NationStates Jolt Archive

Notice how this subject has quietly slipped below the radar.

Could be rather embarrasing methinks.

Weapons of Mass Destruction - dismissed for lack of evidence.

Torture of Iraqi citizens - oops.

Justice for all, not for some.

Try Saddam, and any others guilty of war crimes.

bush is a war criminal

Much as I dislike Bush, I think it's a mistake to try to equate him with Hussein. Bush is no prize, and in fact has done much to shame this country, but he's certainly not on the level of Hussein.

That said, it's pretty sad when the best defenses the rabid right wingnuts can come up with on the torture of prisoners front is "frat boy pranks" and "Hussein was worse." For one, anal rape wth a broomstick ain't a frat boy prank, and for two, goddamn it, we're supposed to be better than that. What kind of logic is it that excuses your horrible action by pointing to another one? Horrible is still horrible, in my book.

Much as I dislike Bush, I think it's a mistake to try to equate him with Hussein. Bush is no prize, and in fact has done much to shame this country, but he's certainly not on the level of Hussein.

That said, it's pretty sad when the best defenses the rabid right wingnuts can come up with on the torture of prisoners front is "frat boy pranks" and "Hussein was worse." For one, anal rape wth a broomstick ain't a frat boy prank, and for two, goddamn it, we're supposed to be better than that. What kind of logic is it that excuses your horrible action by pointing to another one? Horrible is still horrible, in my book.

I think one Iraqi prisoner has gone on record as saying he'd rather have been in a Baathist prison because at least they don't strip you naked when they're torturing you.

Of course he could have been using any excuse to take a dig at the US, but still, makes you think.

I wonder how long it will be before we get a major news figure--someone of Cronkite-esque stature--who says on tv that we need to just get out of Iraq and admit we screwed it up?

You know, I remember saying, on this very board more than once during the run up to the war, that the US track record with nation-building was pathetic and that I didn't believe this administration actually gave a damn about the Iraqi people. I hate being right sometimes.

bush is a war criminal

Agreed! I wish we could send his ass to the Hague.

bush is a war criminal

Agreed! I wish we could send his ass to the Hague.Why can't you?

I have a DEAT-wish.!

Somehow I don't tthink this is any old n00b

But I'm probably wrong.

*incrediably stupid comment*

I don't think you are...

Like I said ages ago, what exactly are the charges?

We can't stick him for just being a generally unpleasent wanker.

And how far back do we go with his crimes? 2003? 1991? 1988? 1979? 1963?

What about the crimes he commited when he was a valued ally?

Whatever Saddam says has the potential to embarress countless people and countries both within and without the Coalition.

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

bush is a war criminal
Agreed! I wish we could send his ass to the Hague.
Why can't you?
Because the US has passed a law basically saying that any American who is sent there on war crimes charges will be rescued by means of an armed intervention. :roll:

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

Actually, I don't recall them demanding any thing when they took him prisoner.. thus, he wasn't kidnapped. Read the Hague and Geneva Conventions. He's fair game. He worked for the United States. Any one in Iraq that works for the occupying force is fair game under the rules of war. You know, those pesky little things the Americans believe they don't have to follow.

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

Actually, I don't recall them demanding any thing when they took him prisoner.. thus, he wasn't kidnapped. Read the Hague and Geneva Conventions. He's fair game. He worked for the United States. Any one in Iraq that works for the occupying force is fair game under the rules of war. You know, those pesky little things the Americans believe they don't have to follow.

Oh that is the biggest load of crap I've yet heard..this was a civilian employed by a international company to drive a truck, he wasn't taking in combat..they kidnapped him and showed him on television for God's sake! And let he (meaning country) who is without sin cast the first stone.

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

Actually, I don't recall them demanding any thing when they took him prisoner.. thus, he wasn't kidnapped. Read the Hague and Geneva Conventions. He's fair game. He worked for the United States. Any one in Iraq that works for the occupying force is fair game under the rules of war. You know, those pesky little things the Americans believe they don't have to follow.

Oh that is the biggest load of crap I've yet heard..this was a civilian employed by a international company to drive a truck, he wasn't taking in combat..they kidnapped him and showed him on television for God's sake! And let he (meaning country) who is without sin cast the first stone.

Like I said, read the Hague and Geneva Conventions. No, it's not a load of crap. What he did was basically drive a truck for a supply line. Same as the 4 dudes that got killed in Fallujah, also fair game (although the Geneva Convention was broken when they desecrated the bodies but not for killing them) The war is not over you know? No one has declared it over have they? No, I didn't think so. I don't recall any one signing a surrender order.

The war is not over you know? No one has declared it over have they? No, I didn't think so. I don't recall any one signing a surrender order.

Was a war formally declared?

The war is not over you know? No one has declared it over have they? No, I didn't think so. I don't recall any one signing a surrender order.

Was a war formally declared?

Yes, under the Hague conventions a war is formally declared if A) A formal declaration of war is signed.. or B) An ultimatum is given.

Bush most certainly gave Saddam an ultimatum.. this war was formally declared.. I'm going off the top of my head for code.. but I believe it's Hague convention 3(1) I might have the code wrong.. but I'm pretty sure that is right. However I know for a fact that is the rule.

Was a war formally declared?
Yes, that's another can of worms. Civilians working for the military in an undeclared war is a tricky one.

On the subject of civilians in war generally, in Britain, the supply ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are civiliian-manned but work alongside the Royal Navy in all the same places. During the Falklands War, they got chopped to bits, same as the RN. And it was perfectly legal, as they were assisting combatants in a war zone.

Yes, under the Hague conventions a war is formally declared if A) A formal declaration of war is signed.. or B) An ultimatum is given.
Ooh. Now that's interesting.

The war is not over you know? No one has declared it over have they? No, I didn't think so. I don't recall any one signing a surrender order.

Was a war formally declared?

Yes, under the Hague conventions a war is formally declared if A) A formal declaration of war is signed.. or B) An ultimatum is given.

Bush most certainly gave Saddam an ultimatum.. this war was formally declared.. I'm going off the top of my head for code.. but I believe it's Hague convention 3(1) I might have the code wrong.. but I'm pretty sure that is right. However I know for a fact that is the rule.

I just love how you're some sort of apologist for the insurgents..you expect we in the US to adhere to the Geneva Conventions but you don't of our enemy...whatever happened to not using a religous place of worship..i.e..as a mosque...to using an ambulance to transport fighters around with impunity...to wearing uniforms designating you as an enemy combatant..seems you take great delight in pointing out American shortcomings but I've yet to see you post something substantial regarding the enemies flagrant disregard for the Geneva Conventions

I just love how you're some sort of apologist for the insurgents..

I love the use of the word insurgent.

If the situation where reversed and it was the US which had been invaded by Iraq these insurgents would be called patriots.

I've yet to see you post something substantial regarding the enemies flagrant disregard for the Geneva Conventions

So because the enemy is a bastard you have the right to act like one too?

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

Oh yes, they did a photo op. And then he claims he was quite well treated. Compare that to the systematic torture and degradation of prisoners as we have seen.

Incidentally, what is your huge deal with the word kidnapped? I mean, your all-caps looks very nice - but it's not like the US hasn't just grabbed and detained suspicious looking folks off the street too you know. And held them for a hell of a lot longer than than this guy was.

Pointing a gun at his head and threatening death WAS a nasty thing. No shit. Of course, making a guy stand naked and blindfolded hooked up to electrodes and telling him that he will die if he moves is not exactly all that diferent is it?

Maybe he would have been released like most of the other kidnap victims have been. We'll never know that. However I doubt they would bother treating somebody they were really going to kill that well.

What CAN be shown is that he was generally well treated. He has stated that fact repeatedly. HE was scared - sure. But not abused.

So spare me your indignation. you don't hav a leg to stand on in this case.

-Z-

I love the use of the word insurgent.

If the situation where reversed and it was the US which had been invaded by Iraq these insurgents would be called patriots.
I do not believe there is anything wrong with the use of the word "insurgent". It is a neutral, descriptive word, unlike for example, "terrorist". And yes, many of them are patriots, those that are primarily motivated by feelings of nationalism rather than religious identity. And it is the spread of Iraqi nationalism rather than religious fanaticism hat poses the greater threat to the US presence in Iraq.

I just love how you're some sort of apologist for the insurgents..

I love the use of the word insurgent.

If the situation where reversed and it was the US which had been invaded by Iraq these insurgents would be called patriots.

We didn't invade..we liberated...ask the Kurds..are they saying we invaded??..nope..in fact they wanted Saddam gone....the Shiites initially celebrated Saddam's leaving...only as long as it wasn't THEIR people doing the dying..our boys did the dirty work and as has been seen in recent events decided that once Saddam and the Republican Guard (the only things keeping the Shiites in check) were gone we were no longer needed...ingrates.....and we know why the Sunnis are up in arms...they were top dawg under Saddam and now stand to lose their place at the dinner table if the Shiites are successful..pardon me...if Iran is successful, Al-Sadr spent his exile in Iran and is being bankrolled by them. I say let them have their land..they'll be back in the 7th Century within 10 yrs just like Afghanistan..

I've yet to see you post something substantial regarding the enemies flagrant disregard for the Geneva Conventions
So because the enemy is a bastard you have the right to act like one too?
Interestingly, the allies have increasingly been using favourable comparisons of themselves to the Saddam regime to play down their actions. It is a shame indeed, when we are forced to use that moral compass.

The war is not over you know? No one has declared it over have they? No, I didn't think so. I don't recall any one signing a surrender order.

Was a war formally declared?

Yes, under the Hague conventions a war is formally declared if A) A formal declaration of war is signed.. or B) An ultimatum is given.

Bush most certainly gave Saddam an ultimatum.. this war was formally declared.. I'm going off the top of my head for code.. but I believe it's Hague convention 3(1) I might have the code wrong.. but I'm pretty sure that is right. However I know for a fact that is the rule.

I just love how you're some sort of apologist for the insurgents..you expect we in the US to adhere to the Geneva Conventions but you don't of our enemy...whatever happened to not using a religous place of worship..i.e..as a mosque...to using an ambulance to transport fighters around with impunity...to wearing uniforms designating you as an enemy combatant..seems you take great delight in pointing out American shortcomings but I've yet to see you post something substantial regarding the enemies flagrant disregard for the Geneva Conventions

It A) doesn't negate the fact that you were wrong and .. B) doesn't excuse the Americans who claim to stand on higher moral ground. At this point though, the American breaches of the Geneva Conventions far out weigh that of the Iraqi fighters.. also, since there is no real legitimate government in Iraq.. there can't be "insurgents" In fact, if any one was the "insurgents" it was the Americans who waged an illegal war under International law on Iraq.

You want to argue this code and verse? Not a problem. Any time!

We didn't invade..we liberated...ask the Kurds..are they saying we invaded??..nope..in fact they wanted Saddam gone....the Shiites initially celebrated Saddam's leaving

When the Nazi's steamrolled into Czechoslovakia and France they were greeted in places by cheering crowds. Does that lessen the intent of the invasion?

Wanting Saddam gone is irrelevent to the course of action taken. You army is occupying a foreign land, however a benign spin you seek to put on it, it is understandable that many of these 'insurgents' consider themselves to have been invaded.

Yes, under the Hague conventions a war is formally declared if A) A formal declaration of war is signed.. or B) An ultimatum is given.
Ooh. Now that's interesting.

It's from The HAgue Conventions III of 1907,THE CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.


Bush made his ultimatum on March 18, 2003 when he stated:

All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.



Therefore this is a declared war under the terms of international law.

-Z-

We didn't invade..we liberated...ask the Kurds..are they saying we invaded??..nope..in fact they wanted Saddam gone....the Shiites initially celebrated Saddam's leaving

When the Nazi's steamrolled into Czechoslovakia and France they were greeted in places by cheering crowds. Does that lessen the intent of the invasion?

Wanting Saddam gone is irrelevent to the course of action taken. You army is occupying a foreign land, however a benign spin you seek to put on it, it is understandable that many of these 'insurgents' consider themselves to have been invaded.

In your opinion removing Saddam was irrevelent..since most of Europe and the UN choose to look the other way for the last 12 yrs while Saddam went loose continuing his oppressive regime...in the opinions of at least 1/3 of the population it was extremely revelent...and in a good portion of the Shiites not located withing the Sunni triangle..not every Shiite is part of this Al-Sadr's insurgency, it's financed by Iran..that to me smacks of foreign intervention but none here say anything bout that?

Me..personaly..I say we leave..you don't want us..fine..we'll leave lock, stock and money, let the Shiites have their theocracy..and choose to live within the 7th century..they'll be made impotent withing 10 yrs..that is of course until the French and Russians come out in the open and support them in order to get at the oil like they did with the UN program

In your opinion removing Saddam was irrevelent

Don't misquote me. I said it was irrelevent to the use of the word invasion. I'm no Saddam apologist and I'm glad he's gone. That doesn't change the fact that the Coalition invaded Iraq.

Snip

You're not worth arguing with because you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking from emotion and not from law. Thus, there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject. Your emotions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the rules of war, which the Americans have broke at every stop.

I'm done! :roll:

We didn't invade..we liberated...ask the Kurds..are they saying we invaded??..nope..in fact they wanted Saddam gone....the Shiites initially celebrated Saddam's leaving

When the Nazi's steamrolled into Czechoslovakia and France they were greeted in places by cheering crowds. Does that lessen the intent of the invasion?

Wanting Saddam gone is irrelevent to the course of action taken. You army is occupying a foreign land, however a benign spin you seek to put on it, it is understandable that many of these 'insurgents' consider themselves to have been invaded.

In your opinion removing Saddam was irrevelent..since most of Europe and the UN choose to look the other way for the last 12 yrs while Saddam went loose continuing his oppressive regime...in the opinions of at least 1/3 of the population it was extremely revelent...and in a good portion of the Shiites not located withing the Sunni triangle..not every Shiite is part of this Al-Sadr's insurgency, it's financed by Iran..that to me smacks of foreign intervention but none here say anything bout that?

Me..personaly..I say we leave..you don't want us..fine..we'll leave lock, stock and money, let the Shiites have their theocracy..and choose to live within the 7th century..they'll be made impotent withing 10 yrs..that is of course until the French and Russians come out in the open and support them in order to get at the oil like they did with the UN program

Right. The country with the second largest oilfield in the world will wind up in exactly the same financial situation as a mountainious, landlooked region with few resources....

:roll:

You watch a lot of Fox news don't you? Or did you just pick up the Idiots Guide to the Middle East?

Because you sure like the simplified explanation of everything... and mostly the wrong way.

(Hint: For the last 12 years, the internationl community was united on containment for Saddam - not invasion - and certainly not "looking the other way". Maybe they chose that option because they had a better idea of how it would turn out than your guy did.)

-Z-

Snip

You're not worth arguing with because you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking from emotion and not from law. Thus, there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject. Your emotions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the rules of war, which the Americans have broke at every stop.

I'm done! :roll:

Good..you're done..and when you come down off that lofty pedestal you can see the world in real terms.....emotion..no..soundly based in realpolitik. It's based on reality..not what we'd like to hope happens. The Geneva Conventions..nice in theory..but flawed from the getgo..to try to regulate warfare...something which hasn't succeded since before the time of man standing upright.

Snip

You're not worth arguing with because you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking from emotion and not from law. Thus, there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject. Your emotions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the rules of war, which the Americans have broke at every stop.

I'm done! :roll:

Good..you're done..and when you come down off that lofty pedestal you can see the world in real terms.....emotion..no..soundly based in realpolitik. It's based on reality..not what we'd like to hope happens. The Geneva Conventions..nice in theory..but flawed from the getgo..to try to regulate warfare...something which hasn't succeded since before the time of man standing upright.


Hahahaha, tell that to the Nazi's who were tried and convicted in the Hague.. Bah, I give up.. stop watching Fox news.. mmmk!

Good..you're done..and when you come down off that lofty pedestal you can see the world in real terms.....emotion..no..soundly based in realpolitik. It's based on reality..not what we'd like to hope happens. The Geneva Conventions..nice in theory..but flawed from the getgo..to try to regulate warfare...something which hasn't succeded since before the time of man standing upright.
If, in your opinion, no attempt should be made to regulate warfare, then the attacks on 11 September 2001 were a legitimately executed act of war.

Snip

You're not worth arguing with because you don't know what you're talking about. You're speaking from emotion and not from law. Thus, there is no point trying to have an intelligent discussion with you on the subject. Your emotions are irrelevant. The only thing that matters are the rules of war, which the Americans have broke at every stop.

I'm done! :roll:

Good..you're done..and when you come down off that lofty pedestal you can see the world in real terms.....emotion..no..soundly based in realpolitik. It's based on reality..not what we'd like to hope happens. The Geneva Conventions..nice in theory..but flawed from the getgo..to try to regulate warfare...something which hasn't succeded since before the time of man standing upright.

So your argument is that human rights and laws really don't matter?


So why the hell did you bother invading him?

Now you are throwing out the last of the reson's to be there. No WMD. No ties to terrorism. And now you don't care about proper treatment of people.

oh, and for your indignation about these prisoners being all combattants deserving of this, and your indignation about the death threat against that truck driver... read the Red Cross report (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040510/ap_on_re_eu/red_cross_prisoner_abuse&cid=518&ncid=1480)

The coalition has admitted that it realizes that between 70 and 90% of the people that they picked up in sweeps were innocent. And they also use the threat of death as a routine interrogation technique.

Take that and put it on your own pedestal there bud.

-Z-

If, in your opinion, no attempt should be made to regulate warfare, then the attacks on 11 September 2001 were a legitimately executed act of war.

"Pre-emptive strike against a hostile enemy"

If, in your opinion, no attempt should be made to regulate warfare, then the attacks on 11 September 2001 were a legitimately executed act of war.
"Pre-emptive strike against a hostile enemy"
Yep. Seems our friend Aluran must be less disapproving of those attacks than he would lead you to believe.

I am a liberal. I hate Bush dearly. But I believe Suddam should have been overthrown. Were there weapons of mass destruction? Probobally not. Was he building up his military? Yes. After desert storm, we said several things to him, stuff like you can't build up your army or build weapons of mass destruction. The last person we did not stop from building up their military when we told him he couldn't, was Hitler. And I believe that turned into a catastrophe that made alot of directors rich by cashing in. Just saying, we made rules, he broke them. End of story.

I am a liberal. I hate Bush dearly. But I believe Suddam should have been overthrown. Were there weapons of mass destruction? Probobally not. Was he building up his military? Yes. After desert storm, we said several things to him, stuff like you can't build up your army or build weapons of mass destruction. The last person we did not stop from building up their military when we told him he couldn't, was Hitler. And I believe that turned into a catastrophe that made alot of directors rich by cashing in. Just saying, we made rules, he broke them. End of story.

Without disputing Saddam's unpleasentness... what gives America the right to tell him he can't have an army? And why can't he have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Believe me I sleep a lot better hoping that WMD werent in the hands of people like Saddam but what gives the US and UK the right to possess such things?

Just saying, we made rules, he broke them. End of story.

OMG!.. :roll:

Just saying, we made rules, he broke them. End of story.

OMG!.. :roll:

Ahh go gently, it was his/her first post! :P

I am a liberal. I hate Bush dearly. But I believe Suddam should have been overthrown. Were there weapons of mass destruction? Probobally not. Was he building up his military? Yes. After desert storm, we said several things to him, stuff like you can't build up your army or build weapons of mass destruction. The last person we did not stop from building up their military when we told him he couldn't, was Hitler. And I believe that turned into a catastrophe that made alot of directors rich by cashing in. Just saying, we made rules, he broke them. End of story.

Without disputing Saddam's unpleasentness... what gives America the right to tell him he can't have an army? And why can't he have Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Believe me I sleep a lot better hoping that WMD werent in the hands of people like Saddam but what gives the US and UK the right to possess such things?

As they are stable democracies of course, with respeact for human rights, free trials, not locking people up without good reason, and would never ever want to use such things, only in self defence. :roll:

God who am i kidding - it is because they are the ecomonic powers and can pretty much dictate to everyone else whatever they like. They say we have the right to such weapons, so it must be true, our Government says so. And we couldnt have those grubby people overseas getting a hold of them (unless they are allies of course, like Pakistan).

Did Saddam press the button to have all those people gassed or did he order someone to do it?

Did Bush press the button to bomb all those Iraqis or did he order someone else to do it?

Bush = Saddam

They both ordered the death of thousands of innocent human beings by deploying weapons of death.

I see no difference.

If you could look into their black hearts, I think you would see many similarities

Did Saddam press the button to have all those people gassed or did he order someone to do it?

Did Bush press the button to bomb all those Iraqis or did he order someone else to do it?

Bush = Saddam

Ohhh interesting analogy.

lol, first post, I have to juggle 8 other forums. Hence, why I have 1 post, and not 2,000+

lol, first post, I have to juggle 8 other forums. Hence, why I have 1 post, and not 2,000+
<----- I only lurk in my other forums. :D

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

When they do put him on trial, I think it will be very interesting to see which charges are left off the list. To avoid any embarrasing cross-examination I'm sure we will find up watching something akin to the Al Capone trial - which is to say that they'll give some excuse that they couldn't prove the tougher crimes and so are nailing him on extorting kickbacks from the oil-for-fod program.

Of course, if they go with that tactic then by saying that they can't prove the tougher crimes then that also makes another point to add to the "where DID those WMD go" list..... after all, I thought we all knew without a shodow of a doubt about his atrocities?

But it is rather interesting to contrast the US treatment of detainees with the respectful care, feeding, and medical treatment of that truck driver who eventually escaped..... from "evil freedom-hating terrorists" as GW like to call them.


-Z-

Excuse me?..respectful treatment...??...They KIDNAPPED the man and were all prepared to KILL him?..that's respectful?...yes..they treated him, ahmmm...but did they let him go?..I reiterate..they KIDNAPPED this man, put a rifle to his head and said they were going to KILL Him...that's respectful?

Actually, I don't recall them demanding any thing when they took him prisoner.. thus, he wasn't kidnapped. Read the Hague and Geneva Conventions. He's fair game. He worked for the United States. Any one in Iraq that works for the occupying force is fair game under the rules of war. You know, those pesky little things the Americans believe they don't have to follow.

Oh that is the biggest load of crap I've yet heard..this was a civilian employed by a international company to drive a truck, he wasn't taking in combat..they kidnapped him and showed him on television for God's sake! And let he (meaning country) who is without sin cast the first stone.

*Hurls a rock in the name of Iceland*

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

I will put this in simpler terms.. what did OBL have to do with Saddam? Or what did Saddam have to do with 9/11? Saddam never did a damn thing to America.. What? Yes, he gassed his own people IN THE 80'S!!! That's one hell of a delayed reaction.. I could go on.. but I'm getting to the point of, what's the point. I swear they could drop a nuclear weapon in downtown Baghdad and there would be those who would defend it.. :?

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

I will put this in simpler terms.. what did OBL have to do with Saddam? Or what did Saddam have to do with 9/11? Saddam never did a damn thing to America.. What? Yes, he gassed his own people IN THE 80'S!!! That's one hell of a delayed reaction.. I could go on.. but I'm getting to the point of, what's the point. I swear they could drop a nuclear weapon in downtown Baghdad and there would be those who would defend it.. :?

You're jumping on another tanget hun...the question wasn't what did Saddam have to do with it..but why we could capture Saddam and not OBL...on THAT question I gave my reasons...

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

Yeah...You sleep better because YOU are American and it's you guys doing the sadistic torture thing now.
Good thing you can sleep peacefully.

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

Yeah...You sleep better because YOU are American and it's you guys doing the sadistic torture thing now.
Good thing you can sleep peacefully.

Excuse me??...How did you make the leap of logic there from at best a platoon sized amount of bad apples into not only the over 120,000 serving there with no connection to the prison and then the HUGE leap of logic concerning 300 million Americans in the States that we are doing the sadistic torture thing?...and I dispute it's torture...humiliating yes..abusive yes..torture?...They still have all their limbs don't they?

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

Yeah...You sleep better because YOU are American and it's you guys doing the sadistic torture thing now.
Good thing you can sleep peacefully.

Excuse me??...How did you make the leap of logic there from at best a platoon sized amount of bad apples into not only the over 120,000 serving there with no connection to the prison and then the HUGE leap of logic concerning 300 million Americans in the States that we are doing the sadistic torture thing?...and I dispute it's torture...humiliating yes..abusive yes..torture?...They still have all their limbs don't they?

Torture is defined as:
"1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."

So it's torture... Rape is torture, forcing people to do sexual things is torture, leaving the lights on forever is torture, beating people is torture, not letting people sleep is torture...etc etc etc.
You don't have to hack off limbs for it to be torture.

So...Yes, it's you guys doing the torture now.

The prison is run by Americans, the wardens were Americans, the people doing the torture did so in the name of America...
But that's allright...Because you can sleep better now.

Did Saddam press the button to have all those people gassed or did he order someone to do it?

Did Bush press the button to bomb all those Iraqis or did he order someone else to do it?

Bush = Saddam

Ohhh interesting analogy.

I thought so :)


also Salishe, this abuse is FAR from being a few bad apples.

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040510/D82FQ8LO0.html

Excuse me??...How did you make the leap of logic there from at best a platoon sized amount of bad apples into not only the over 120,000 serving there with no connection to the prison and then the HUGE leap of logic concerning 300 million Americans in the States that we are doing the sadistic torture thing?...and I dispute it's torture...humiliating yes..abusive yes..torture?...They still have all their limbs don't they?Ummm--some of them don't even have their lives anymore, much less their limbs. This was undeniably torture, Salishe.

Now I agree that it was likely a small group who were responsible for the torture, although I think it goes farther up the command structure than most people are talking about so far. It sounds like the use of mercenaries probably contributed to the problem, as did a lack of training and discipline. But let's not try to downplay this the way Limbaugh and Hannity and some others have--this was torture, plain and simple.

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

Yeah...You sleep better because YOU are American and it's you guys doing the sadistic torture thing now.
Good thing you can sleep peacefully.

Excuse me??...How did you make the leap of logic there from at best a platoon sized amount of bad apples into not only the over 120,000 serving there with no connection to the prison and then the HUGE leap of logic concerning 300 million Americans in the States that we are doing the sadistic torture thing?...and I dispute it's torture...humiliating yes..abusive yes..torture?...They still have all their limbs don't they?

Torture is defined as:
"1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."

So it's torture... Rape is torture, forcing people to do sexual things is torture, leaving the lights on forever is torture, beating people is torture, not letting people sleep is torture...etc etc etc.
You don't have to hack off limbs for it to be torture.

So...Yes, it's you guys doing the torture now.

The prison is run by Americans, the wardens were Americans, the people doing the torture did so in the name of America...
But that's allright...Because you can sleep better now.

So once again..Tuminiaa is making a sweepig indictment of over 300 million people..wow..and over 120,000 troops in field..why of course, if 20 do it..then all 120,000 are guilty of it..and by extension..all 300 million Americans are doing it..bravo Tum..that beats my "Iceland matters not in the world scheme of things" comeback.

So once again..Tuminiaa is making a sweepig indictment of over 300 million people..wow..and over 120,000 troops in field..why of course, if 20 do it..then all 120,000 are guilty of it..and by extension..all 300 million Americans are doing it..bravo Tum..that beats my "Iceland matters not in the world scheme of things" comeback.
You know, whether what Tumaniaa is saying is fair or not, by playing it down, you are complicit.

:twisted:

True, true, Saddam is a terrorist, and eventually he would have had to be punished. However, he never really posed a threat to us, did he? You can always say, well later he MAY have attempted a terroristic attack on the U.S. because of his past, but if we were to say that then we can say that he has been a threat ever since way back when. And we have waited until now to do something about it?

Another thing. So, let's say that really, Saddam has posed no threat to us since he has not really done anything...how come he has been captured for trial while the REAL terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the man behind the plans to kill thousands of our innocent people, is still running around free?

Also, I would be interested in hearing (or reading) a Republican's defense on why it was okay to capture Saddam while Osama is completely free?

Because Saddam was easier to capture mebbe??...He could only hide out in a finite area for support, Saddam was mutually hated by most of his countrymen...OBL has entire mountain ranges pocketed with caves suitable for hiding from satellites in a region that is solidly behind him...he only lacks his dialysis machine and the materials needed for his treatment..and even that can be obtained..

Ummm :?: ... so he was easier.. and even though it was an illegal war and he had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorism against American, never has, probably never would of.. it's ok, because it was "easier"? Does this by any chance make the average American sleep better at night? I would think the stink of it would actually keep them up!

I'm sorry darlin..I'd like to agree with you..I really would..but I do sleep better knowing a sadistic thug like Saddam is no longer in control of that country..perhaps at some point they'll be a better Iraqi in charge, but for now I do sleep better..quite peacefully in fact.. as for OBL...the question was why we could capture Saddam and not OBL..I gave my reasons.

Yeah...You sleep better because YOU are American and it's you guys doing the sadistic torture thing now.
Good thing you can sleep peacefully.

Excuse me??...How did you make the leap of logic there from at best a platoon sized amount of bad apples into not only the over 120,000 serving there with no connection to the prison and then the HUGE leap of logic concerning 300 million Americans in the States that we are doing the sadistic torture thing?...and I dispute it's torture...humiliating yes..abusive yes..torture?...They still have all their limbs don't they?

Torture is defined as:
"1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish."

So it's torture... Rape is torture, forcing people to do sexual things is torture, leaving the lights on forever is torture, beating people is torture, not letting people sleep is torture...etc etc etc.
You don't have to hack off limbs for it to be torture.

So...Yes, it's you guys doing the torture now.

The prison is run by Americans, the wardens were Americans, the people doing the torture did so in the name of America...
But that's allright...Because you can sleep better now.

So once again..Tuminiaa is making a sweepig indictment of over 300 million people..wow..and over 120,000 troops in field..why of course, if 20 do it..then all 120,000 are guilty of it..and by extension..all 300 million Americans are doing it..bravo Tum..that beats my "Iceland matters not in the world scheme of things" comeback.

This wouldn't have happened if the troops hadn't been there...Ergo: The people that sent them there made it happen.
See...People are responsible for their actions: You send a bunch of murderous bastards to some other country, of course you are responsible for what happens.

And I don't really see what Iceland has to do with it. Is it a random insult? At least I can say that nobody is murdering and torturing people in the name of my country...Which is more than you can say.

Much as I dislike Bush, I think it's a mistake to try to equate him with Hussein. Bush is no prize, and in fact has done much to shame this country, but he's certainly not on the level of Hussein.

That said, it's pretty sad when the best defenses the rabid right wingnuts can come up with on the torture of prisoners front is "frat boy pranks" and "Hussein was worse." For one, anal rape wth a broomstick ain't a frat boy prank, and for two, goddamn it, we're supposed to be better than that. What kind of logic is it that excuses your horrible action by pointing to another one? Horrible is still horrible, in my book.

Yus. Saying 'Saddam was worse' is irrelevant for a free nation. And equating Bush to Hussien, though tempting is not accurate and definately an ad hominem fallacy- he's done plenty of other crappy stuff that's easy to pull him up on. I sure hope that the British Army isn't guilty of similar crimes. You expect it from Americans, but from ours? God, I'm ashamed of them.

This wouldn't have happened if the troops hadn't been there...Ergo: The people that sent them there made it happen.
See...People are responsible for their actions: You send a bunch of murderous bastards to some other country, of course you are responsible for what happens.

And I don't really see what Iceland has to do with it. Is it a random insult? At least I can say that nobody is murdering and torturing people in the name of my country...Which is more than you can say.[/quote]

So you're saying that if our troops weren't there that no Iraqis would be tortured..and No..I didn't send troops to some other country...That was a military decision by our Commander in Chief based on faulty intel, but to stretch that to somehow encompass all Americans is ludicrous. Are you responsible for every crime that occurs in your country?...if one Icelander kills a foreigner..am I then able to state unequivocably that all Icelanders are murderous thugs?....

This wouldn't have happened if the troops hadn't been there...Ergo: The people that sent them there made it happen.
See...People are responsible for their actions: You send a bunch of murderous bastards to some other country, of course you are responsible for what happens.

And I don't really see what Iceland has to do with it. Is it a random insult? At least I can say that nobody is murdering and torturing people in the name of my country...Which is more than you can say.

So you're saying that if our troops weren't there that no Iraqis would be tortured..and No..I didn't send troops to some other country...That was a military decision by our Commander in Chief based on faulty intel, but to stretch that to somehow encompass all Americans is ludicrous. Are you responsible for every crime that occurs in your country?...if one Icelander kills a foreigner..am I then able to state unequivocably that all Icelanders are murderous thugs?....[/quote]

If Icelanders would be ordered by the government to go to another country to fight, and the result is murder and torture...Then yes, I would have blood on my hands.

Yeah I'm with Salishe on this one... accountability to voters is going beyond the realms of ludicrous. I've twice voted Mr. Blair into power but I didn't do so on the basis that he might join in unprovoked invasions of the Middle East!

I also agree with Salishe that you cant say blood is ont he hands of ALL Americans

But certainly it is on all of the hands that Supported the war and moreso for those who pushed relentlessly for it. Yes, Bush is responsible for the torture.

I also agree with Salishe that you cant say blood is ont he hands of ALL Americans

But certainly it is on all of the hands that Supported the war and moreso for those who pushed relentlessly for it. Yes, Bush is responsible for the torture.

I'm sorry..you can't even push it on the hands of those who supported the war...I put blame squarely on those who ACTUALLY did it..those 6-20 or so reservist soldiers...a few Intelligence types who wanted easy pickings for interrogations..a few officers who either knew what happened or choose to look the other way...

Just because I supported the war in no way, shape or form would indicate that I would advocate torture of another human being...the very thought that someone would want to lay that kind of guilt trrip on another is pathetic in my opinion. I supported a war because I believe and still do that taking out Saddam was a good thing for any number of reasons..I support our troops because they are in an almost impossible enviroment doing a job they would rather not be doing.....truth be told..I'm pretty sure a good portion of them could have cared less if Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people..that his sons utilized rape rooms to violently take Iraq's daughters, sisters, and mothers..as long as he wasn't doing it to Americans...many could have cared less..but they went because they were told that freeing Iraq of Saddam was a good thing on a number of ways.

The abuse of some prisoners by some guards in no way makes me responsible..I did not order them to do anything..I did not order a coverup..I did not order officers to look the other way...in short..No.I am not responsible for their actions..they are indepedent human beings, sentient with their own reasonings, faults, and thinking patterns..look to those who actually did it for your righteous indignation...not me or the American voter.

I also agree with Salishe that you cant say blood is ont he hands of ALL Americans

But certainly it is on all of the hands that Supported the war and moreso for those who pushed relentlessly for it. Yes, Bush is responsible for the torture.

I'm sorry..you can't even push it on the hands of those who supported the war...I put blame squarely on those who ACTUALLY did it..those 6-20 or so reservist soldiers...a few Intelligence types who wanted easy pickings for interrogations..a few officers who either knew what happened or choose to look the other way...

Just because I supported the war in no way, shape or form would indicate that I would advocate torture of another human being...the very thought that someone would want to lay that kind of guilt trrip on another is pathetic in my opinion. I supported a war because I believe and still do that taking out Saddam was a good thing for any number of reasons..I support our troops because they are in an almost impossible enviroment doing a job they would rather not be doing.....truth be told..I'm pretty sure a good portion of them could have cared less if Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people..that his sons utilized rape rooms to violently take Iraq's daughters, sisters, and mothers..as long as he wasn't doing it to Americans...many could have cared less..but they went because they were told that freeing Iraq of Saddam was a good thing on a number of ways.

The abuse of some prisoners by some guards in no way makes me responsible..I did not order them to do anything..I did not order a coverup..I did not order officers to look the other way...in short..No.I am not responsible for their actions..they are indepedent human beings, sentient with their own reasonings, faults, and thinking patterns..look to those who actually did it for your righteous indignation...not me or the American voter.

I also agree with Salishe that you cant say blood is ont he hands of ALL Americans

But certainly it is on all of the hands that Supported the war and moreso for those who pushed relentlessly for it. Yes, Bush is responsible for the torture.

I'm sorry..you can't even push it on the hands of those who supported the war...I put blame squarely on those who ACTUALLY did it..those 6-20 or so reservist soldiers...a few Intelligence types who wanted easy pickings for interrogations..a few officers who either knew what happened or choose to look the other way...

Just because I supported the war in no way, shape or form would indicate that I would advocate torture of another human being...the very thought that someone would want to lay that kind of guilt trrip on another is pathetic in my opinion. I supported a war because I believe and still do that taking out Saddam was a good thing for any number of reasons..I support our troops because they are in an almost impossible enviroment doing a job they would rather not be doing.....truth be told..I'm pretty sure a good portion of them could have cared less if Saddam tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people..that his sons utilized rape rooms to violently take Iraq's daughters, sisters, and mothers..as long as he wasn't doing it to Americans...many could have cared less..but they went because they were told that freeing Iraq of Saddam was a good thing on a number of ways.

The abuse of some prisoners by some guards in no way makes me responsible..I did not order them to do anything..I did not order a coverup..I did not order officers to look the other way...in short..No.I am not responsible for their actions..they are indepedent human beings, sentient with their own reasonings, faults, and thinking patterns..look to those who actually did it for your righteous indignation...not me or the American voter.

How is this any different from "collateral damage" ? A bomb goes through someones roof by accident and kills someone, that is to be expected in a war, right? History has shown us that rape and torture is something we can expect to happen when a war is going on... I don't think anyone can name a war where rape, torture and murder wasn't commited by either side.
Even in peacetime, soldiers bring trouble (for example gang rapes in the Philippines, Okinawa, Korea...etc). So you see, deciding to send an army is quite a decision... You can expect certain things to happen, and you know beforehand that rape, murder and torture is very likely to happen, once you set an army loose on someone.
So...Why aren't those who send them as responsible as those who commit the crimes? Even courts accept "aiding" and "contributing" as an offences. In other words: If you know something will happen but do nothing to stop it, you ARE responsible.
Of course the level of violence varies...Norwegian troops got into trouble for shooting dogs, while American soldiers in Iraq go around beheading cats (which nobody cares about...because of the other pictures, which included Lynndie, among those of soldiers cutting heads off cattle and housecats)...

The way I see it: You are American, you sent those soldiers over there in your name, the killing, raping and torturing is in your name.