to use one war to justify another is wrong. To use one atrocity to justify another is wrong. To use one lie to justify another is wrong.

Quite simply, war, atrocities and lies are not comparatively wrong, by which I mean that you cannot say my war/atrocity/lie doesn't really count because look at this one which was worse. That is not the way to judge whether something is right or wrong.

Apparently many people on this forum have trouble with the truth and or reality.

Careful, Steph, you're treading perillously close to a personal attack with this.


They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one!

Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

Also, the whole world dropped the ball on Rwanda, so let's not point fingers at that one. The UN Security council specifically refrained from using the word "genocide" to describe the April 94 killings because not a single member wanted to go in there.

Cannot understand the "logic" here.

The Balkans war, the Russian-Afghanistan war, Tibet, Taiwan etc etc are irrelevant to this discussion.

Just because you have one "bad" war or incident, does in no way justify or permit another. It is that same twisted logic that was used by one Adolph Hitler in his early times of claiming slices of territory from his neighbours.

You may as well go back to the colonial occupation of Iraq by the British to attempt to understand their resentment at a foreign army of occupation...hmmm, perhaps there actually is some real connection here.

But, to use one war to justify another is wrong. To use one atrocity to justify another is wrong. To use one lie to justify another is wrong.

Quite simply, war, atrocities and lies are not comparatively wrong, by which I mean that you cannot say my war/atrocity/lie doesn't really count because look at this one which was worse. That is not the way to judge whether something is right or wrong.

In fairness I don't think that Berkylvania was trying to justify the war per se but rather illustrating that international law and what the UN does and does not sanction should not be seen as the sole determinant of whether a military intervention is justified.

It's a very difficult question and I find it hard to accept the position of either side wholeheartedly, particularly when much of the debate seems to have been clouded by the whole issue of Iraq. Clearly the consequence of totally disregarding international law is anarchy and the onset of a 'might makes right' state of affairs. Yet at the same time if the US and the UK had not violated international law concerning Kosovo then the result would have been genocide. Of course to argue that the violation of international law is sometimes justified is ultimately flawed since this would equate to saying that the law serves no purpose since a nation may violate it whenever it believes it is justified in doing so.

It is an impossible question and I have no answers, merely conjecture.

Uhhh, wrong. Canadian General Roméo Dallaire went to the UN and begged for help. The United States blocked it. He wanted UN help before it was too late in Rwanda. Not one of Clinton's finest hours, he had instructed his envoy to the UN to block it in fears of another Somalia, you want some one to blame for the UN not getting to Rwanada sooner, look no further to the last American administration.

Nice attempt at revisionist history.. :roll:

http://www.cceia.org/viewMedia.php/prmTemplateID/8/prmID/848

In January 1994, General Dallaire sent out the alarm with credible information of an impending catastrophe. The United Nations and the membership of the Security Council failed General Dallaire, it failed the people of Rwanda, and it failed humanity. “Never again” was what we had all said. General Dallaire told us that “never again” was happening again, and the Security Council played word games with the Genocide Treaty. It was one of the darker moments of history.

Secretary General Kofi Annan, on behalf of the Secretariat, took responsibility for their part of this failure. But it took the countries of the Security Council, particularly the Permanent Members of the Security Council until April 2000 before they had a public discussion of what happened in Rwanda and made their own gestures of regret for what had happened.



Hmmm from the horses mouth:

GEN. DALLAIRE: On the morning of April 7 -- and remember that on April 6th the presidential plane was shot down and the killing commenced -- your ambassador to the United Nations said to the Security Council: “We will not get involved in Rwanda, and we will support no one who does.”

Many of these nations do not put our countries at risk. I mean Canada was not at risk with Rwanda. So the real question is: is the Western world prepared to spill blood for advancing human rights in far-off lands that mean nothing, except for one small fact: they are exactly the same as us. People are not different; the circumstances are different.


How is that the US blocking actions in Rawanda?

The rest of Europe didn't have a sufficient army to deal with this?

The fact is they are poor country that has no exploitable resouces so interest was not warrented.

The UN failed pure and simple. Regardless of the actions of the United States.

This is a sore spot for me because I have friends that are missing and assumed dead.

How is that the US blocking actions in Rawanda?

I'll have to ask my mother-in-law to ask excatly what he meant by it then, she works for the UN and speaks to General Dallaire often, they're friends.

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations...you're telling me that they are so impotent that they can not simply change the Charter to do away with the permament membership angle of the the Security Council or that they can not engage in actions solely because the US doesn't want to?.. seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations...you're telling me that they are so impotent that they can not simply change the Charter to do away with the permament membership angle of the the Security Council or that they can not engage in actions solely because the US doesn't want to?.. seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace after WWII, so don't get mad at the UN for trying to prevent war and promote peace. The UN was never suppose to be NATO.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

pre-DP

DP

I would say no it isn't. I didn't personally attack any one.

(Also you spelled "perillously" incorrect, it's suppose to be "perilously", I'm sure it was just a typo. It's ok, I make them too. Some though argue around here that if you make a typo it some how invalidates your argument, I'm not one of them)

No, no, my spelling sucks. Always has, always will. :D I suffer from a large vocabulary, but very little attention to detail.


Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

This has what to do with Iraq exactly, or the current situation? I would say nothing, unless you're trying to compare the governments of the former USSR and China to that of the current American administration.

As for Yugoslavia, active genocide was being committed, it was a completely different situation.

My point is, as Genaia pointed out (thanks by the way), that it is a mistake to think that this war is any less justified do to lack of UN support than any conflict that has occured since the UN's founding. I in no way support the legality of this war and think that, when the dust settles, a very serious injustice will have been done if Bush isn't put on trial. However, I am also not willing to say that the UN has stood as a bastion of impartial justice and that the US's breech of protocol is the first ever such incident. It should not be treated as such with shocked outrage and finger pointing when there have been multiple such incidents that have passed in silence. All I'm advocating for is a wider scope of consideration.

As for Yugoslavia, it is convenient to argue that genocide was occuring. However, the same argument could be made for the Kurds in Iraq. How many have to die before the definition of genocide is met. Regardless, NATO acted illegally and minipulated information in order to justify it's action. Was the action ultimately beneficial? Some say yes, some say no, but to ignore the paralellels is to turn a blind eye to historical facts.



To some degree this is true. However it was the Americans who blocked the first resolution...had they not, the UN would got to Rwanda a hell of a lot sooner.

This is true as far as it goes.

How is that the US blocking actions in Rawanda?

I'll have to ask my mother-in-law to ask excatly what he meant by it then, she works for the UN and speaks to General Dallaire often, they're friends.

If you would be so kind.

I would really be surprised that our goverment said "nope can't go there!"

I have heard a couple conspiracy theories that the US was involved indirectly with the plane getting shot down. But even if it was true, I don't see how stoping people from going in would hide the fact.

I only know of the General and from what I have a read he is a good man.

He might have been trying to be polite in that he didn't wan't to say "Your damn goverment...." :wink:

However, I think he hit the attitude with the comments of the debacle with Somalia. They probably didn't want to go into another mess.

Which is a shame.

If this stinking planet is ever going to live together, it's going to have to be the powerful nations showing a little honor by protecting the innocent and defending the helpless.

Probably not going to happen anytime soon.

As to my personal attack. It was out of line and I apologise for that.

It just seem to me that you are on a mission against the americans some times! ;)

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations...you're telling me that they are so impotent that they can not simply change the Charter to do away with the permament membership angle of the the Security Council or that they can not engage in actions solely because the US doesn't want to?.. seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace after WWII, so don't get mad at the UN for trying to prevent war and promote peace. The UN was never suppose to be NATO.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

Part of preventing war is thru the use of force...naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal....if the UN was never meant to enforce it's rulings, then holding hands and singing kumbiyah would never have promoted peace.

They will defend this illegal and quite frankly unbelievable action that was taken to the end despite all the evidence pointing in another direction, because they will follow Bush's lead, when one argument doesn't work or gets discredited, not a problem, they just make up another one!

Yes, this is probably an illegal conflict, however it's no more "unbelievable" than the NATO bombings in Yugoslavia, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, the continual pressure of China leaning on Taiwan or their occupation of Tibet. I'm not standing up for this war, but I am cautioning prudence in one's arugments so as not to become so polarized that you won't surrender a point on principle rather than on factuality.

Also, the whole world dropped the ball on Rwanda, so let's not point fingers at that one. The UN Security council specifically refrained from using the word "genocide" to describe the April 94 killings because not a single member wanted to go in there.[/quote]

Cannot understand the "logic" here.[/quote]

I probably wasn't clear enough. It was Friday afternoon and my brain went on weekend early.


The Balkans war, the Russian-Afghanistan war, Tibet, Taiwan etc etc are irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes, but they're not irrelevant to my point, which is simply that every nation has only observed UN supremecy when it's suits their needs, so it is unfair to single out one nation and claim they are the "big bad" just because they're the latest one to do it.


Just because you have one "bad" war or incident, does in no way justify or permit another. It is that same twisted logic that was used by one Adolph Hitler in his early times of claiming slices of territory from his neighbours.

I never said this was a justified or even legal war. Just that when people are leveling charges against nations, they must be careful to avoid hypocracy given the entire world's track record of ignoring the UN when it proved inconvenient for them. And please don't compare me to Hitler.


You may as well go back to the colonial occupation of Iraq by the British to attempt to understand their resentment at a foreign army of occupation...hmmm, perhaps there actually is some real connection here.

But, to use one war to justify another is wrong. To use one atrocity to justify another is wrong. To use one lie to justify another is wrong.

I don't and never did. If you read my past posts, you'll find that I'm very outspoken regarding the huge mistake this war has been, is and, for all signs, will continue to be in the future. I do, however, think it is important to be fair and to realize that, as an organization, the UN is little better than a gentleman's agreement between a bunch of cutthroat rapscallions who will do whatever they have to in order to get ahead.


Quite simply, war, atrocities and lies are not comparatively wrong, by which I mean that you cannot say my war/atrocity/lie doesn't really count because look at this one which was worse. That is not the way to judge whether something is right or wrong.

This was another point of mine. I apologize if I wasn't particularly clear in elucidating it. War is wrong. Period. I firmly believe that. I don't believe it hypocracy, though, and judging one action by rules and regulations that are constantly flaunted in any event.

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations...you're telling me that they are so impotent that they can not simply change the Charter to do away with the permament membership angle of the the Security Council or that they can not engage in actions solely because the US doesn't want to?.. seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace after WWII, so don't get mad at the UN for trying to prevent war and promote peace. The UN was never suppose to be NATO.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

Part of preventing war is thru the use of force...naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal....if the UN was never meant to enforce it's rulings, then holding hands and singing kumbiyah would never have promoted peace.
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

The UN IS meant to "enforce" peace, but ONLY after ALL possible means of resolution have been exhausted.

Do yourself a favour Salishe and read the UN Charter. Perhaps a better understanding would help you realize that "naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal" as you suggest, is NOT the way towards global peace.

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations...you're telling me that they are so impotent that they can not simply change the Charter to do away with the permament membership angle of the the Security Council or that they can not engage in actions solely because the US doesn't want to?.. seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace after WWII, so don't get mad at the UN for trying to prevent war and promote peace. The UN was never suppose to be NATO.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

Part of preventing war is thru the use of force...naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal....if the UN was never meant to enforce it's rulings, then holding hands and singing kumbiyah would never have promoted peace.
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

The UN IS meant to "enforce" peace, but ONLY after ALL possible means of resolution have been exhausted.

Do yourself a favour Salishe and read the UN Charter. Perhaps a better understanding would help you realize that "naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal" as you suggest, is NOT the way towards global peace.

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?

Oh I've intended to glance over the Charter...it's a toothless tiger..without the means to back up your rulings you are nothing but an "old man wailing at the wind"....my father would say. How do you "enforce peace" without the means to use force?....Perhaps naked force is not the ideal but it has been reality..

Can you quote for me one instance when the UN's stated mission has been accomplished without the use of force?

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations..... seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace aft.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

Part of preventing war is thru the use of force...naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal...
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

The UN IS meant to "enforce" peace, but ONLY after ALL possible means of resolution have been exhausted.

Do yourself a favour Salishe and read the UN Charter. Perhaps a better understanding would help you realize that "naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal" as you suggest, is NOT the way towards global peace.

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?

Oh I've intended to glance over the Charter...it's a toothless tiger..without the means to back up your rulings you are nothing but an "old man wailing at the wind"....my father would say. How do you "enforce peace" without the means to use force?....Perhaps naked force is not the ideal but it has been reality..

Can you quote for me one instance when the UN's stated mission has been accomplished without the use of force?

The UN, irrespective of whether the use of force is required, is the more appropriate body to deal with things on an international basis, simply because it is an international body, and can therefore be seen as (comparatively) unbiased and impartial.

But, you have wandered well off topic.

Never mind whether the UN uses force. I don't recall them ever using torture.

The Great Axis... I am horrified that someone:
A. could condemn someone for their views without proof positive one way or another...
B. could be so blind to think that these alleged actions (note emphasis on alleged) aren't possible...
C. would be willing to generalize that all who oppose military misuse of power are unpatriotic "fags" (great comeback...must have taken hours to come up with that).
I cannot tolerate someone saying that I am unpatriotic because I think military abuse is somehow....in some unfathomable way.....rational and just.
A free nation does not create a free nation by taking measures so culturally despicable as these. Must insurgency be quelled? Absolutely, but FOR the sake of Iraq and world peace, not AT THE EXPENSE OF the already beleagured American and Iraqi people

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations..... seems to me the whole thing is weak then from the get go.

Lets not forget that the UN was an American idea to prevent war and promote peace aft.. Perhaps more people need to read the mandate of the United Nations.

Part of preventing war is thru the use of force...naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal...
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

The UN IS meant to "enforce" peace, but ONLY after ALL possible means of resolution have been exhausted.

Do yourself a favour Salishe and read the UN Charter. Perhaps a better understanding would help you realize that "naked force has resolved more issues then any other ideal" as you suggest, is NOT the way towards global peace.

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?

Oh I've intended to glance over the Charter...it's a toothless tiger..without the means to back up your rulings you are nothing but an "old man wailing at the wind"....my father would say. How do you "enforce peace" without the means to use force?....Perhaps naked force is not the ideal but it has been reality..

Can you quote for me one instance when the UN's stated mission has been accomplished without the use of force?

The UN, irrespective of whether the use of force is required, is the more appropriate body to deal with things on an international basis, simply because it is an international body, and can therefore be seen as (comparatively) unbiased and impartial.

But, you have wandered well off topic.

Never mind whether the UN uses force. I don't recall them ever using torture.

Really...Canadian UN peacekeepers in Somalia conducted themselves poorly...torture is not unique to US military activities..Virtually every Middle Eastern Nation's military or intelligence services have conducted torture...South American, Asian, African nations have routinely used torture to obtain information or obtain confessions..remove the plank in your own eye before you look to mine.

Really...Canadian UN peacekeepers in Somalia conducted themselves poorly...torture is not unique to US military activities..Virtually every Middle Eastern Nation's military or intelligence services have conducted torture...South American, Asian, African nations have routinely used torture to obtain information or obtain confessions..remove the plank in your own eye before you look to mine.
Well then as a Centrist I am probably qualified to jump in and say . . .

Great. Thus from your own admission we may conclude that the individual soldiers of the US and UK (my country) are as morally bankrupt as those of any unsavoury government one cares to weigh them against. Russian federal forces' abuses in the Caucasus? South American state security forces' abuses against rural communities? Algeria? Indonesia, perhaps?

Could we now move on from the absurd idea that Western soldiers are in some way special when it comes to morality? Could we conceed now that they are every bit as capable of losing it as those of any other state? That the idea of Western troops committing war crimes is not automatically a ridiculous politically-motivated suggestion?

It is time that people absorbed this long-overdue lesson of war. That their side can, and somewhere, is probably doing, all those things that others do. That some of those returning heros will have committed war crimes.

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations....
...read the mandate of the United Nations.
...
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

...

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?
...

Can you quote for me one instance when the UN's stated mission has been accomplished without the use of force?

The UN, irrespective of whether the use of force is required, is the more appropriate body to deal with things on an international basis, simply because it is an international body, and can therefore be seen as (comparatively) unbiased and impartial.

But, you have wandered well off topic.

Never mind whether the UN uses force. I don't recall them ever using torture.

Really...Canadian UN peacekeepers in Somalia conducted themselves poorly...torture is not unique to US military activities..Virtually every Middle Eastern Nation's military or intelligence services have conducted torture...South American, Asian, African nations have routinely used torture to obtain information or obtain confessions..remove the plank in your own eye before you look to mine.

I never suggested that torture was unique to US military activities. This sort of nonsense appears to be a "tactic" used by some posters. Instead of replying to what was posted, invent something outrageous, accuse the other person of that, and then condemn them for it.

Nice one.

The UN is made up of over 140 Nations....
...read the mandate of the United Nations.
...
"Part of preventing war is thru the use of force" Wow there is an interesting concept. How does the use of force prevent war?

...

The most important question to resolve, is WHY is the US in Iraq in the first place. Secondly, why are US troops commiting atrocities to Iraqi citizens?
...

Can you quote for me one instance when the UN's stated mission has been accomplished without the use of force?

The UN, irrespective of whether the use of force is required, is the more appropriate body to deal with things on an international basis, simply because it is an international body, and can therefore be seen as (comparatively) unbiased and impartial.

But, you have wandered well off topic.

Never mind whether the UN uses force. I don't recall them ever using torture.

Really...Canadian UN peacekeepers in Somalia conducted themselves poorly...torture is not unique to US military activities..Virtually every Middle Eastern Nation's military or intelligence services have conducted torture...South American, Asian, African nations have routinely used torture to obtain information or obtain confessions..remove the plank in your own eye before you look to mine.

I never suggested that torture was unique to US military activities. This sort of nonsense appears to be a "tactic" used by some posters. Instead of replying to what was posted, invent something outrageous, accuse the other person of that, and then condemn them for it.

Nice one.
You got that right Smeagol.

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.

aww.. how sweet! So you really are concerned for the Iraqi people...

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

wait -- what happened to our "moral obligation"

Did we have a reason to go to war? who knows? only time will tell if there were WMD or links to al-Quaeda. But even without WMD or links to terrorism, it was our moral obligation to free the oppresed poeple of Iraq.

aww.. how sweet!

I don't give a rats ass what happens to the Iraqis while they are in US/UK hands. As long as it is not Americans getting burned, quartered, and dragged through the streets, I don't give a damn.

wait -- what happened to our "moral obligation"

Nice post. Amazing how the morals can be twisted and turned to fit any size situation.

:lol:

HERE IS SOMBODY THAT IS PROUD TO ME AN AMERCAN. (Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil)


So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

Have you ever wondered why they throw 2 nukes?
think about it for a second:

-one nuke was enough of a deterrent.
-the US only had 2 nukes at the time, so throwing the second one surely wasn't a strategic decision.

so why did they throw that second nuke?

i can agree that throwing one nuke has saved many lives, but the second nuke cannot be justified.

Nice post. Amazing how the morals can be twisted and turned to fit any size situation.

:lol:

It's called Doublethink

Orwell knew what he was talking about in 1984

Damn Americans, all they can do is shoot British, intimidate Iraqis and try to undermine the World

HERE IS SOMBODY THAT IS PROUD TO ME AN AMERCAN. (Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil)


So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

Have you ever wondered why they throw 2 nukes?
think about it for a second:

-one nuke was enough of a deterrent.
-the US only had 2 nukes at the time, so throwing the second one surely wasn't a strategic decision.

so why did they throw that second nuke?

i can agree that throwing one nuke has saved many lives, but the second nuke cannot be justified.
Probably because the Japanese refused to surrender after the 1st nuclear device was employed. :) US intelligence believed that 2 would be needed to compel surrender anyhow. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese military wished to continue fighting, this time to the death. See my earlier post regarding the military coup. In reality, the Japanese really lost on Dec. 7th, 1941, it just took us four years to help them realize it.

HERE IS SOMBODY THAT IS PROUD TO ME AN AMERCAN. (Actually the deaths were like 75,000 dead...and what you fail to do research on was the casualties that would occur had Allied forces had to invade the Japanese Home Islands..the Army were arming even women, and based on the mass suicides that Okinawan Japanese committed after we took that Island there was every indication that mass suicides would occur had we landed. Allied casualties were expected well over 1 million, not to mention that even if we took the Islands...that Japanese resistance if the Emperor were left in power would have listed approx 20 yrs..so in the end dropping the bombs, whole horrible were indeed done to minimize casualties on both sides were we to have to land on Japanese soil)


So all of you fags out there move to china....now we dont want or need you here!!!!

Have you ever wondered why they throw 2 nukes?
think about it for a second:

-one nuke was enough of a deterrent.
-the US only had 2 nukes at the time, so throwing the second one surely wasn't a strategic decision.

so why did they throw that second nuke?

i can agree that throwing one nuke has saved many lives, but the second nuke cannot be justified.
Probably because the Japanese refused to surrender after the 1st nuclear device was employed. :) US intelligence believed that 2 would be needed to compel surrender anyhow. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese military wished to continue fighting, this time to the death. See my earlier post regarding the military coup. In reality, the Japanese really lost on Dec. 7th, 1941, it just took us four years to help them realize it.

Actually the USA had three nukes, the one that wasn't dropped is on display in the Imperial War museum in England.
I've seen it, it's so small it could fit on my desk.

Those pictures? Funny as hell! LOL :lol:

Do the soldiers take requests? I'd like to see the Iraqis posed like Creed and Rocky from Rocky III.

Those pictures? Funny as hell! LOL :lol:

Do the soldiers take requests? I'd like to see the Iraqis posed like Creed and Rocky from Rocky III.

Yeah...sexual abuse is funny
:roll:

Those pictures? Funny as hell! LOL :lol:

Do the soldiers take requests? I'd like to see the Iraqis posed like Creed and Rocky from Rocky III.

Yeah...sexual abuse is funny
:roll:

Maybe that turns him on.. :shock:

Those pictures? Funny as hell! LOL :lol:

Do the soldiers take requests? I'd like to see the Iraqis posed like Creed and Rocky from Rocky III.

Yeah...sexual abuse is funny
:roll:

Maybe that turns him on.. :shock:

probably... Of course if it's the americans doing it it's called "war for hearts and minds"

Have decided to post some letters published as responses to the horrific pictures. From Sydney, Australia, a leading newspaper.

"The horrific pictures of Iraqi prisoners being "softened up" by American soldiers are reminiscent of the Nazi regime's treatment of prisoners. It is no wonder that the coalition troops are hated by the Iraqi people and that the uprising against the coalition continues to increase. The coalition troops have surely lost any remaining moral authority to stay in Iraq and should hand over responsibility to the United Nations by June 30.".....

"I see The Washington Post is attributing acts of sexual humiliation and other abuses of Iraqi prisoners to poorly trained US military police reservists softening up detainees before interrogation. This strikes me as correct. Well-trained goons would know better than to document their activities with photographs." ....

"If Saddam gets to hear about these goings-on he may well wonder why he has been incarcerated." ...

" Apart from the gratuitous suffering inflicted upon individuals, the maltreatment of prisoners, the use of excessive force when pursuing an objective, and such like, constitute bad public relations. One thing that promotes hostility towards the US is the gap between rhetoric about respect for human rights and actions which violate these rights."

" We went into Iraq to seize weapons of mass destruction. None were found. We went into Iraq to stop Saddam Hussein killing innocent civilians. We killed thousands. We went into Iraq to change a regime that treated people like animals, tortured and humiliated. We did the same. When will it stop?"

SOURCE.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/30/1083224585749.html

COMMENT.
Army of occupation actively resisted by the populace, instead of being hailed as liberators. Allegations of torture. Closing down of newspapers. The war being hailed as "won" when fighting continues. Similarities between Iraq and Vietnam? Not quite. When Vietnam was raging, the Shrub was quietly hiding at home, and hitting the bottle.

This is rediculous im not saying that prisoner misgunduct never happens but the stuff you talking about is sick and not credible i mean why would they take pictures hmm? Sounds like some anti-american trying make the US look bad again this is getting old. :?

This is rediculous im not saying that prisoner misgunduct never happens but the stuff you talking about is sick and not credible i mean why would they take pictures hmm? Sounds like some anti-american trying make the US look bad again this is getting old. :?

"Not credible" - it has never been denied by either the Americans, or now British as well, since these allegations, with accompanying photographs were first published.

"Why pictures" - grisly "souvenirs" if nothing else - again, their authenticity has never been questioned.

"Sounds like some anti-american trying make the US look bad again this is getting old" - so presumably it should all just be ignored, and will quietly go away, just keep singing "Hail to the Chief" and everything will be just fine, I suppose.

You know what I don't understand:

If a fraternity does it, it's an initiation. Or hazing. If a military does it it's a 'war crime'. :?

Why did we waste our time torchuring them? Execution would've been so much simplier. :roll:

But a lot less fun.

seriously, though. Apparently, they were being 'softened up' before being sent elsewhere for interrogation.

You know what I don't understand:

If a fraternity does it, it's an initiation. Or hazing. If a military does it it's a 'war crime'. :?

If Saddam does it we need regime change.

If the US does it, its just like a fraternity initation. Is that what you are trying to say? Just a spot of harmless fun?

And the US is there to promote democracy and human rights as I recall, seeing as they couldn't find any WMDs.

DP. :cry:

You know what I don't understand:

If a fraternity does it, it's an initiation. Or hazing. If a military does it it's a 'war crime'. :?

If Saddam does it we need regime change.

If the US does it, its just like a fraternity initation. Is that what you are trying to say? Just a spot of harmless fun?

And the US is there to promote democracy and human rights as I recall, seeing as they couldn't find any WMDs.

Harmful fun. It's a crime, certanly. I just don't see it as an international scandal.

You know what I don't understand:

If a fraternity does it, it's an initiation. Or hazing. If a military does it it's a 'war crime'. :?

If Saddam does it we need regime change.

If the US does it, its just like a fraternity initation. Is that what you are trying to say? Just a spot of harmless fun?

And the US is there to promote democracy and human rights as I recall, seeing as they couldn't find any WMDs.

Harmful fun. It's a crime, certanly. I just don't see it as an international scandal.

Why not? It is international. It is a scandal. Please explain by what logic it is not an "international scandal". :roll:

You know what I don't understand:

If a fraternity does it, it's an initiation. Or hazing. If a military does it it's a 'war crime'. :?

If Saddam does it we need regime change.

If the US does it, its just like a fraternity initation. Is that what you are trying to say? Just a spot of harmless fun?

And the US is there to promote democracy and human rights as I recall, seeing as they couldn't find any WMDs.

Harmful fun. It's a crime, certanly. I just don't see it as an international scandal.

Why not? It is international. It is a scandal. Please explain by what logic it is not an "international scandal". :roll:

Stories like this are simply fodder for those with agendas.

You notice that the Bush Administration was all up in arms about Saddam's WMD programs. Not word one was being said about the hell his citizens were being put through at his whim. Then... when people begin to wonder when we'll find WMDs in iraq, all of a sudden, stories of torture and killing starts to come to light.

When people start to question whether we should be in Iraq, stories start to come out like this in the press... but do you honestly think for one moment that this sort of 'softening up' is new? That these reservists are doing anything other than what they have been unofficially(of course) trained to do? It's only news NOW. :?

This is rediculous im not saying that prisoner misgunduct never happens but the stuff you talking about is sick and not credible i mean why would they take pictures hmm? Sounds like some anti-american trying make the US look bad again this is getting old.

God, I thought I'd seen the epitome of rightist ignorance, but this takes the cake. Questioning if it even happened? When it's being reported on the BB-f*cking-C? Possibly THE most reputable news source in the world? Come on, now. You're welcome to have the opinion that what these soldiers were doing was not that bad (even though you'd be wrong), but questioning the credibility of the story just shows your own ignormance.

What these soldiers did to these men was inexcusable. We say the purpose of this invasion is to promote the rights and freedom of the Iraqi people, and then our own soldiers do things like this? It's not only cruel, but talk about giving the Iraqi people the wrong impression! Not only that, it gives the very fanatics we're trying to squelch out more fuel.

I mean, Christ. It's unbelievable.

...those pictures look clearly staged....
denial

I'm not exactly very trusting of a news agency that is already biased against American involvement in Iraq.
....

i smell bullshit
denial

...those pictures look clearly staged....
denial


No...I never said it never happened...others said that....
Denial and Counter-Denial

...those pictures look clearly staged....
denial


No...I never said it never happened...others said that....
Denial and Counter-Denial

Do you have anything to add?

bullshit
denial

... not all of them look overly authentic.
denial...

I don't think you can accurately compare the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the torture of Iraqi soldiers. Dropping those bombs was indeed necessary to win the war and save millions of lives. Torturing Iraqi prisoners serves absolutely no purpose. It doesn't put an end to the conflict (If anything, it makes the situation more delicate than it is presently), and it most certainly doesn't improve our status in the global scheme of things. If you were the ruler of a country (IRL), and you were doing what you think is right, would you show support for someone who seems guilty of this, whether it's real or not? Not if you are in your right mind. Not only is this wrong, but think of how the citizens of your country would view you.

Revolutionsz, stop.

Myrth
Forum Moderatz0r

"And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq." --George Bush

Another lie. The only difference is that the torture rooms, rapes, and mass graves are now being done by the US government instead of Saddam. We're now even hiring former army officials from Saddam's old army, so the crimes can be carried out by the very same people who ruled under the old Iraqi government.

Anyone who doubts that rape and torture are happening in Iraq are fooling themselves. That's what war is. There has never been a war without rape, torture and the worst kind of brutality. War brings out the worst in people, and you can't have a clean war with smart bombs that only kills bad people. There's no such thing. Wake up and smell the blood.

...those pictures look clearly staged....
denial


No...I never said it never happened...others said that....
Denial and Counter-Denial

Do you have anything to add?
only if you dont get my point

...those pictures look clearly staged....
denial


No...I never said it never happened...others said that....
Denial and Counter-Denial

Do you have anything to add?
only if you dont get my point

I get your point. You know how to type the word "denial".

only if you dont get my point

I get your point. You know how to type the word "denial".

Heh, this made me giggle.

Aww poor Sdaeriji....
you dont get it do you?
...read this...It migth turn-on the ligth for you...

It migth..(with you...its difficult to say) :P

It's ludicrous.. [bla bla bla]

so...

First it's "This never happened, it's a lie!" and now it's "What's the BIG deal?"

The British did the same things.

The British did the same things.

Oh...wait...Then it's totally different! Wait...The british did it too? Now it all makes sense! The war was justified and has pacified the middle east... And I can understand why the americans torture prisoners now!

Wow...thanks

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Some of you people sicken me. One you even said 'let's have more pictures like them'. Everyone here who doesn't find those pictures and reports appalling disgust me every bit as much as the sub-humans that caried out the atrocities. Then you all start scoring points about the nuclear bombing of Japan, as if this were in way way relevent.
We've been told of the disgusting crimes of the Sadaam regime and we illegally invaded Iraq to supposedly rid it of WMD, which aren't there.
America and Britain trumpet to the world what beacons of democracy and decency they are. That's the difference. For any US or UK to abuse prisoners is exactly what we've been supposed to be fighting against.
Amnesty International have been trying to tell the world that they've been finding this stuff since March 2003, nobody listened. Now we have some photographic proof and all the war-mongers, Bushites and frankly heartless bastards here still don't want to know. If Sadaam was wrong and evil (ona hugely larger scale), we too are wrong and evil on a smaller scale.
I applaud those that have the courage to stand up to the mindless people here who can't believe or won't believe it. I have nothing but detestation for those that do believe it and don't care.

Even without the heinous and illegal treatment of Iraqi prisoners, this alone should cause the citizens of 'free, democratic and decent' countries to feel shame. Though I'm not expecting much from most of you
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3452.htm

Warning: Graphic content.

And another thing. (I've a few friends still in the military..made some calls, and this story can not be independently confirmed on anything in the US, I don't recall any CBS program with this material in it...and believe you me...it CBS had it, they'd be blaring that thing nite and day...)


that is sooo true. Do you believe every thing you hear? and if you do you are an ideot. So if you don't like the U.S. goverment that bad than move to china and find out how bad things are!!!!!

Actually the article just said that this information was confirmed in March, so CBS had it and didn't air anything for a month. This is another example of the media's self-censorship and the lack of real information Americans are getting. I hate to think what kind misconceptions people who only watch Fox State Television have.

Actually the article just said that this information was confirmed in March, so CBS had it and didn't air anything for a month. This is another example of the media's self-censorship and the lack of real information Americans are getting. I hate to think what kind misconceptions people who only watch Fox State Television have.

Wasn't there some suggestion that the Pentagon either asked or leaned on CBS in regards to them not releasing the photos?

The British did the same things.

Oh...wait...Then it's totally different! Wait...The british did it too? Now it all makes sense! The war was justified and has pacified the middle east... And I can understand why the americans torture prisoners now!

Wow...thanks


Pay close attention dear, There is proof that the British tortured Iraqis to, understand? I know that is hard for you to understand, but try.


BTW, 17 soldiers out of 160,000 did these things......see a problem here?

And another thing. (I've a few friends still in the military..made some calls, and this story can not be independently confirmed on anything in the US, I don't recall any CBS program with this material in it...and believe you me...it CBS had it, they'd be blaring that thing nite and day...)


that is sooo true. Do you believe every thing you hear? and if you do you are an ideot. So if you don't like the U.S. goverment that bad than move to china and find out how bad things are!!!!!

Actually the article just said that this information was confirmed in March, so CBS had it and didn't air anything for a month. This is another example of the media's self-censorship and the lack of real information Americans are getting. I hate to think what kind misconceptions people who only watch Fox State Television have.


Making a stupid comment about Fox news doesn't help your case any. BTW, Fox acted the same way as CNN and BBC.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Some of you people sicken me. One you even said 'let's have more pictures like them'. Everyone here who doesn't find those pictures and reports appalling disgust me every bit as much as the sub-humans that caried out the atrocities. Then you all start scoring points about the nuclear bombing of Japan, as if this were in way way relevent.
We've been told of the disgusting crimes of the Sadaam regime and we illegally invaded Iraq to supposedly rid it of WMD, which aren't there.
America and Britain trumpet to the world what beacons of democracy and decency they are. That's the difference. For any US or UK to abuse prisoners is exactly what we've been supposed to be fighting against.
Amnesty International have been trying to tell the world that they've been finding this stuff since March 2003, nobody listened. Now we have some photographic proof and all the war-mongers, Bushites and frankly heartless bastards here still don't want to know. If Sadaam was wrong and evil (ona hugely larger scale), we too are wrong and evil on a smaller scale.
I applaud those that have the courage to stand up to the mindless people here who can't believe or won't believe it. I have nothing but detestation for those that do believe it and don't care.

Even without the heinous and illegal treatment of Iraqi prisoners, this alone should cause the citizens of 'free, democratic and decent' countries to feel shame. Though I'm not expecting much from most of you
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3452.htm

Warning: Graphic content.
So very well stated as usual!! :lol:

Well, I have two moods as far as international politics go. The first:

"Oh, for goodness sake, not again! We all need to do whatever we can to stop this madness. All right, so one person can't do much alone usually, but if individuals don't act, then masses don't exist, so we do have to act."

Then, there's:

"Oh, whatever. Stupid humans. Do we even deserve to survive anyway, if we're going to behave like this? Does the survival of the human race actually matter more to me than finishing my book in peace, getting a good night's sleep, and thinking up new insulting ways to refer to customers behind their backs? No, not really. Drop dead, humanity."

I know which one I should aim for, but it's sometimes very difficult to care for a species of metaphysical roadkill. (I include myself whole-heartedly, before anyone thinks I'm denigrating Arabs/Americans/TV Chat show hosts/other specific people.) I suspect the dichotomy's similar in most people's minds.

The British did the same things.

Oh...wait...Then it's totally different! Wait...The british did it too? Now it all makes sense! The war was justified and has pacified the middle east... And I can understand why the americans torture prisoners now!

Wow...thanks

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

What about Nagasaki? I think that effected the decision. But, I wouldn't expect you to think so, like everyone outside the US you think the USSR won WWII alone. Even when the US acts against it's interests and ignores the will of it's citizens, it recieves no credit and takes all the blame. How did the US start WWII, again?

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

What about Nagasaki? I think that effected the decision. But, I wouldn't expect you to think so, like everyone outside the US you think the USSR won WWII alone. Even when the US acts against it's interests and ignores the will of it's citizens, it recieves no credit and takes all the blame. How did the US start WWII, again?
I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

What about Nagasaki? I think that effected the decision. But, I wouldn't expect you to think so, like everyone outside the US you think the USSR won WWII alone. Even when the US acts against it's interests and ignores the will of it's citizens, it recieves no credit and takes all the blame. How did the US start WWII, again?
I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

Because people are with or against Bush (who's comitted enough crimes against the poor of his own country, the people and the environment of his world to burn in the Hell he's so keen on) doesn't necessarily mean they're against the USA. I hate US policy with a vengeance, I am most certainly "against us" and yet I have no desire whatsoever to go and fly a plane into a building. In actual fact most Americans I have met are wonderful people, and I love the beautiful country they live in.

Many "anti-American" Europeans feel the same way. Polls that show that 51% or something of Europeans "believe that the USA is the greatest threat to world peace" demonstrate their loathing for the administration, not the country and the ideals of freedom and democracy it stands for (although I personally have a bone with the ideals of the neo-liberal Right To Have Lots of Money If You're Lucky, the Right To Be Patriot During Times Of War Or Else, and the most important enshrined Right To Carry Around An Implement With Which You Can Shoot Other People, but I'm a bleeding heart social democrat so I admit my bias in the circumstances of these three rights and others).

As for the British - well, I'm British. I'm disgusted by the acts of these men, and believe they should be locked up. Guess what? So does the rest of the country. You can't move at the moment for newspapers expressing their shock and anger, and politicians and military officials doing the same.

Meanwhile, from what I can see of the USA, the media seems to be carefully shying away from the incident. Which brings us back to why Europeans hate the way your country is run so much. Try and elect someone who isn't completely tied up with corporate and media interests sometime, hmmm?

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

Because people are with or against Bush (who's comitted enough crimes against the poor of his own country, the people and the environment of his world to burn in the Hell he's so keen on) doesn't necessarily mean they're against the USA. I hate US policy with a vengeance, I am most certainly "against us" and yet I have no desire whatsoever to go and fly a plane into a building. In actual fact most Americans I have met are wonderful people, and I love the beautiful country they live in.

Many "anti-American" Europeans feel the same way. Polls that show that 51% or something of Europeans "believe that the USA is the greatest threat to world peace" demonstrate their loathing for the administration, not the country and the ideals of freedom and democracy it stands for (although I personally have a bone with the ideals of the neo-liberal Right To Have Lots of Money If You're Lucky, the Right To Be Patriot During Times Of War Or Else, and the most important enshrined Right To Carry Around An Implement With Which You Can Shoot Other People, but I'm a bleeding heart social democrat so I admit my bias in the circumstances of these three rights and others).

As for the British - well, I'm British. I'm disgusted by the acts of these men, and believe they should be locked up. Guess what? So does the rest of the country. You can't move at the moment for newspapers expressing their shock and anger, and politicians and military officials doing the same.

Meanwhile, from what I can see of the USA, the media seems to be carefully shying away from the incident. Which brings us back to why Europeans hate the way your country is run so much. Try and elect someone who isn't completely tied up with corporate and media interests sometime, hmmm?Since when did hatred of the US begin with Bush? Bush was elected only a few years ago. How long has Europe and much of the world hated the US? Oh yes, hate the country, claim to love the people, truely love Fords and dollars. That has been the way the world has acted. It's bullshit.

As for the second paragraph, refer to the first sentence of my reply.

As for electing someone the media doesn't like, try it yourselves. See how far you get.

And, you don't seem to like the way a few Brits(like US soldiers, a few) treated Iraqi prisoners. Are you going to call yourselves facists, imperialists, greedy, oil drinkers, the way all of Europe talks about the US?

For many people, hatred of the USA began with Bush. For all his mistakes, lies and arrogance, Clinton didn't seem to pretend the USA was the centre of the world, while Bush stepped in and immediately stuck up two fingers (eg. "star wars", the Kyoto Protocol). He has all the diplomatic subtlety of a suicide bomber.

The "world" has "hated" the USA for a very long time, but the hatred and reasons for it has fluctuated. The 1990s saw little no dictators installed by the CIA, the end of the divisive Cold War, and relatively speaking things were fairly peachy. That didn't stop people hating the arrogance of the US and the way it remained one of the most divided and unequal societies in the western world though. Anger at the exploitation of the majority doesn't just disspate, although you'll note there's an implicit sympathy for that majority. If a European is angry with the USA because so many people are being screwed over, they don't hate the Americans who are being screwed over (unless they're not sound of mind!)

Electing someone "the media doesn't like" in the United Kingdom is pretty hard, being as the media tends to reflect public opinion to a degree if it wants to sell anything. Unfortunately, the media also shapes public opinion, but in 1997 it became pretty obvious even to the mainly conservative tabloids that the Conservative party was spectacularly self-destructing, so when many of them threw their weight behind Labour it was pretty much a case of following the path the British population had already taken.

Oh, and the Liberal Democrats over here have never really attained popular media support, and are rapidly gaining more and more political influence.

Meanwhile, I didn't argue with your first sentence Deeloleo ;)

The USA is not a facist nation, nor is there much evidence to prove that most Americans drink blood. Any of that you hear tends to be mindless rhetoric from the extremist minorities of those who hate American policies.

Also, if you travelled to the UK you'd discover that the majority of people here were against the war, and are pretty angry with the government for co-operating with Bush, who suffers popularity that would be incredible were it not for the fact he's such an ass. People are pretty muched miffed with Blair right now, and those who pour the most abuse upon the USA tend to pour it upon our government too.

Where do you tend to heap your abuse on your government and nation, as well? Even as you say that you blame Bush, and by extension the US, for your nations involvement in the war. Bush can't send Brittish troops anywhere! As to Bush's mistakes, which mistakes? Failing to wait for permission to attack Afgahanistan and Iraq, which he saw as defending the US? You see him not bowing to international opinion as vice, I see it as virtue.

And, yes the world has seemingly always hated the US, regardless of the actions of our government. That only validates my opinion that we really don't gain anything by heeding the opinion of other nations.

I know you're right media in Brittain follows public opinion, while we in the US are dictated to by the media. You are so very wise and we are sheep. :roll:

The US is not a facists nation? That's the first time in years I've seen that from anyone in Europe. That's the way, see past "your omnipotent, biased media."

If you traveled to the US, you'd see that all Americans didn't agree with the war either, but we didn't blame anyone but ourselves for our involvement!

Where do you tend to heap your abuse on your government and nation, as well? Even as you say that you blame Bush, and by extension the US, for your nations involvement in the war. Bush can't send Brittish troops anywhere! As to Bush's mistakes, which mistakes? Failing to wait for permission to attack Afgahanistan and Iraq, which he saw as defending the US? You see him not bowing to international opinion as vice, I see it as virtue.

It's entirely Blair's fault we're involved. I never denied that. You're the one pinning statements on me here :wink:

Bush's mistakes? I could refer you to a wide variety of sources on the subject. Surprisingly, the most objective I've yet read was in a book written by Peter Singer, "The President of Good and Evil". I think this thread could do without a massive list of reasons why Bush shouldn't be a politician, let alone a world leader.

And, yes the world has seemingly always hated the US, regardless of the actions of our government. That only validates my opinion that we really don't gain anything by heeding the opinion of other nations.

No.

The world hates the USA at times when your actions are those of a superpower going too far. In the same way, the British Empire was quite rightly hated, and people aren't too keen on my country's latest actions.

I know you're right media in Brittain follows public opinion, while we in the US are dictated to by the media. You are so very wise and we are sheep. :roll: .

Once again, you're pinning a statement on me. We've got The Sun, The Mail, and various other pieces of toilet paper cunningly disguised as news outlets. However, the USA is notorious for the incredible rate of crap spewing from its television sets that claims to be unbiased news programming. For all the problems of the UK media (and numerous other countries' media...Germany has the disgusting Das Bild, the world's best-selling tabloid) I'm glad I don't live in the information free zone that exists in the USA. I cite the recent censorship of coffins as an example, although I'm glad that was a step too far and various media outlets rebelled against Pentagon wishes at that point. It shouldn't of needed to reach that stage though.

The US is not a facists nation? That's the first time in years I've seen that from anyone in Europe. That's the way, see past "your omnipotent, biased media."

Riiiiiight...how many people in Europe have you spoken to over the past few years? How much of a grasp of politics did they have, and was there the slight possibility that they were exaggerating, hmm?

If you traveled to the US, you'd see that all Americans didn't agree with the war either, but we didn't blame anyone but ourselves for our involvement.

I'd hope so too, being as you started it.

We can blame our government for going along with yours, but not starting the damn thing. We haven't started our own silly little conflict since the Suez decable.

The US shouldn't be releasing casualty figures and images of KIA soldiers, it upsets the civilians during dinner time.

There you go again, we started it. Wasn't it the Brittish government that gathered the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD? If you care to look back You'll see it's true. But it's all Bush's and The US's fault? Continue your nations hypocrisy if you will.

Read all of the left's propaganda that you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that the US doiesn't need your or anyone elses permission to defend itself.

How do you compare the US to the Brittish Empire?

Oh, because we disaprove of ghouls prifitting from pictures of caskets we are censored? I'm glad we are, then.

I've exchanged ideas with quite a few over the internet. They seemed to have no grasp of politics, that wasn't Socialist or extremely liberal. Exagerating? If so, to the point of disgust.

Started it, again blaming the US for the ills of your nation. Our governments are partners in this to deny it is ignorance. What about the Faulklands?

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

If the British are torturing prisoners, then they are wrong too.

No, people didn't "hate" the US before Iraq. The US had a lot of sympathy following 9/11. That is why they were almost universally supported in the war with Afghanistan.

Too many people were aware that all did not seem "above-board" though for the war with Iraq.

The US, obviously isn't "always wrong", or "always has a selfish motive". But it can be wrong. It was wrong when it told the world about non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It is wrong when its soldiers torture prisoners.

But it is most wrong when those who claim to support the US decide that it has the right to over-ride the rest of the world when it comes to these decisions.

Stop feeling sorry for yourselves, the world is not picking on you. Instead, it is feeling sympathy for your victims. Try considering how you would feel if the reports of torture were from any other country. See? Its called empathy. Now, stop considering that you are the victims, and clean up your act. That way, those who wish to support you will be able to without feeling ashamed.

Its plain and simple, The US is hated because of our power and next to never because of our actions.

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

If the British are torturing prisoners, then they are wrong too.

No, people didn't "hate" the US before Iraq. The US had a lot of sympathy following 9/11. That is why they were almost universally supported in the war with Afghanistan.

Too many people were aware that all did not seem "above-board" though for the war with Iraq.

The US, obviously isn't "always wrong", or "always has a selfish motive". But it can be wrong. It was wrong when it told the world about non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It is wrong when its soldiers torture prisoners.

But it is most wrong when those who claim to support the US decide that it has the right to over-ride the rest of the world when it comes to these decisions.

Stop feeling sorry for yourselves, the world is not picking on you. Instead, it is feeling sympathy for your victims. Try considering how you would feel if the reports of torture were from any other country. See? Its called empathy. Now, stop considering that you are the victims, and clean up your act. That way, those who wish to support you will be able to without feeling ashamed.


Nobody is claiming America is perfect, we are not, But assaulting us only makes us less likely to care about what you think.

Its plain and simple, The US is hated because of our power and next to never because of our actions.

Read the posts.

Your power does not and cannot excuse your actions.

The power to be brutal, or to torture, does not confer the right to do so.

Do you wish to defend your actions? Or your power? Or do you believe that the power by itself is all the defence that you require?

Its plain and simple, The US is hated because of our power and next to never because of our actions.

Read the posts.

Your power does not and cannot excuse your actions.

The power to be brutal, or to torture, does not confer the right to do so.

Do you wish to defend your actions? Or your power? Or do you believe that the power by itself is all the defence that you require?


Read my other post.

The actions of 17 soliders is not a reflection on the whole country. I am a Conservative and i never liked Regan or anything he did, I won't and can't defend him.

The torture and humiliation of prisoners is wrong, no matter who is responsible. But, I haven't, nor am I likely to, see anyone come here or anywhere else to say that Brits are facists or arrogant or evil or that Brits only want Iraqi oil. Why? Because people, like yourself, hated the US before Iraq and always have and always will? If that is the case, as I believe it is, why should the US care what you think or say? Or what the UN thinks or says? Or what the world says? You hated us before Iraq. You hate us now. What's changed? Judging by this forum and others that I visit, the world has, does, and will hate us. Many, especially from outside the US, think that the US is always wrong,always has a selfish motive. I don't like Bush, but the more I visit these forums the more I agree with " You are with us or you are against us". Doesn't that seem to be the way of things?

If the British are torturing prisoners, then they are wrong too.

No, people didn't "hate" the US before Iraq. The US had a lot of sympathy following 9/11. That is why they were almost universally supported in the war with Afghanistan.

Too many people were aware that all did not seem "above-board" though for the war with Iraq.

The US, obviously isn't "always wrong", or "always has a selfish motive". But it can be wrong. It was wrong when it told the world about non-existent weapons of mass destruction. It is wrong when its soldiers torture prisoners.

But it is most wrong when those who claim to support the US decide that it has the right to over-ride the rest of the world when it comes to these decisions.

Stop feeling sorry for yourselves, the world is not picking on you. Instead, it is feeling sympathy for your victims. Try considering how you would feel if the reports of torture were from any other country. See? Its called empathy. Now, stop considering that you are the victims, and clean up your act. That way, those who wish to support you will be able to without feeling ashamed.

Victims? I'm sorry, I never meant to give that impression. Not victims, but scape-goats. For everything! You can look at any problem, anywhere in the world and you will find people blaming the US for it. Often for nothing more than standing by the side of our allies and not asking permission before defending ourselves. Like I said in another post, you see those things as vice, we see them as virtue.

"If" the Brittish are torturing prisoners? But, Iraqis are definately being tortured by American soldiers, right? You've seen the pictures. Did you see the pictures of Brittish soldiers doing the same things? Where is your outrage at those?

Oh, the world didn't hate the US after fanatics flew planes into buildings full of civilians? Even then, you blamed us for that. After all, we had it coming, right?

The power to over-ride the rest of the world in international affairs? I'm sorry if you see things that way. But, the US is not going to ask for permission or approval to defend ourselves. If that makes you uneasy, too bad. And, I remember at leaste one very prominate Brit making those claims about Iraqi WMD. No blame for Brittain, right? It's all Bush's and the US's fault, right?

Feeling sorry for our victims? What of our successes? There are reports of victims of torture from another country. Noone has gone out of thier way to place exclusive blame on them. See? It's called hypocrisy. Now, let's face up to everyones mis-deeds and lets clean up everyones act, that way those who point the finger back at you won't be right.

There you go again, we started it. Wasn't it the Brittish government that gathered the intelligence that said Iraq had WMD? If you care to look back You'll see it's true. But it's all Bush's and The US's fault? Continue your nations hypocrisy if you will.

The fact that we supported you wholeheartedly (or rather, our government did, which wasn't popular with the population...while on the other hand there was and is widespread support in the USA) to the point of making up false intelligence evidence does change the fact that it was the US government was looking for a war. You were not pushed into it. Blair had no intention of suddenly invading Iraq on a whim, but instead went along with Bush for diplomatic reasons of his own.

Read all of the left's propaganda that you'd like, it doesn't change the fact that the US doiesn't need your or anyone elses permission to defend itself.

It's time for the USA to recognise that they're not the only nation in the world that matters. I'm pretty sure the Russian citizens kidnapped and tortured recently in Iraq weren't too keen on the fact the USA wasn't keen on seeking "permission".

How do you compare the US to the Brittish Empire?

In that the British Empire was and the USA is a superpower. The British Empire suppressed populations and interfered with foreign politics while spouting nonsense about liberation. The USA on the other hand is pretty much justified in much of it's talk about liberation, but that doesn't stop it interfering in politics (for example, supporting or even creating dictatorships in formerly democratic nations in South America where it benefitted their foreign policy) or supressing individuals (the disgusting and now failed military operation in Falluja, and of course the subject of this thread). The UK tends to go along with most of these wild actions, but we don't get criticised as much partly because we're not the big power, but also partly because we've learned from our mistakes. British soldiers are all made to take part in a conference on rules of military conduct annually, and our military has learned a great deal from mistakes in Northern Ireland. While the USA bombs the hell out of another city, we tend to negotiate more.

Oh, because we disaprove of ghouls prifitting from pictures of caskets we are censored? I'm glad we are, then.

I find that statement quite disturbing. You do know the First Amendment of the US constitution don't you?

It's not a case of disapproval. The Pentagon tried to block pictures from being published. That is censorship.

I've exchanged ideas with quite a few over the internet. They seemed to have no grasp of politics, that wasn't Socialist or extremely liberal. Exagerating? If so, to the point of disgust.

On the contary, most liberals and socialists have a good grasp of Conservative politics, which is why they reject them. I believe in social liberalism and limited economic socialism, but only because I believe them better than other alternatives based upon great amounts of reading from supporters of all political orientation and observation of current affairs, and am a Politics student. I don't slip into it because I think Stalin had a pretty neat moustache. (it looked stupid. Anyway, he was hideous tyrant, along with practically every other Communist leader)

Started it, again blaming the US for the ills of your nation. Our governments are partners in this to deny it is ignorance. What about the Faulklands?

Our governments are partners. I acknoledged this point several times and have not denied it once.

The Falklands war began after an Argentinian invasion of British territory, inhabited by British citizens. It was a reaction against a hostile action by a dictatorship, and not a "pre-empative" attack, such as launched by the Japanese on Pearl Harbour and the USA on Iraq. Reagan got very huffy since the USA helped put the dictatorship in Argentina there in the first place (the democratic government that had ruled the country previously had been getting uppity) but Thatcher told him where to get off.

If the British are torturing prisoners, then they are wrong too.

Yes. It needs to stop immediately. Fortunately, the military immediately condemned them and launched an investigation.

Its plain and simple, The US is hated because of our power and next to never because of our actions.

Of course. The war crimes comitted during wars such as Vietnam and Germany, support for genocides such as in Cambodia and Iraq, destruction of democracy in various countries, the continued support of authoritarian regimes in countries such as China, Saudia Arabia and Uzbekistan, the support of military dictatorships in countries such as Greece, Argentina and Iraq, unfair conditions of trade such as oppressive loan conditions in Asia, training and/or support of terrorists in places such as Afganistan, Ireland and South America, the colonization of Hawaii and Spanish American lands, cuturally offensive behaviour such as lack of empathy for the poor, sex tourism and an attitude of superiority from many tourists and soldiers, arrogant, conceited nationalism, invasions of countries such as Haiti, Panama, Grenada, and Iraq, unequal trade in defence contracts, a corrupt and undemocratic electoral system, the rejection and sabotage of otherwise internationally recognised standards, secretly breaking own trade boycotts to gain advantage (eg. selling of wheat to USSR), bullying low crime countries to accept gun proliferation, cultural domination through extra-territorial copyright law, environmental delinquency, withdrawal from various arms and environmental treaties, energy wastage, the support for the violent and oppressive state of Israel (and please, don't start the "anyone who hates Israel hates Jews crap. I come from a Jewish family), harrassing the creation of the International Criminal Court, resistance to globalisation of measurement units, attempting to create/maintain world monopolies, export of Catholic idealogy resulting in the death of millions (especially in Africa), export of recreational drug choices (for some reason to kill oneself with cigarettes and alchohol are acceptable, while countries such as the Netherlands that have legalised cannabis are pressured to change the law), the hypocracy of the USA's economic policy (it's alright for the USA to be protectionist, but everyone else has to accept free trade), disparagement, sabotage, harrassment and bullying of the United Nations, opposition to Australian democracy in 1975, establishment of the principle of "pre-emptive war'', abuse of the international monetary fund, the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans, the WMD lie, sabotage of Russian oil pipelines, squandering of sympathy (for example after September 11) and the exploitation of the American working classes have nothing to do with it.

[disclaimer: the above list was culled from a larger one. Written by an American.]

Deeloleo,

Just wanted to point out that Iraq was not a matter of self-defence, as pretty much everyone realized except Bush and Blair, but thats only if you really fall for their lies, and it is exactly because of this that the invasion and occupation created such an hostile responce.

Also, lets not forget the atrocities caused by your CIA in South America and the way that Israel is ALWAYS protected by the US goverment. You can't expect anyone to be grateful for that.

If the world condemns US and British torturers it is for the very simple reason that torture is wrong. Always. Period.

To claim that it is anything to do with everyone hating the US or their power is ludicrous.

To claim that this is some sort of self-defence is obnoxious.

To claim that you can do what you want when you want is arrogance.

So you can shoot them but you can't play with them?
Torture schmorture.

The British did the same things.

Oh...wait...Then it's totally different! Wait...The british did it too? Now it all makes sense! The war was justified and has pacified the middle east... And I can understand why the americans torture prisoners now!

Wow...thanks


Pay close attention dear, There is proof that the British tortured Iraqis to, understand? I know that is hard for you to understand, but try.


BTW, 17 soldiers out of 160,000 did these things......see a problem here?

I never said they didn't. I just don't see how it's an excuse...

And yes, I see a problem here...Soldiers are torturing and sexually abusing prisoners. It disgusts me.

The British did the same things.

Oh...wait...Then it's totally different! Wait...The british did it too? Now it all makes sense! The war was justified and has pacified the middle east... And I can understand why the americans torture prisoners now!

Wow...thanks


Pay close attention dear, There is proof that the British tortured Iraqis to, understand? I know that is hard for you to understand, but try.

:?
Fool...You are the one not paying attention

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.[/quote]

Maybe in the far but not in Europe.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

As the latest Passion of the Christ and the not-so-latest Pearl Harbor will tell you.

Many people argue that the term “anti-American” is fully justifiable as it is essentially the truth, this may be true for some people but certainly not for all. The American democrats for example, seem far more prone to criticising American foreign policy as it currently stands, emphasising the need of multilateral action, the importance of the UN and so on, yet even these people who are themselves American are accused of hating their country, regardless of whether or not the democrats’ criticisms are actually valid. Rational discussion rarely takes place due to the Anti-American rebuke. When John Kerry claimed he had the support of five foreign leaders many Republicans responded by passing them off as belonging to nations such as North Korea which are hostile to the US. Anti-Americanism is as much something perpetuated and believed by Christian-conservatives with their own goals in mind than something which is genuinely popular among western states. However, the more the US perceives there to be widespread international hostility, that those with different religious faiths and cultures are incompatible with America and acts accordingly (ignoring international institutions and the like) the truer this hostile world image becomes.

Interestingly guys I am starting to suspect that those photos of British servicemen are fake. They were probably not even taken in Iraq! Look closely at the photos and you will notice the following.

- The rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

- The soldiers deployed in Iraq wear berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos you show.

- It also looks like the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.

- The soldiers are wearing webbing that is undone. Normally soldiers make sure that this is not the case

- Why are the mans clothing not dirty and dishevelled?

- why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings?

Its not 100% yet, but I dont think our boys would do something like this. Someone, either in The Daily Mirror or in the armed forces, is trying to cause a lot trouble for the British in Iraq. IMO these traitors should be put on trial for a VERY long jail sentence if they are ever found.

The full link can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3678221.stm

Ok, just because mainstream media and news stations like CBS don't broadcast it, doesn't mean it isn't true. I saw a documentary on CNN, they were showing a detention area where the soldiers were keeping Iraqi prisoners... and they were yelling profanities at them, pushing them around, and this all seemed acceptable... FORGET the other stuff, even this much is wrong.. just because it's the US, doesnt mean they're allowed to do whatever they want.
I don't care if this is war, if the US is committing war crimes, the soldiers responsible for these crimes, and those watching over these soldiers should be held responsible.
If they can't take the stress of war, I say they get the hell outta there and put an end to the occupation

Interestingly guys I am starting to suspect that those photos of British servicemen are fake. They were probably not even taken in Iraq! Look closely at the photos and you will notice the following.

- The rifle is an SA80 mk 1 - which was not issued to troops in Iraq.

- The soldiers deployed in Iraq wear berets or hard hats - and not floppy hats as in the photos you show.

- It also looks like the wrong type of Bedford truck is shown in the background - a type never deployed in Iraq.

- The soldiers are wearing webbing that is undone. Normally soldiers make sure that this is not the case

- Why are the mans clothing not dirty and dishevelled?

- why is the man not showing some signs of damage after eight hours of beatings?

Its not 100% yet, but I dont think our boys would do something like this. Someone, either in The Daily Mirror or in the armed forces, is trying to cause a lot trouble for the British in Iraq. IMO these traitors should be put on trial for a VERY long jail sentence if they are ever found.

The full link can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3678221.stm

They've allready found some of the people responsible. You think they are in on the joke?
:roll:
And Kofi Annan too?

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?

Bush had his eye on Iraq LOOONGGG before sept 11th.
No WMDs were found, how has the war in Iraq done anything for anyone? True, Saddam is gone, but the US troops have turned the Iraqi people against them. Shiite and Sunni insurgence are uniting and radical clerics are springing up accross the country preaching anti-Us things.. civillian casualties are plentiful...
I guess you could say the US has dug a hole for themselves and is digging deeper

Bush had his eye on Iraq LOOONGGG before sept 11th.
No WMDs were found, how has the war in Iraq done anything for anyone? True, Saddam is gone, but the US troops have turned the Iraqi people against them. Shiite and Sunni insurgence are uniting

You can find it all in that New American Century crap...

The very small minority is to be punished by Courts Marshall. Don't let this small drawback make us take our eye off the ball. Don't let another 9/11 or Bali bombing get a chance to happen again. He who endures, wins. :wink:

How does the war in Iraq prevent another 9/11 ?
I 2nd that question!!

One soldier's emails show he tried to report the abuse but was silenced by his superiors.
Court martial the superiors.

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?Here's a story from the Beeb (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3678221.stm) that lends credibility to your opinion.

............

IMO the British Pics are Fake....

The question would be:
who is behind this parody?
WHY?Here's a story from the Beeb (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3678221.stm) that lends credibility to your opinion.

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.
How so? Do you even watch it? Is it run by communist hippies?

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.
How so? Do you even watch it? Is it run by communist hippies?

Well, it's run by non-americans...Therefore it must be anti-american crap. And once I saw a program where a gun had killed someone! That's a clear anti-extreme-republican message right there!

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.
How so? Do you even watch it? Is it run by communist hippies?

Well, it's run by non-americans...Therefore it must be anti-american crap. And once I saw a program where a gun had killed someone! That's a clear anti-extreme-republican message right there!You will be surprised at what the Beeb has in that link, then.

Everyone knows that BBC is biased towards communist hippies so it can't be trusted.
How so? Do you even watch it? Is it run by communist hippies?

Well, it's run by non-americans...Therefore it must be anti-american crap. And once I saw a program where a gun had killed someone! That's a clear anti-extreme-republican message right there!You will be surprised at what the Beeb has in that link, then.

I checked the link. It merely states that there are some doubts, and that the matter is being investigated. And so it should be.

Meanwhile, no such denials are forthcoming from the US.

In fact, the latest information on both incidents can be found here:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083436475631.html.

and commentary which I find compelling can be found here :

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/02/1083224655715.html

Now, are you going to dispute the US torture allegations? Less evidence was needed to convince many of the existence of weapons of mass destruction as you may recall.

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

Actually the USSR had nothing to do with the surrender. In fact, they are a reason why Japan got bombed. Recently released documentation showed that the Japanese went to the one major goverment who they still had an embassy(the USSR). They sent word asking to pass along to the Americans about holding talks. It never made it.

The USSR joined the war just in time to reclaim some property they lost in their previous war with Japan.

The Japanese also didn't belive the atomic bomb after Hiroshima. They thought it was another fire bomb raid like Tokyo(which btw, killed more people the the atomics).

(yeah well we are the U.S. nothing we do is warcrimes remember that little thing called hiroshima where we killed 100's of thousands of civilians...)



Man get a life you are sooooo dumb. We wanted to kill them!!! If we did not bomb them in hiroshima we would not have ended the war. They wern't going to give up in till we totley distroid them!!! Don't you get it we would have lost thousands more troops if we did not bomb them. O or do you think that they are more important than our troops. You are probley some gay pacifist!!!!


Actually Japan didn't really surrender indefinitely until the USSR threatend to invade Japan. Although Hiroshima probably would of eventually but they were willing to fight on after Hiroshima until USSR.

Just trivial

What about Nagasaki? I think that effected the decision. But, I wouldn't expect you to think so, like everyone outside the US you think the USSR won WWII alone. Even when the US acts against it's interests and ignores the will of it's citizens, it recieves no credit and takes all the blame. How did the US start WWII, again?
I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.

Really? Alright consider this. Eliminate the Murmansk convoys and the British and American bombings of the German production. Could they have won the war?

Frankly it seems to be only the European youth that try to eliminate the US envolvment. Fact is the US was a major player in the fighting their contributions can not be lessoned no matter what.

It was a world war people. Everybody played a part. My great-uncle was saved by an Australian Coastal watcher. He has nothing but praise for Australia.

My Uncles that fought in Europe, liked their British Counterparts and spoke highly of them.

To me the current needs a reality check.

Europe owes its thanks to our Grandfather's and great-grandfathers.

The current US generation is owed nothing by Europe today.

Deeloleo,

Just wanted to point out that Iraq was not a matter of self-defence, as pretty much everyone realized except Bush and Blair, but thats only if you really fall for their lies, and it is exactly because of this that the invasion and occupation created such an hostile responce.

Also, lets not forget the atrocities caused by your CIA in South America and the way that Israel is ALWAYS protected by the US goverment. You can't expect anyone to be grateful for that.

Actually, I'm guessing the only democracy-loving citizens of the region, the Israelis, are pretty grateful. How about this: we Americans are tired of hearing you Arabs gripe about our pro-Israel stance. Why the heck should we support Muslims? They bomb our cities, incite others to violence against us, and publicly denounce our way of life, our morals and our principles. Israel alone stands with us in promoting liberal democracy. It's time for us Americans to tell the Arabs where they can go take a flying leap.

I believe that the Soviet Union won WWII, even though I live in the US. Given more time, the States could have done the same.The US played a lareger role than any nation ,with he exeption of the UK, in winning that war.
Hollywood is not a good HISTORY teacher....

As the latest Passion of the Christ and the not-so-latest Pearl Harbor will tell you.

Uh, excuse you. What the heck do you mean the Passion of Christ? That was unfailingly close to the Gospel's account, which unless you have any other manuscripts on Jesus' death dating from the first century, is the closest thing to "history" that we have! Finally, as they say 'the vitors write the history books' which means, of course, that anyone's account of history is just that, THEIR account, and certainly not THE account. (That's why the Passion was superior, it was based on FOUR people's account, thus gaining better picture of what actually happened.)