NationStates Jolt Archive

This was an awesome article I found on Yahoo. It really does sum it up. I don't like when people copy/paste personally.. but once in a while.. it's ok. As long as it's not all they do..This is worth pasting..

BEHOLD THE TORTURE APOLOGISTS:

By Ted Rall

Republicans Oppose Basic American Values


NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."


Well.


As photo after photo confirms story after story of systemic torture, rape and murder by American servicemen, CIA goons and mercenary rent-a-cops in U.S. concentration camps from Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad to Bagram Air Base near Kabul to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a legion of right-wing fifth columnists is finally revealing themselves as a band of wannabe fascists.


Incredible as it seems, these "Americans" actually approve of torture.


Talk radio king Rush Limbaugh, comparing the SS-style siccing of vicious German shepherds on Iraqi POWs to a fraternity initiation prank, led the charge of the torture apologists: "All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation--and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world." If cruelty is carefully calibrated to cultural mores, who cares whether it's wrong?


Besides, argues El Rushbaugh, the torturers were just funnin': "You ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off?" Boys (and girls) will be (psycho) boys.


Days after articles of impeachment were introduced against him in the House of Representatives, the indefatigable Don Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that even now, even after Abu Ghraib, denying POWs sleep, starving them, subjecting them to painful "stress positions" and other forms of torture are still being inflicted upon inmates--guilty or innocent and always uncharged--throughout his Defense Department gulags.


His reception was a friendly one.


"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment [of Iraqi POWs]," spat Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a card-holding member of the Party of Lincoln, to fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. "You know, they're not there for traffic violations. They're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents."


Actually, according to the Red Cross report on Abu Ghraib, 90 percent of the detainees had been "arrested by mistake."


Inhofe's rant continued: "I have to say when we talk about the treatment of these prisoners that I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisons." Yup, that's no doubt the expression on their faces: gratitude.


Liberals don't have a monopoly on moral relativism.


You have to go down a long way to get to the darkest cellars of immorality. As Bush Administration apologists point out, there are worse fates-- far worse fates--than being stripped, beaten, bitten or even anally raped. A worse fate befell Nick Berg, the cellular phone entrepreneur who was beheaded by Iraqi insurgents. So what's the point? Dishonest attempts to reduce the moral baseline merely reiterate one's own ethical inferiority. The fact that other human beings can conceive of miseries even crueler and more painful to inflict cannot exculpate us for the sins we commit. Is the robber less guilty because he can look down on the kidnapper? Shall we forgive Hitler for killing six million Jews if someone else kills seven?


Other leading lights of conservatism are handling the prison torture scandal by ignoring it. In a TV appearance columnist and Fox News regular Ann Coulter blamed Abu Ghraib on "girl soldiers," but her column has been conspicuously silent about the biggest story since the end of the Democratic primaries. Coulter's last two missives focused on the hot topics of airport security and the need for tighter immigration. Maybe she's playing ostrich to avoid criticizing the Republican conduct of the Iraq war--a conflict so poorly conceived that no one even bothered to name it. Either that, or she approves of torture. In any case, her refusal to condemn American atrocities makes her a torture apologist too.


In a way, so is General Antonio Taguba, author of the famous Abu Ghraib report. He blames the prisoner abuse scandal on "failure in leadership from the brigade commander on down, lack of discipline, no training whatsoever, and no supervision." Yet anyone with half a brain knows that shoving a flashlight up a man's anus as he howls in agony is torture. You shouldn't need instruction in the intricacies of the Geneva Conventions to figure that out.

Rush Limbaugh is the one who should be beheaded.

So far, Senator Inhofe is the only politician who has made a statement such as this that I'm aware of. Anyone know of any others? Most other politicians, Senators and Representatives, couldn't put distance between him and themselves fast enough.

Wannabe fascists. Ha! :lol: :shock:

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?
Murder is expected of murders. Seeing America inhabiting the same moral volume has come as a bit of a surprise to some people. But don't worry, soon enough the US will be thought of in much the same terms as terrorists, without further comment.

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".
I just thought I would highlight the fascist anti-democratic bit of your rant.

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

So, what are you saying? That made the torture of these people ok? I don't get what it is you're saying, sounds like you're trying to make excuses... doesn't work for any one with an IQ over 40.. sorry.

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

Hitler was in power. Hitler was elected. Did that make the deaths of 20 million+ people across Europe that resulted from WW2 ok?

We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then...
Hitler was in power. Hitler was elected. Did that make the deaths of 20 million+ people across Europe that resulted from WW2 ok?
Heh, I'm sure he's one of those people who say that much in history is prone to exaggeration. :roll:

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

I'm liberal, and if we're going to be knocking off brutal dictators, than I fully support starting by liberating people from the brutal dictatorships int he following countries: People's Republic of China (I detest that government), Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan. Now, I ask you, how many conservatives are in favor of liberating the people in these countries? Because if we're going to be going around overthrowing governments, these are the ones I want to see overthrown.

I'm all for fighting terrorism, but invading Iraq wasn't the way to do it. We should have kept pushing in Afghanistan. I'm against the Iraq war, but I've always seen the Afghanistan operations as completely logical. That's where Al Queda was based.

On the subject of Israel... I think that the Palestinians have a right to the west bank territory, but I can only shake my head in disappointment at their incredibly stupid and pointless terrorist tactics. Also, just because I don't approve of the policies of the current Israeli government, does not mean I am anti-Israel or anti-jewish (and no, the word is not "anti-semitic, because arabs are also semites). It just means I don't like what their government is doing.

One thing I absolutely despise is conservative hypocrisy. I'm not claiming to be above party malice, I am extremely partisan. I just can't stand it when conservatives pretend to be anything other than what they, too, are: extremely partisan.

"a card-holding member of the Party of Lincoln, "

The party of Lincoln is very different from the party of today.

The values of that time have been tossed.

Immorality is Immorality, wrong is wrong, no matter which side is doing it. The US and England's torturing of civilians is wrong, the beheading of that nick berg was wrong, palestinian suicide bombers are wrong, Hitler killing millions of jews is wrong. Why is there such a debate over it?

"a card-holding member of the Party of Lincoln, "

The party of Lincoln is very different from the party of today.

The values of that time have been tossed.

I believe that was the point the author was making ......

Immorality is Immorality, wrong is wrong, no matter which side is doing it. The US and England's torturing of civilians is wrong, the beheading of that nick berg was wrong, palestinian suicide bombers are wrong, Hitler killing millions of jews is wrong. Why is there such a debate over it?

Because people are less interested in making it right and more interested in laying blame and pointing fingers to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

"a card-holding member of the Party of Lincoln, "

The party of Lincoln is very different from the party of today.

The values of that time have been tossed.

I believe that was the point the author was making ......

Eh? -reads it again- :oops: ahh yesss.

Sorry but the party of today does love to grasp Lincolns corpse when speaking of American morality and or values. It just annoys me, when I hear it.

Ah well time to head back to my dark corner! ;)

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

So, what are you saying? That made the torture of these people ok? I don't get what it is you're saying, sounds like you're trying to make excuses... doesn't work for any one with an IQ over 40.. sorry.
I'm saying your "unilateralism" is getting quite boring.

Immorality is Immorality, wrong is wrong, no matter which side is doing it. The US and England's torturing of civilians is wrong, the beheading of that nick berg was wrong, palestinian suicide bombers are wrong, Hitler killing millions of jews is wrong. Why is there such a debate over it?

Because people are less interested in making it right and more interested in laying blame and pointing fingers to absolve themselves of any responsibility.

That's the American way! Get with the program!

Don't you know school and TV are supposed to raise children!
McDonalds is the reason for people being fat!
Cig companies are the reason for cancer!
It was the spanking(child abuse) that made him grow up and rob liquer stores!

Some people! :P

Rush Limbaugh is the one who should be beheaded.

take it easy. I mean sure he is a big, fat racist moron but even idiots like that desrve a voice.

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".

So, what are you saying? That made the torture of these people ok? I don't get what it is you're saying, sounds like you're trying to make excuses... doesn't work for any one with an IQ over 40.. sorry.
I'm saying your "unilateralism" is getting quite boring.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you? :lol:

Please consult a dictionary, see: "unilateralism"

I think the article, while raising some good points, makes a lot of inferrences that aren't really justified. Assuming that a Rush Rant is indicitive of the average Joe on the street or even the average Republican in this matter is an unfair leap. By far the majority of those who have spoken out on this topic are as shocked and appalled as anyone. And while Ann Coulter's silence is certainly a comment on her corrupt values, it isn't acceptable to assume that she won't speak out in the future. Finally, it was an unfair characterization to assume that Rumsfeld was met with "friendliness" because of the inappropriate and idiotic rant of one confused Senator.

What the author has done is try to paint a detailed portrait with a few broad strokes and his characterization is as incomplete as Rush's understanding, Ann's silence and Inhofe's ignorance.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a fuck what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

All you seem to do night and day is bash Bush and the American Conservative, do you do anything else?

Why so hard on Bush? Do you think the leaders you personally choose would do better? Again, they all have bloody hands, it's just a matter of whose blood stains them.

To hear you talk, Liberals have never been responsible for any sort of awful happenings. Hell, to hear you talk, every awful happening is the fault of the U.S. or even specifically the Bush family.

It gets repetative, it gets old. Read a new book not by Michael Moore?

Read a new book not by Michael Moore?

That's funny stance.

How many liberals have made an effort to ban/censor books?

How many conservatives?

It's a rather broad stroke to say all politicians have bloody hands. Just as it is said that all politicians are corrupt.

Well some *coughscheny* are more dirty then others.

The fact the shrub does nothing about such matters makes him an accomplice....

All you seem to do night and day is bash Bush and the American Conservative, do you do anything else?

Why so hard on Bush? Do you think the leaders you personally choose would do better? Again, they all have bloody hands, it's just a matter of whose blood stains them.

To hear you talk, Liberals have never been responsible for any sort of awful happenings. Hell, to hear you talk, every awful happening is the fault of the U.S. or even specifically the Bush family.

It gets repetative, it gets old. Read a new book not by Michael Moore?

the buck stops here

its not a liberal conservative thing

its about the safety of US citizens in the world. it really should be more important to do what needs to be done to keep us safe than to try to pretend that nothing bad happened

what happens on bush's watch is bush's fault
especially when he doesnt bother to fix it.

who else is to blame? bill clinton?

(maybe ill post more if this doesnt go through a 2nd time)

hes not getting anything he doesnt deserve, he got us into this mess on a LIE.

now this scandal comes up and its not his fault? why hasnt he put every officer at those prisons up to courtmartial?
his freaking sect of defence dint even bother to tell him that the pictures existed and were gonna be shown on TV. why isnt rumsfeld out on the street looking for a nice defense contractor job??

why isnt rumsfeld out on the street looking for a nice defense contractor job??

screw that, he's not getting off that easy. to the hague!

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Yes, but what is that accountability worth if nothing comes of it?

We are bombing them for their indecency, and we have managed to match it at the same time. We suck.

We can expect back what we do to others... Sadly, that is what propigates war.

Limbaugh can expect to be sodomized if he is ever held hostage by militant extremists. Of course, I would never wish that on him or anyone.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

I honestly haven't been up-to-date on Rumsfeld's response to the torture, but that does seem to be Bush's stance on the entire war... (what redneck geeks said)

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Yes, but what is that accountability worth if nothing comes of it?

Indeed, it would seem to work nicely for both Bush and Rumsfeld. Rummy takes the fall for Bush while Bush makes sure that the net's ready for him. It's easy to take responsibility for something when you know that no one's going to do anything about it.

This was an awesome article I found on Yahoo. It really does sum it up. I don't like when people copy/paste personally.. but once in a while.. it's ok. As long as it's not all they do..This is worth pasting..

BEHOLD THE TORTURE APOLOGISTS:

By Ted Rall

Republicans Oppose Basic American Values


NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."


Well.


As photo after photo confirms story after story of systemic torture, rape and murder by American servicemen, CIA goons and mercenary rent-a-cops in U.S. concentration camps from Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad to Bagram Air Base near Kabul to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a legion of right-wing fifth columnists is finally revealing themselves as a band of wannabe fascists.


Incredible as it seems, these "Americans" actually approve of torture.


Talk radio king Rush Limbaugh, comparing the SS-style siccing of vicious German shepherds on Iraqi POWs to a fraternity initiation prank, led the charge of the torture apologists: "All right, so we're at war with these people. And they're in a prison where they're being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one Arab male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it's pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation--and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the Arab world." If cruelty is carefully calibrated to cultural mores, who cares whether it's wrong?


Besides, argues El Rushbaugh, the torturers were just funnin': "You ever heard of emotional release? You heard of need to blow some steam off?" Boys (and girls) will be (psycho) boys.


Days after articles of impeachment were introduced against him in the House of Representatives, the indefatigable Don Rumsfeld told a Senate committee that even now, even after Abu Ghraib, denying POWs sleep, starving them, subjecting them to painful "stress positions" and other forms of torture are still being inflicted upon inmates--guilty or innocent and always uncharged--throughout his Defense Department gulags.


His reception was a friendly one.


"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment [of Iraqi POWs]," spat Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a card-holding member of the Party of Lincoln, to fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. "You know, they're not there for traffic violations. They're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents."


Actually, according to the Red Cross report on Abu Ghraib, 90 percent of the detainees had been "arrested by mistake."


Inhofe's rant continued: "I have to say when we talk about the treatment of these prisoners that I would guess that these prisoners wake up every morning thanking Allah that Saddam Hussein is not in charge of these prisons." Yup, that's no doubt the expression on their faces: gratitude.


Liberals don't have a monopoly on moral relativism.


You have to go down a long way to get to the darkest cellars of immorality. As Bush Administration apologists point out, there are worse fates-- far worse fates--than being stripped, beaten, bitten or even anally raped. A worse fate befell Nick Berg, the cellular phone entrepreneur who was beheaded by Iraqi insurgents. So what's the point? Dishonest attempts to reduce the moral baseline merely reiterate one's own ethical inferiority. The fact that other human beings can conceive of miseries even crueler and more painful to inflict cannot exculpate us for the sins we commit. Is the robber less guilty because he can look down on the kidnapper? Shall we forgive Hitler for killing six million Jews if someone else kills seven?


Other leading lights of conservatism are handling the prison torture scandal by ignoring it. In a TV appearance columnist and Fox News regular Ann Coulter blamed Abu Ghraib on "girl soldiers," but her column has been conspicuously silent about the biggest story since the end of the Democratic primaries. Coulter's last two missives focused on the hot topics of airport security and the need for tighter immigration. Maybe she's playing ostrich to avoid criticizing the Republican conduct of the Iraq war--a conflict so poorly conceived that no one even bothered to name it. Either that, or she approves of torture. In any case, her refusal to condemn American atrocities makes her a torture apologist too.


In a way, so is General Antonio Taguba, author of the famous Abu Ghraib report. He blames the prisoner abuse scandal on "failure in leadership from the brigade commander on down, lack of discipline, no training whatsoever, and no supervision." Yet anyone with half a brain knows that shoving a flashlight up a man's anus as he howls in agony is torture. You shouldn't need instruction in the intricacies of the Geneva Conventions to figure that out.
So, what's the point of this article? It says they are undertrained--that I'll concede. However, it also says that these privates should've known better. The columnist should stick to one viewpoint or the other.
Other than that, there was no real arguement made, other than regurgetating some basic talking point that, btw, are barely coherant. How are the actions of the Bush Administration directly related to these heinous acts? Also, Donald Rumsfeld has expressed deep remorse, and in my opinion, shock and wrath to these soldiers. How is he not doing his job?
One other thing I'd like to point out. One popular talking point is that higher-ups were involved in this. However, Gen. Taguba has testified before the Senate, under oath, that he found no evidence of orders transmitted from high ranking officers, written or otherwise. I doubt it went farther up the chain of command, except maybe the privates immediate officers.

All you seem to do night and day is bash Bush and the American Conservative, do you do anything else?

Why so hard on Bush? Do you think the leaders you personally choose would do better? Again, they all have bloody hands, it's just a matter of whose blood stains them.

To hear you talk, Liberals have never been responsible for any sort of awful happenings. Hell, to hear you talk, every awful happening is the fault of the U.S. or even specifically the Bush family.

It gets repetative, it gets old. Read a new book not by Michael Moore?

You aren't addressing the topic of this thread at all; instead, you're trying to muddle the issue. I've seen plenty of people do this instead of confronting the issue.

I read the newspapers when I can. In the past weeks, I have seem a shameful flood of justification.
"Well, it's not that bad."
"Arabic prisons act this way, why can't we?"
"Who knows that our prisoners aren't being treated <i>worse</i>?"
"Well, the worst I saw was gangrape and torture. That's not so bad - hey, we weren't starving them to death!"
"They [the Iraqi prisoners] deserved it."

It is disgusting that these people will bend over backwards to defend Rumsfeld and Bush in a situation where they would be calling for the head of a Democratic president.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Yes, but what is that accountability worth if nothing comes of it?

Good point ... although perhaps a bit premature.
Even though it seems as if this story has been in the news for months, it's really been less than a week. Within that period of time two of the soldiers have been courtmartialed with proceedings in effect for the remaining five, investigations have been swiftly conducted, along with the convening of televised hearings. The momentum appears to have sustainability with the military chain of command addressing what went wrong in this situation.

DP

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Yes, but what is that accountability worth if nothing comes of it?

Good point ... although perhaps a bit premature.
Even though it seems as if this story has been in the news for months, it's really been less than a week. Within that period of time two of the soldiers have been courtmartialed with proceedings in effect for the remaining five, investigations have been swiftly conducted, along with the convening of televised hearings. The momentum appears to have sustainability with the military chain of command addressing what went wrong in this situation.

It's been in the media for less than a week, but how long ago did the events happen? It takes this much media attention for things to be paid attention to by the government? I suppose there's no reason not to cover it up if none of the public knows about it.

Nice to see the legacy of Saddam's torture still lingers in the Iraqi jails.

[quote="Redneck Geeks"][quote="Berkylvania"][quote="Redneck Geeks"][quote=1248B]
It's been in the media for less than a week, but how long ago did the events happen?

Granted these events did take place roughly nine months ago and were acknowledged by Colin Powell as having been already in the process of investigation based upon imput from the Red Cross.
Given the bureucracy and complexity of any government institution, it is not surprising that these events had not been immediately elevated to the level of awareness it has now reached. Escalation of the right information to the right person would seem to be a fairly easy proposition, it is a simplistic concept though for a complex system.
What this administration has done since confirmation of these activities is stay visible and involved, even though it would have been easier to distance itself and not cooperate.

Nope, I'm not suprised about Herr Inhofe response. The worst case of "Us vs. Them" that I have ever seen.

Bush is over.. his approval rating as of today is @ 44%, no president in history has ever won re-election (or re-appointment in Bush's case) with numbers this low 6 months before an election. Kerry will win by default.. mark my words.. You heard it here folks!

Bush is over.. his approval rating as of today is @ 44%, no president in history has ever won re-election (or re-appointment in Bush's case) with numbers this low 6 months before an election. Kerry will win by default.. mark my words.. You heard it here folks!

Behold, the Prophetess speaks! Let all who hear cross thine fingers and pray this be true!

Bush is over.. his approval rating as of today is @ 44%, no president in history has ever won re-election (or re-appointment in Bush's case) with numbers this low 6 months before an election. Kerry will win by default.. mark my words.. You heard it here folks!

Steph ... let's suspend reality for a few minutes here and say Kerry takes over running the government from Bush tomorrow (if this were to really happen, I might have to flee to Mexico lol :D ).
What would Kerry do?

Nope, I'm not suprised about Herr Inhofe response. The worst case of "Us vs. Them" that I have ever seen.

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators? How many times has a Liberal spoke out against terrorism without spending a half hour or more afterwards bashing their political opposition?

Your hands are dirty, very dirty. None of you are innocent, quit acting like it. We have control, you don't. If you win an election and gain control, you can do as you like, but until then, you innoecent act is only fooling people who don't know any better, which is quite a few, sadly. But still, people of intelligence, well read people, know you're looking in a mirror when you denounce "greedy, selfish, unilateral leaders".
"We have control, you don't." Hmmm very interesting. From the looks of it YOU lost control the minute that YOU invaded Iraq. YOU are now reaping the ill begotten benefits that are associated with this out of control war.

I do believe that most Liberals have been against this war on Iraq from the very beginning. I also believe that most Liberals support freeing "oppressed peoples", but not by killing thousands of them with bombs and bullets, and certainly not by torturing them.

YOU can fall on your own sword.

Bush is over.. his approval rating as of today is @ 44%, no president in history has ever won re-election (or re-appointment in Bush's case) with numbers this low 6 months before an election. Kerry will win by default.. mark my words.. You heard it here folks!

Steph ... let's suspend reality for a few minutes here and say Kerry takes over running the government from Bush tomorrow (if this were to really happen, I might have to flee to Mexico lol :D ).
What would Kerry do?

I'm actually not a huge fan of Kerry's to be honest.. but Bush IS over. The numbers rarely lie. Unless we are to believe that Bush is going to break all the rules and pull off a miracle at this point. Kerry could still fubar himself.. but I think all he has to do is coast... I think that while there may not be "major" differences in policy towards Iraq.. there is major differences in policy towards domestic issues. As well, Kerry will not embrace PNAC (aka the Bush doctrine) which even Bush's father when it was brought to him thought it mad. These are major differences. Despite people not really understanding that. Bush and co. are idealogs.. Kerry isn't. He certainly if nothing else might help repair some of the anti-American feeling around the world, perhaps not with the Arab world, but maybe with allies that Bush has insulted to no end.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.
A few rogue members? Are you aware that there are over 30 investigations ongoing?

U.S. officials insist the abuses were carried out by a handful of soldiers and were not part of a systematic program of brutality.

"It is not much larger than the people already suspended, in the number of people already charged," Kimmitt said.

But Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS' Face the Nation that the number of investigations into abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq could exceed 30.

"This is deeper and wider than I think most in this administration understand," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-09-court-martial_x.htm

All you seem to do night and day is bash Bush and the American Conservative, do you do anything else?

Why so hard on Bush? Do you think the leaders you personally choose would do better? Again, they all have bloody hands, it's just a matter of whose blood stains them.

To hear you talk, Liberals have never been responsible for any sort of awful happenings. Hell, to hear you talk, every awful happening is the fault of the U.S. or even specifically the Bush family.

It gets repetative, it gets old. Read a new book not by Michael Moore?

You aren't addressing the topic of this thread at all; instead, you're trying to muddle the issue. I've seen plenty of people do this instead of confronting the issue.

I read the newspapers when I can. In the past weeks, I have seem a shameful flood of justification.
"Well, it's not that bad."
"Arabic prisons act this way, why can't we?"
"Who knows that our prisoners aren't being treated <i>worse</i>?"
"Well, the worst I saw was gangrape and torture. That's not so bad - hey, we weren't starving them to death!"
"They [the Iraqi prisoners] deserved it."

It is disgusting that these people will bend over backwards to defend Rumsfeld and Bush in a situation where they would be calling for the head of a Democratic president.

Very true. If it were Clinton's military in Kosovo, you would be ripping him appart.

A few rogue members? Are you aware that there are over 30 investigations ongoing?

Yes, there have been warnings of more disclosures ... relatively speaking it is still a small percentage of the entire military force that has been present. In no way does the idea of the small percentage minimize the impact of their actions.
What must not be lost however are the 99% of members of the U.S. military force who have behaved admirably and with honor.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

"I take full responsibility."

"I will not be resigning."

So.... in what sense is he taking full responsibility?

I'm actually not a huge fan of Kerry's to be honest.. but Bush IS over. The numbers rarely lie. Unless we are to believe that Bush is going to break all the rules and pull off a miracle at this point. Kerry could still fubar himself.. but I think all he has to do is coast... I think that while there may not be "major" differences in policy towards Iraq.. there is major differences in policy towards domestic issues. As well, Kerry will not embrace PNAC (aka the Bush doctrine) which even Bush's father when it was brought to him thought it mad. These are major differences. Despite people not really understanding that. Bush and co. are idealogs.. Kerry isn't. He certainly if nothing else might help repair some of the anti-American feeling around the world, perhaps not with the Arab world, but maybe with allies that Bush has insulted to no end.

Well, I do give you credit for not being a huge Kerry fan ... there is hope for you yet :D
Seriously you bring up a good point on the strategy that Kerry is apparently taking with his recent focus upon domestic issues ... not saying he has been able to succesfully define policy and actions, but he is generating some sound bytes in this area. Unfortunately, the probable party line that would be taken by Kerry to fund domestic initiatives would be generated from tax increases which would undoubtedly stall the economy.
No matter the administration though, I don't see a change in world opinion regarding anti-U.S. sentiment. It's too darn easy to say "Death to America", ...

"I take full responsibility."

"I will not be resigning."

So.... in what sense is he taking full responsibility?
Kind of like Francos Spain. He weeps for the people who have been oppressed, and wishes it did not have to be that way.

I'm actually not a huge fan of Kerry's to be honest.. but Bush IS over. The numbers rarely lie. Unless we are to believe that Bush is going to break all the rules and pull off a miracle at this point. Kerry could still fubar himself.. but I think all he has to do is coast... I think that while there may not be "major" differences in policy towards Iraq.. there is major differences in policy towards domestic issues. As well, Kerry will not embrace PNAC (aka the Bush doctrine) which even Bush's father when it was brought to him thought it mad. These are major differences. Despite people not really understanding that. Bush and co. are idealogs.. Kerry isn't. He certainly if nothing else might help repair some of the anti-American feeling around the world, perhaps not with the Arab world, but maybe with allies that Bush has insulted to no end.

Well, I do give you credit for not being a huge Kerry fan ... there is hope for you yet :D
Seriously you bring up a good point on the strategy that Kerry is apparently taking with his recent focus upon domestic issues ... not saying he has been able to succesfully define policy and actions, but he is generating some sound bytes in this area. Unfortunately, the probable party line that would be taken by Kerry to fund domestic initiatives would be generated from tax increases which would undoubtedly stall the economy.
No matter the administration though, I don't see a change in world opinion regarding anti-U.S. sentiment. It's too darn easy to say "Death to America", ...

Well, there is no doubt this current administration has done some serious damage to the American credibility and image around the world. It may take time to repair, no argument from me.. but better late then never.

I still maintain John McCain would have been a damn fine president.. (Except for his stance on anti-choice for women)

"I take full responsibility."

"I will not be resigning."

So.... in what sense is he taking full responsibility?

Actually resignation would be the easy way out of the situation! Resignation also would be the most irresponsible action for him to take.

Ok, Rumsfeld has acknowledged accountability through ...
Remaining visible in the face of the ongoing media scrutiny.
Continuing to maintain his duties as Secretary of Defense while dealing with this apparent breakdown in lower level leadership.
Cooperation with investigators.
Frankness in his testimony during the hearings ... "the situation is going to get worse before it gets better ... there will be more and even worse disclosures..."
Demonstrating leadership through visiting troops in Iraq and keeping a high profile.

I honestly don't see it that way. It really seems like what's happening here is "Yeah, ok, we got caught -- time to hang the lowest men on the totem pole and walk away after a few mea culpas."

If Bush's approval ratings declined because of this, that just shows you how hard Liberal propaganda spinners are working to bash him. Go do a poll, the people who changed their tune about Bush will probably profess a sneaking feeling that Bush himself ordered the abuse of the prisoners. Feh. If Kerry wins, i'm going on welfare for as long as I can, or starting a new criminal profession, because i'm not letting that waffle king tax a single cent from my labor.

They were acting under orders. It was- and is- government policy that caused these atrocities. Being at war does not justify it.

They were acting under orders. It was- and is- government policy that caused these atrocities. Being at war does not justify it.
So you think Bush ordered them to abuse prisoners?

They were acting under orders. It was- and is- government policy that caused these atrocities. Being at war does not justify it.
So you think Bush ordered them to abuse prisoners?

So far, I have heard rumors that at least some of the soldiers charged intend to use the Nurembourg defense, in spite of the political pressure on them not to; namely, "I was following orders." This implies that someone up the chain was pressuring the soldiers to break the prisoners, or get whatever they could out of them, or directly ordering them to use psychological warfare on prisoners.

I severely doubt that Bush himself issued any written tracable orders to torture prisoners. I've known some Bush supporters who don't trust Rummy as far as they could throw him, based on what they've heard of them from military types, and for that reason, I can't fully deny the possibility occuring to me that Rumsfeld might have issued secret orders to that effect.

I would be extremely unsurprised to find that someone high up passed word down to the troops that they should put forth their fullest efforts to get information out of these prisoners.

I seriously doubt that much tracable responsibility will be claimed very high up the chain of command, but the responsibility is there. If, as Rumsfeld appears to claim, he - but not the president - was aware of the situation long previous, his culpability in the matter should not be overlooked, even just as complicity after the fact.

In the end: As the commander in chief, Bush is ultimately responsible for all of the actions taken by the United States' armed forces as a result of his orders.

Those who find the atrocities of Saddam Hussein justification for his forcible removal from office have difficulty justifying continued support for the Bush administration in the face of these atrocities coming to light. Those who do, I readily brand hypocrites, now, plausible deniability or not.

Ascensia, if you decide to forcibly place yourself on the welfare rolls or go on a criminal spree in order to try and keep <u>Kerry</u> from collecting any tax revenues from you, you are deranged and hypocritical.

By the fact that you have framed your statement as you have, you are either the most ignorantly brainwashed fool I have ever met, a hyperbolous teller of tall tales given to unwarranted exaggeration, a troll, a clever parody of the idiocies of the "conservative" wing of American politics designed by one of its opponents, no longer capable of thinking rationally, or some combination thereof [or, of course, some strange thing I cannot identify through complete lack of familiarity.]

You can call me Ed.

So, Bush is suddenly responsible for the choices of every individual within the armed forces. Does this hold true to other world leaders? If so, we have a lot of presidents to prosecute.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Rumsfeld has declared that torture still takes place at the Abu Ghraib prison, justifying it by claiming it to be acceptable methods of torture; keeping people awake, having them sit in uncomfortable positions, denying them food, et cetera.

Bush&co have been doing their best to depict Saddam as a monster of the highest degree. They invaded Iraq using banners that said, no promised basically, that an end was going to be put to his inhuman practices, that his torture-chambers were never going to be used again. Turns out his torture-chambers haven't been vacant at all since the US took over, on the contrary, they have been put to 'good use', by the US no less.

How do you think it looks after this fiasco when Rumsfeld himself now declares that he approves of torture and that Iraqi POW are still subjected to torture? Clearly the public outcry against torturing POW means nothing to Rumsfeld. So, despite all Rumsfeld's pretence about wanting to take full accountability, there is nothing that indicates that he gives a fuck about what others think of torturing POW, and he most certainly isn't going to put an end to it or resign.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

Listen..there are some aspects of psychological interrogation that are passive..heck..Norriega's capture a prime example...we constantly blared music at his house 24 hrs a day..

Look...I've been all over this forum saying the physical abuse done to these men was wrong..but let's put this into perspective...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...these men have access to intelligence....intelligence that will save American lives...just how do you think we're going to get that info? Invite them down for tea and ask them nicely?...These are men who place Improvised Explosive Devices on the road and blow up Americans, just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them? Give them an alternative if you know so well how to extract information from an intractable enemy?

When I was a Drill Instructor I put my recruits thru worse mental attacks in order cut the wheat from the chaff.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

Listen..there are some aspects of psychological interrogation that are passive..heck..Norriega's capture a prime example...we constantly blared music at his house 24 hrs a day..

Look...I've been all over this forum saying the physical abuse done to these men was wrong..but let's put this into perspective...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...these men have access to intelligence....intelligence that will save American lives...just how do you think we're going to get that info? Invite them down for tea and ask them nicely?...These are men who place Improvised Explosive Devices on the road and blow up Americans, just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them? Give them an alternative if you know so well how to extract information from an intractable enemy?

When I was a Drill Instructor I put my recruits thru worse mental attacks in order cut the wheat from the chaff.

Salishe,
I gotta ask ya...
Are the attrocities of prisoner torture that have taken place in this war, any different from any other war the US has been in?
That is to say, this kind of thing happens in every war, am I right?

Im certainly not condoning it...Im just wondering.

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.

Yes, but what is that accountability worth if nothing comes of it?

Good point ... although perhaps a bit premature.
Even though it seems as if this story has been in the news for months, it's really been less than a week. Within that period of time two of the soldiers have been courtmartialed with proceedings in effect for the remaining five, investigations have been swiftly conducted, along with the convening of televised hearings. The momentum appears to have sustainability with the military chain of command addressing what went wrong in this situation.

It's been in the media for less than a week, but how long ago did the events happen? It takes this much media attention for things to be paid attention to by the government? I suppose there's no reason not to cover it up if none of the public knows about it.

Actually..the investigations have been ongoing since January when the first allegations came to the attention of authority. During that time, those most noticeably involved had been relieved of duty and Article 32's held....Art. 32 is the article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice where evidence is secured in order ascertain whether or not a court-martial is applicable.

Can anyone here name any war in history where torture was not carried out by either side?

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

Listen..there are some aspects of psychological interrogation that are passive..heck..Norriega's capture a prime example...we constantly blared music at his house 24 hrs a day..

Look...I've been all over this forum saying the physical abuse done to these men was wrong..but let's put this into perspective...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...these men have access to intelligence....intelligence that will save American lives...just how do you think we're going to get that info? Invite them down for tea and ask them nicely?...These are men who place Improvised Explosive Devices on the road and blow up Americans, just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them? Give them an alternative if you know so well how to extract information from an intractable enemy?

When I was a Drill Instructor I put my recruits thru worse mental attacks in order cut the wheat from the chaff.

Salishe,
I gotta ask ya...
Are the attrocities of prisoner torture that have taken place in this war, any different from any other war the US has been in?
That is to say, this kind of thing happens in every war, am I right?

Im certainly not condoning it...Im just wondering.

Backwoods....from the limited exposure of photos and info I've seen it appears that most of this abuse (and I can't in all good conscience call it torture) was psychological in nature...humiliating yes..torture no..now separately there appear to have been some deaths and physical beatings..that is separate and should be pursued as far as legal action.

Now..I've got two men in my Vietnam Veteran's of American chapter (shameful plug for my group, yes)..who were POWs in Vietnam..now THESE men went thru torture...the VietCong and then their NVA captors were extremely proficient at torture, one still walks with a limp because they knee-capped him (they place a russian tukorov pistol against the kneecap and fire, thus destroying the bone infrastructure)..

Now as to whether this was any different?...I'd imagine that my generation and my father's WW2 generation who were POW's in the Asian theatre of Operations would give you a very different account of what constituted torture and what we ourselves did to enemy prisoners. I can tell you that what we did to VietCong we learned from him....

What I find most worrying is that after the torture of Iraqi POW's became known Rumsfeld still has the balls to say that torture still takes place, and not only that, but that it is a legit form of torture :shock:

Basically that says: "We really don't give a f--- what you (the world, including the US citizen) think of our actions, we do what we want anyways. Haven't we always?"...

On the contrary, Rumsfeld has demonstrated a willingness to take accountability and has been forthright in his statements regarding the actions of a few rogue members of our military force in Iraq.
A few rogue members? Are you aware that there are over 30 investigations ongoing?

U.S. officials insist the abuses were carried out by a handful of soldiers and were not part of a systematic program of brutality.

"It is not much larger than the people already suspended, in the number of people already charged," Kimmitt said.

But Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS' Face the Nation that the number of investigations into abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq could exceed 30.

"This is deeper and wider than I think most in this administration understand," he said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-09-court-martial_x.htm

Yes..a few elements..compare it to over 120,000 US personnel and 45,000 British and 20,000 International troops....it still comes up with a few elements in what looks to be the 800th Military Police Brigade.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?

Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?


Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?


Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

I guess the title of this thread applies to you :(

You still haven't answered the question: do you have evidence that all the prisoners in the wing where the photos were taken are terrorists or taken in combat with insurgents?

And how would I extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause? I wouldn't. Not if that would mean that I myself would have to lower myself to his/her level.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?


Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

I guess the title of this thread applies to you :(

You still haven't answered the question: do you have evidence that all the prisoners in the wing where the photos were taken are terrorists or taken in combat with insurgents?

And how would I extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause? I wouldn't. Not if that would mean that I myself would have to lower myself to his/her level.

How do you get someone to talk?

If you havent eaten in a week or two, you'd sell your god damn soul for a peanut butter sandwich.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?


Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

I guess the title of this thread applies to you :(

You still haven't answered the question: do you have evidence that all the prisoners in the wing where the photos were taken are terrorists or taken in combat with insurgents? I merely stated that this wing where the photos were taken consisted of personnel that were taken in combat or had been arrested for terrorist actions...now do I personally know them?..No..but then you can't prove they weren't now can you? Unless you have information I don't.

And how would I extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause? I wouldn't. Not if that would mean that I myself would have to lower myself to his/her level.nice dance around the subject, I asked you a specific question...how do you interrogate a prisoner, what methods do you think would work because I'm sure they'd love to have your obviously more enlightened perspective

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

Salishe, as a matter of fact, the Red Cross did not base its figures on exit interviews; instead, it relied on the US Army's own verdicts. It is the US Army who, 70-90% of the time, said - in effect - "Oops, you shouldn't have been arrested and imprisoned here. Sorry, you can go now."

Faced with the scenario of a man prepared to die for his cause - which is probably not likely the case with high level Saddam affiliates, but rather in the terrorist equivalent of foot soldiers - you have two choices.

One, you can employ the moral high ground, stick to the Geneva conventions, and use patience and promises. Legally speaking, an imprisoned soldier is not required to provide information beyond rank, name, and serial number, as I recall. Certain psychological pressures are, if I recall correctly, allowed, but tormenting, dehumanizing, and trying to psychologically "break" prisoners through such means as used here are not, according to the various international conventions. Patience and promises alone can work wonders; it is easy enough to find a cause to die for, but living for it throughout and not getting any information tricked out of you is another matter. Particularly if the prison staff doesn't keep reminding you "We're different, we're bad, we're scary evil evil people."

The other option is to dispense with the moral high ground and brutalize the prisoners in whatever fashion you like, violating international law and (traditionally speaking) opening the door for your enemies to treat their prisoners likewise. Bush et al have claimed that this is not a conventional war and that they are therefore allowed to do essentially whatever they like with the prisoners. It isn't surprising that a videotaped beheading of an American followed the publication of these photos, because by engaging in inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the administration has challenged its opponents abroad to treat imprisoned Americans in an equally inhumane fashion.

It is not always possible to extract intelligence from prisoners, particularly lawfully and humanely. However, to go beyond the humane is to become the enemy of civilization. Ends provide no automatic justification of your means.

Which is more inhumane, beheading or gang rape? There are those who believe beheading far more human... it doesn't linger with you for long.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

Salishe, as a matter of fact, the Red Cross did not base its figures on exit interviews; instead, it relied on the US Army's own verdicts. It is the US Army who, 70-90% of the time, said - in effect - "Oops, you shouldn't have been arrested and imprisoned here. Sorry, you can go now."

Faced with the scenario of a man prepared to die for his cause - which is probably not likely the case with high level Saddam affiliates, but rather in the terrorist equivalent of foot soldiers - you have two choices.

One, you can employ the moral high ground, stick to the Geneva conventions, and use patience and promises. Legally speaking, an imprisoned soldier is not required to provide information beyond rank, name, and serial number, as I recall. Certain psychological pressures are, if I recall correctly, allowed, but tormenting, dehumanizing, and trying to psychologically "break" prisoners through such means as used here are not, according to the various international conventions. Patience and promises alone can work wonders; it is easy enough to find a cause to die for, but living for it throughout and not getting any information tricked out of you is another matter. Particularly if the prison staff doesn't keep reminding you "We're different, we're bad, we're scary evil evil people."

The other option is to dispense with the moral high ground and brutalize the prisoners in whatever fashion you like, violating international law and (traditionally speaking) opening the door for your enemies to treat their prisoners likewise. Bush et al have claimed that this is not a conventional war and that they are therefore allowed to do essentially whatever they like with the prisoners. It isn't surprising that a videotaped beheading of an American followed the publication of these photos, because by engaging in inhumane treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the administration has challenged its opponents abroad to treat imprisoned Americans in an equally inhumane fashion.

It is not always possible to extract intelligence from prisoners, particularly lawfully and humanely. However, to go beyond the humane is to become the enemy of civilization. Ends provide no automatic justification of your means.

Which is more inhumane, beheading or gang rape? There are those who believe beheading far more human... it doesn't linger with you for long.

You have GOT to be kidding me..you can't possibly in all humanity possibly state that 5 FRIGGIN WHACKS WITH A HEAVY METAL WEAPON is less human then rape....rape you can get past...death is final..and as far a lingering..these bastards VIDEOTAPED THE FRIGGIN THING..this man's family will have to have that image forever branded into the minds, seeing it over and over again the death of a loved one who did NOTHING to warrant his death..

As far as the prisoners goes..70%-90%..ok..that's still at least 1 out of 3 we got right from the get go...and we are at the very least able to make amends, clean up our messes, or take criticism....Rumsfeld released 300 prisoners just this day and another 1500-2000 are scheduled for release..the wheel turns slowly but it does indeed turn...if this was Saddam's regime..I have no doubt that yes..there would be 1500-2000 spaces made available..but then there would be 1500-2000 more graves outside the prison.

Patience gets more Americans killled when you figure in daily operations involving American lives....

Two options.

1. Use similar interrogation techniques to the police. Terrorists are common criminals, anyway. Maintain status as "the good guys".

2. Use atrocities to your heart's content. Forfeit completely "good guy" status. Be remembered in history as just another evil regime.

Pick one.

So, despite all Rumsfeld's pretence about wanting to take full accountability, there is nothing that indicates that he gives a f--- about what others think of torturing POW, and he most certainly isn't going to put an end to it or resign.

Let's say you're the Secretary of Defense, what do you believe your job to be?

What are the objectives and responsibilties of that office?

I'm just about at my wits end here....we had some bad apples in the 800 Military Police Brigade..the unit spread out in two major different prison systems in Iraq...they are are a Reservist unit, not Regular Army, every indication of the over 30 investigations now being conducted is that no high-ranking officer knew or condoned the abuses of power, the mental, and in some cases physical abuse and/or torture of prisoners. Their have been arrests made, court-martials convened, and the guilty will be punished....For God's sake peope but you won't be happy til you get your pound of flesh..and since this is political..no..you don't want the actual military officer in charge cashiered you want to make an example of a member of the Bush Cabinet who for all intents and purposes didn't know of it til it was almost out in the open, never authorized it...never condoned it if he had known of it, and finally once he did know of it took steps to correct the situation.

Now..given all that..what do you think Saddam's regime would have done if the shoe were on the other foot?

It matters not who these people were or were not. It is no excuse for breaching the Geneva Conventions, that's it, that's all. Saying, "well it wasn't as bad as group a,b or c" is simply rationalizing it and is more then a weak argument, it's pathetic. The rules of war are clear. Unless of course every one wants war to be conducted like the Nazi SS in the future.

I believe this is the most powerful statement in all this.. and it's some thing you should all think long and hard about..

NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."

What is it America is suppose to stand for again?

It matters not who these people were or were not. It is no excuse for breaching the Geneva Conventions, that's it, that's all. Saying, "well it wasn't as bad as group a,b or c" is simply rationalizing it and is more then a weak argument, it's pathetic. The rules of war are clear. Unless of course every one wants war to be conducted like the Nazi SS in the future.

I believe this is the most powerful statement in all this.. and it's some thing you should all think long and hard about..

NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."

What is it America is suppose to stand for again?
Do US forces still use the shot gun as a weapon of war? If they do that breaks the Geneva Convention, if they choose to ignore this part then I'm not suprised that they ignore the rest. If they break it on a basis of policy (i.e. the use of shot guns) can they claim protection from it themselves?

It matters not who these people were or were not. It is no excuse for breaching the Geneva Conventions, that's it, that's all. Saying, "well it wasn't as bad as group a,b or c" is simply rationalizing it and is more then a weak argument, it's pathetic. The rules of war are clear. Unless of course every one wants war to be conducted like the Nazi SS in the future.

I believe this is the most powerful statement in all this.. and it's some thing you should all think long and hard about..

NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."

What is it America is suppose to stand for again?

It may be a pathetic argument Steph..but you can't deny it's veracity. Saddam's people would have gotten medals....instead..we arrested them, charged them, and will court-martial and if found guilty will do time in our military penal system courtesy of Ft. Leavenworth KS.

It matters not who these people were or were not. It is no excuse for breaching the Geneva Conventions, that's it, that's all. Saying, "well it wasn't as bad as group a,b or c" is simply rationalizing it and is more then a weak argument, it's pathetic. The rules of war are clear. Unless of course every one wants war to be conducted like the Nazi SS in the future.

I believe this is the most powerful statement in all this.. and it's some thing you should all think long and hard about..

NEW YORK--"If American life and values change radically because of the attacks," ABC's Sam Donaldson wrote, ten days after 9/11, "the terrorists will have won."

What is it America is suppose to stand for again?

It may be a pathetic argument Steph..but you can't deny it's veracity. Saddam's people would have gotten medals....instead..we arrested them, charged them, and will court-martial and if found guilty will do time in our military penal system courtesy of Ft. Leavenworth KS.

Yes, I will agree with that and that is certainly one thing that sets us apart in the free world. There is no denying that.

However, Rumsfeld is the one creating this climate to begin with, some of the stuff he has said about the Geneva Conventions is nothing short of unbelievable. What type of message is he sending to the troops when he says things like "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" or "The Geneva Conventions are up for interpretation" They're not up for interpretation, in fact they were written rather clearly so that they wouldn't be up for interpretation.

I watched more hearings yesterday and they actually got Paul Wolfowitz to admit is wasn't human treatment that they are still allowing. So, to say it's only a few... I don't buy it, not when you have the Sec. of Defense and the under Sec. of Defense both saying that yes, they are still using methods that are clearly banned by the Geneva Conventions.

Not to mention any info they get out of these people by using torture is going to be basically useless.. it's a proven fact that torture really doesn't work. People will say any thing you want to hear so that you stop.

John McCain who I have deep respect for said, the best way to get accurate info from these people is to treat them better then they've ever been treated and they will sing like birds.

I'm just about at my wits end here....we had some bad apples in the 800 Military Police Brigade..the unit spread out in two major different prison systems in Iraq...they are are a Reservist unit, not Regular Army, every indication of the over 30 investigations now being conducted is that no high-ranking officer knew or condoned the abuses of power, the mental, and in some cases physical abuse and/or torture of prisoners. Their have been arrests made, court-martials convened, and the guilty will be punished....For God's sake peope but you won't be happy til you get your pound of flesh..and since this is political..no..you don't want the actual military officer in charge cashiered you want to make an example of a member of the Bush Cabinet who for all intents and purposes didn't know of it til it was almost out in the open, never authorized it...never condoned it if he had known of it, and finally once he did know of it took steps to correct the situation.

Now..given all that..what do you think Saddam's regime would have done if the shoe were on the other foot?

Excellent points!
We must not let the actions of a very small percentage of the U.S. Iraqi force overshadow the valiant efforts of the rest of our military during this conflict.
Interesting how this news story broke just as Bush's approval ratings were climbing in response to recently good economic reports isn't it?

Interesting how this news story broke just as Bush's approval ratings were climbing in response to recently good economic reports isn't it?

OMFG NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The vast left-wing conspiracy.. Is that you Red Arrow? LOL :P

I merely stated that this wing where the photos were taken consisted of personnel that were taken in combat or had been arrested for terrorist actions...now do I personally know them?..No..but then you can't prove they weren't now can you? Unless you have information I don't.

Unless I am mistaken, and please correct me if I am wrong, according to the letter of the law one is innocent till guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable amount of doubt, right? Have the detainees been convicted of any crime whatsoever? No!! According to the letter of the law they are therefor to be treated as innocents. General consensus is still that torturing innocents is an uncivilized, inhuman action.

nice dance around the subject, I asked you a specific question...how do you interrogate a prisoner, what methods do you think would work because I'm sure they'd love to have your obviously more enlightened perspective

My deepest apologies. I thought the answer was only too obvious, and I simply never realised that Salishe is a person who needs to be spoonfed like a one year old. :(

I'd make promises that hopefully would get them to spill whatever intelligence they possess. If they then still do not want to talk, so be it.

"But that means missing out on the intelligence!!" Yeah, well, no one said that being civilized comes cheap!

So, despite all Rumsfeld's pretence about wanting to take full accountability, there is nothing that indicates that he gives a f--- about what others think of torturing POW, and he most certainly isn't going to put an end to it or resign.

Let's say you're the Secretary of Defense, what do you believe your job to be?

What are the objectives and responsibilties of that office?

I'll tell you what my job wouldn't be :)

It wouldn't be my job to keep quiet when knowledgeable 'bout the torturing of POW by my own friggin' army!!

However, Rumsfeld is the one creating this climate to begin with, some of the stuff he has said about the Geneva Conventions is nothing short of unbelievable. What type of message is he sending to the troops when he says things like "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" or "The Geneva Conventions are up for interpretation" They're not up for interpretation, in fact they were written rather clearly so that they wouldn't be up for interpretation.

I watched more hearings yesterday and they actually got Paul Wolfowitz to admit is wasn't human treatment that they are still allowing. So, to say it's only a few... I don't buy it, not when you have the Sec. of Defense and the under Sec. of Defense both saying that yes, they are still using methods that are clearly banned by the Geneva Conventions.



Steph ... I respect your view regarding the treatment standards of prisoners of war.

I wonder though if the drafters of the original Geneva Conventions rules were to create such guidelines in today's environment (terrorism) how much differently they would look?
The rules of war have radically change over the past 60 years ... shouldn't the operating guidelines for prisoners also be revisited as well?

Interesting how this news story broke just as Bush's approval ratings were climbing in response to recently good economic reports isn't it?

OMFG NOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The vast left-wing conspiracy.. Is that you Red Arrow? LOL :P

Red Arrow?!! Please! I'm most decidedly offended! :evil:
Nope, just commenting on our glorious liberal media's timing (and trying to stir the pot a little today) that's all! :)

However, Rumsfeld is the one creating this climate to begin with, some of the stuff he has said about the Geneva Conventions is nothing short of unbelievable. What type of message is he sending to the troops when he says things like "The Geneva Conventions may not apply" or "The Geneva Conventions are up for interpretation" They're not up for interpretation, in fact they were written rather clearly so that they wouldn't be up for interpretation.

I watched more hearings yesterday and they actually got Paul Wolfowitz to admit is wasn't human treatment that they are still allowing. So, to say it's only a few... I don't buy it, not when you have the Sec. of Defense and the under Sec. of Defense both saying that yes, they are still using methods that are clearly banned by the Geneva Conventions.



Steph ... I respect your view regarding the treatment standards of prisoners of war.

I wonder though if the drafters of the original Geneva Conventions rules were to create such guidelines in today's environment (terrorism) how much differently they would look?
The rules of war have radically change over the past 60 years ... shouldn't the operating guidelines for prisoners also be revisited as well?

I suppose no more or less could be said about the American second amendment. I wonder if when the American fore fathers when drafting the Constitution if they had in mind semi automatic weapons.. I suppose both points are rather moot. Besides, terrorists are no worse then the Nazi SS were, it's just instead of attacking Europe, they more want to attack America now. I don't really see a huge difference, in fact I believe the Nazi's were far worse personally.

..these bastards VIDEOTAPED THE FRIGGIN THING..this man's family will have to have that image forever branded into the minds, seeing it over and over again the death of a loved one who did NOTHING to warrant his death..

Aren't you the little hypocrite :lol:

Those soldiers who tortured the POW videotaped too. But we won't hear you complain about that, right? :evil:

"But at least they didn't broadcast it!!" Yeah, well, thats because they didn't want to do time. And chances that the truth will ever come out in all its graphic detail is slim to nihil; Congress is already talking about not releasing the graphic material in order to prevent further damaging the US image. It is something that they, Congress, have in common with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, hiding that part of the truth from the public that discredits them...

This was an awesome article I found on Yahoo. It really does sum it up. I don't like when people copy/paste personally.. but once in a while.. it's ok. As long as it's not all they do..This is worth pasting...

I like Rall's work. He does more to advance the conservative cause than any single thing that The Heritage Foundation could put out. His tacky cartoon regarding Pat Tillman probably resulted in two seats in the House of Representative for Arizona alone.

Rall should stick to topics he knows best. Like being tormented in high school by a bully named Brian. I bet if I were to sneak up behind Ted and shout, "Give me all of your lunch money, kid!" he'd crap & wet himself just as fast as he'd flip out his wallet and lie in the prone position. Of course I wouldn't do that...I'm just sharing my thoughts about what I believe to be true.

I'll tell you what my job wouldn't be :)

It wouldn't be my job to keep quiet when knowledgeable 'bout the torturing of POW by my own friggin' army!!

Not to condone the actions that did (or didn't) take place, but it's easy to be idealistic when sitting on the sidelines and speaking after the fact ...
Any idea of the complexity involved in trying to fulfill the duties of leading national defense efforts 24/7?

I'll tell you what my job wouldn't be :)

It wouldn't be my job to keep quiet when knowledgeable 'bout the torturing of POW by my own friggin' army!!

Not to condone the actions that did (or didn't) take place, but it's easy to be idealistic when sitting on the sidelines and speaking after the fact ...
Any idea of the complexity involved in trying to fulfill the duties of leading national defense efforts 24/7?

And thats suppossed to be an excuse for Rumsfelds' incomptence? Look, if he isn't up for the job he should make room for someone who is, period.

I suppose no more or less could be said about the American second amendment. I wonder if when the American fore fathers when drafting the Constitution if they had in mind semi automatic weapons.. I suppose both points are rather moot. Besides, terrorists are no worse then the Nazi SS were, it's just instead of attacking Europe, they more want to attack America now. I don't really see a huge difference, in fact I believe the Nazi's were far worse personally.

Hey, don't mess around with my right to bear arms! :twisted:
That's a whole other thread topic :)

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with; terrorists are fanatical and require harsher means by which to deter their activities.
The sad fact is in order to save more lives in the future, we need to take whatever measures necessary for deterrence and extraction of reliable intel.

And thats suppossed to be an excuse for Rumsfelds' incomptence? Look, if he isn't up for the job he should make room for someone who is, period.

Obviously you haven't been following any of the coverage that has illustrated over the past three years what an incredible job Rumsfeld has been doing in heading up our national defense.

When he took over at the beginning of this administration, our military was scaled down considerably and gravely challenged to mobilize and be effective. Rumsfeld managed to empower the military to the level necessary for effective world leadership and national defense without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. That's his job - to make national defense government's first and foremost priority; when you get right down to it without that all the rest is pretty pointless.
The level of support Rumsfeld has garnered from the President, members of Congress (some publicly, many privately) and analysts demonstrate that he is still the best man for the job and should stay firming at the helm.

Ok, how about an actual hard question, to make the rants subside? What, in your opinion, would be acceptable techniques for interrogating prisoners who are likely to possess important information, but are not up to sharing it? What degree of intimidation, psychological or physical pressure would be legitimate to apply?

If we don't answer this question, all the outrage about prisoner abuse is one huge waste of energy, which is why I do not engage into discussing it just yet. S

o- what is YOUR take on it?

..these bastards VIDEOTAPED THE FRIGGIN THING..this man's family will have to have that image forever branded into the minds, seeing it over and over again the death of a loved one who did NOTHING to warrant his death..

Aren't you the little hypocrite :lol:

Those soldiers who tortured the POW videotaped too. But we won't hear you complain about that, right? :evil:

"But at least they didn't broadcast it!!" Yeah, well, thats because they didn't want to do time. And chances that the truth will ever come out in all its graphic detail is slim to nihil; Congress is already talking about not releasing the graphic material in order to prevent further damaging the US image. It is something that they, Congress, have in common with Stalin, Mao, Hitler, hiding that part of the truth from the public that discredits them...

oh yeah..holding a leash on a man or making him sit naked on a stool or a bunch of his buddies is oh so much worse then a man brutally beheaded, screaming out in pain and even then after the third and final blow was given the rat bastard still chopped down twice more for sadistic glee...

And if you've been reading ANY of my posts you'll find that I have repeatedly condemend torture of any prisoners..what I have done is defend the honor of over 120,000 other US troops that are there and have done nothing to warrant the criticism so blatantly swathed against them by people who have a political agenda against their Commander in Chief.

I have REPEATEDLY for those that aren't used to reading...that any torture was never authorized, condoned, or suggested by any high ranking command either in Iraq or stateside in the Dept of Defense. Passive interrogation techniques were approved and do not constitute torture....what those soldiers did was reprehensible..but I am perfectly capable of considering myself..."less civilized" if the information I need that could save US lives is in the head of a prisoner...you forget..I come from a sub-culture of America that still believes in the concept of "war to the knife"..

Ok, how about an actual hard question, to make the rants subside? What, in your opinion, would be acceptable techniques for interrogating prisoners who are likely to possess important information, but are not up to sharing it? What degree of intimidation, psychological or physical pressure would be legitimate to apply?

If we don't answer this question, all the outrage about prisoner abuse is one huge waste of energy, which is why I do not engage into discussing it just yet. S

o- what is YOUR take on it?

Here's a scenario...
A known terrorist is captured. You know from interrogation of other prisoners that another 9/11 style attack is planned. You know this terrorist
has the last piece of the puzzle needed to prevent the loss of 1000 lives.
He just laughs at the regular interrogation tactics. What do you do?

I'll tell you what I would do: Anything that was necessary to make him talk. If he was a muslim radical, I'd slaughter a pig in front of him, threaten to wrap the intestines around his body, and then threaten to put a bullet in his brain. No chance of those 72 virgins with all that pig blood around. He'll talk.

Oh yeah... and the whole thing would be filmed and sent to Al-Jazeera.
Since we're already hated, we can't make it worse. But the extremists will be more fearful of us in the future.

torture is an extremely unreliable way to get information
once cracked, a man will say anything he thinks his torturer wants to hear

even under simple police interrogation tactics people confess to crimes they didnt commit. how much more would you lie about to get someone to remove the electrodes from your genitals?

as time passes, the information that a prisoner possesses is less and less relevant. think of the american POWs in vietnam being tortured for information YEARS after they had been captured. they had no information that their captors could use.

its bad for all those involved.

Ok, how about an actual hard question, to make the rants subside? What, in your opinion, would be acceptable techniques for interrogating prisoners who are likely to possess important information, but are not up to sharing it? What degree of intimidation, psychological or physical pressure would be legitimate to apply?

If we don't answer this question, all the outrage about prisoner abuse is one huge waste of energy, which is why I do not engage into discussing it just yet. S

o- what is YOUR take on it?

Here's a scenario...
A known terrorist is captured. You know from interrogation of other prisoners that another 9/11 style attack is planned. You know this terrorist
has the last piece of the puzzle needed to prevent the loss of 1000 lives.
He just laughs at the regular interrogation tactics. What do you do?

I'll tell you what I would do: Anything that was necessary to make him talk. If he was a muslim radical, I'd slaughter a pig in front of him, threaten to wrap the intestines around his body, and then threaten to put a bullet in his brain. No chance of those 72 virgins with all that pig blood around. He'll talk.

Oh yeah... and the whole thing would be filmed and sent to Al-Jazeera.
Since we're already hated, we can't make it worse. But the extremists will be more fearful of us in the future.

You are talking about a ticking bomb case. I am 100% with you on this one; when it is about saving innocent people's lives, moral high ground can go to hell for all I care. But I am asking about a "regular" case.

Suppose an insurgent is caught who can possibly provide information about the "resistance"s bases, communication routes, names of their leaders, spies and saboteurs. Its no 9/11 in progress, but it could make fighting a whole lot easier and deal a serious blow to the enemy. What degree of pressure is legitimate to apply then?

torture is an extremely unreliable way to get information
once cracked, a man will say anything he thinks his torturer wants to hear

even under simple police interrogation tactics people confess to crimes they didnt commit. how much more would you lie about to get someone to remove the electrodes from your genitals?

as time passes, the information that a prisoner possesses is less and less relevant. think of the american POWs in vietnam being tortured for information YEARS after they had been captured. they had no information that their captors could use.

its bad for all those involved.

Yes, you have to act fast. In Vietnam, the POWs were tortured just because the captors enjoyed doing it. They new they would not get the
information they needed.

A good interrogator will ask questions he already knows the answers to first, to make sure the interrogatee(?) isn't lying just to stop the torture.

And thats suppossed to be an excuse for Rumsfelds' incomptence? Look, if he isn't up for the job he should make room for someone who is, period.

Obviously you haven't been following any of the coverage that has illustrated over the past three years what an incredible job Rumsfeld has been doing in heading up our national defense.


Obviously you haven't been following any of the recent coverage that illustrated that Rumsfeld has had knowledge of POW being tortured by US soldiers for half a year or so, and neglected to bring that information to the attention of Congress... :roll:

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

And thats suppossed to be an excuse for Rumsfelds' incomptence? Look, if he isn't up for the job he should make room for someone who is, period.

Obviously you haven't been following any of the coverage that has illustrated over the past three years what an incredible job Rumsfeld has been doing in heading up our national defense.


Obviously you haven't been following any of the recent coverage that illustrated that Rumsfeld has had knowledge of POW being tortured by US soldiers for half a year or so, and neglected to bring that information to the attention of Congress... :roll:

If you are talking bout Iraq...the investigations have only go on since January...and it was being handled.....and if it was being handled..of what military purpose does it serve for the Secretary of Defense to talk to Congress?.they aren't in his Chain of Command are they?...Talking to them will do nothing but to besmirch the reputations of every soldier there, cause an increase in enemy activity and prevent us from creating a stable Iraq...so I ask you again..why does he need to talk to Congress if it was being handled?..I mean..over 30 investigations were launched after January...people had been arrested already..court-martials were slated, unless you just wanted your pound of flesh there is no need to go to Congress.

oh yeah..holding a leash on a man or making him sit naked on a stool or a bunch of his buddies

Conveniently you leave out the systematic rape. How very typical of you. :roll:

And if you've been reading ANY of my posts you'll find that I have repeatedly condemend torture of any prisoners..what I have done is defend the honor of over 120,000 other US troops that are there and have done nothing to warrant the criticism so blatantly swathed against them by people who have a political agenda against their Commander in Chief.

Yes, repeatedly you have pointed out that it is "only a fraction of the troops who have misbehaved". In the next breath trying to make the torture that took place appear as "necessary to get intelligence and hence to a degree acceptable, especially considering that the detainees involved were terrorists (something that is, of course, not true) , and so we shouldn't condemn them too harsh after all." :roll: Kid, you got "apologist" all over you.

I have REPEATEDLY for those that aren't used to reading...that any torture was never authorized, condoned, or suggested by any high ranking command either in Iraq or stateside in the Dept of Defense. Passive interrogation techniques were approved and do not constitute torture....

How would you know what orders were given?! Daydreaming again, are we? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

oh yeah..holding a leash on a man or making him sit naked on a stool or a bunch of his buddies

Conveniently you leave out the systematic rape. How very typical of you. :roll:

And if you've been reading ANY of my posts you'll find that I have repeatedly condemend torture of any prisoners..what I have done is defend the honor of over 120,000 other US troops that are there and have done nothing to warrant the criticism so blatantly swathed against them by people who have a political agenda against their Commander in Chief.

Yes, repeatedly you have pointed out that it is "only a fraction of the troops who have misbehaved". In the next breath trying to make the torture that took place appear as "necessary to get intelligence and hence to a degree acceptable, especially considering that the detainees involved were terrorists (something that is, of course, not true) , and so we shouldn't condemn them too harsh after all." :roll: Kid, you got "apologist" all over you.

I have REPEATEDLY for those that aren't used to reading...that any torture was never authorized, condoned, or suggested by any high ranking command either in Iraq or stateside in the Dept of Defense. Passive interrogation techniques were approved and do not constitute torture....

How would you know what orders were given?! Daydreaming again, are we? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh..what a revisionist we are....systematic rape?...hardly..there are reports but hardly system-wide..and they are being handled..were being handled..and I agree whole-heartedly that passive interrogation techniques should be utilized...and in fact many nation's law enforcement and military utilize these methods.

And I don't know that they weren't terrorists??...Do you have some proof they weren't?..

As for orders given..not one of the over 30 investigations currently being conducted indicates that any high ranking officer or State Dept official gave orders too..alluded too..suggested too that torture was acceptable.. where apparently we differ so widely is what exactly constitutes torture..now I've openly stated that some forms of abuse were categorically considered "torture"...but playing loud music..sleep deprivation..no...what these are is passive interrogation and it is what was authorized and a gaggle of lawyers who were versed in US Constitutional Law and Geneva Conventions came up with.

Now..while you're speaking out your posterior..can you provide one shred of proof that any orders came down to abuse or torture prisoners?

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

No of course not. However I believe very strongly that there is no good argument for breaching the Geneva Conventions. I believe some one in this thread said this some pages back.. there is a price to be paid for taking the higher ground.. I agree with that.. and it's well worth it in the long run. It's what makes us different, more human and put more value on human life. Just because some thing becomes a challenge you don't start breaking the rules.

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

No of course not. However I believe very strongly that there is no good argument for breaching the Geneva Conventions. I believe some one in this thread said this some pages back.. there is a price to be paid for taking the higher ground.. I agree with that.. and it's well worth it in the long run. It's what makes us different, more human and put more value on human life. Just because some thing becomes a challenge you don't start breaking the rules.

Is the letter of the law more important then the spirit of the law steph?..I can't believe the framers of the Geneva Conventions...all honorable men ever could have conceived that these same conventions would be turned against them by people who have no concept of those conventions nor do they adhere to them....the Japanese didnt...the Vietnamese didnt..and now it looks like muslim fundamentalists Wahabbist don't....Don't you think it's beyond time to look past those Accords or at the very least, update them to today's realities?

Is the life of one American soldier worth it?..Could you look into the eye of the mother of any nation's soldier, be it American, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, French, or Nigerian and say that to them?

It's interesting talking about Human Rights and stuff.
The UNHRC criticise the Howard Australian government about detaining children since it's harmful to them.

Then the government goes "it's all wrong, we have right to detain children. If we release them it might encourage more people smuggling with children as tool to freedom".

The same goverment goes "Australia is not an occupying power in Iraq! We are not named as one.", yet Australia has troops in Iraq. Why, so they abstain themselves of any responsibility for the welfare of prisoners handed over the US.

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

No of course not. However I believe very strongly that there is no good argument for breaching the Geneva Conventions. I believe some one in this thread said this some pages back.. there is a price to be paid for taking the higher ground.. I agree with that.. and it's well worth it in the long run. It's what makes us different, more human and put more value on human life. Just because some thing becomes a challenge you don't start breaking the rules.

I'm not saying who is the more evil of the two and the despicability of their actions ... they're both in a league of their own in that regard.

What is different though is the method by which we would deal with deterrence and attempting to get intel, especially in extreme "ticking bomb" situations when approaching the two different mindsets.
The fundamental difference separating the two is that of a religious fervor so strong and misguided that it tests the limits of fanaticalism to the extreme.

How much longer do you suppose WWII would have lasted and how many more millions would have been killed if today's terrorists were the aggressors back then?

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

No of course not. However I believe very strongly that there is no good argument for breaching the Geneva Conventions. I believe some one in this thread said this some pages back.. there is a price to be paid for taking the higher ground.. I agree with that.. and it's well worth it in the long run. It's what makes us different, more human and put more value on human life. Just because some thing becomes a challenge you don't start breaking the rules.

I'm not saying who is the more evil of the two and the despicability of their actions ... they're both in a league of their own in that regard.

What is different though is the method by which we would deal with deterrence and attempting to get intel, especially in extreme "ticking bomb" situations when approaching the two different mindsets.
The fundamental difference separating the two is that of a religious fervor so strong and misguided that it tests the limits of fanaticalism to the extreme.

How much longer do you suppose WWII would have lasted and how many more millions would have been killed if today's terrorists were the aggressors back then?

I'm sure you're correct to say that when the Conventions were written they probably no doubt didn't think in terms of what we know today as "terrorism" .. certainly we know the terrorists could care a less about the Geneva Conventions. However, in fairness the Iraqi's are not terrorists. I agree since the American invasion of Iraq groups have crossed into the country from different terrorists factions. However, despite that, once captured I don't see why sticking to our roots of being the more humane people that our values so often reflect, or that we say over and over again that we are and that they are not, shouldn't be followed. I'm not saying perhaps the rules of engagement aren't perhaps outdated given conventional war is more or less probably a thing of the past. However, I don't believe treating people in a humane fashion ever goes out of style.

I heard a pundit the other day say "We can't lose the war in Iraq militarily, however, we can't win the war in Iraq either"

Sure, the big part of going to war in the first place was to unseat Saddam, but that certainly wasn't the only part. This term we see thrown around "Heats & Minds" How can any one expect to show the Arab world that we reach for a higher standard of humanity when we can't even follow the most basic rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's. Or more importantly civilians. If we throw these values away.. I do believe the terrorists have won and forever have changed who we are.

The way I see it, the moment one begins to view torture, physical or psychological, as acceptable in some circumstances, one loses their claim to civilisation. Simple as that.

America has tried to rise above the rest, and it has failed. The rest of the world is in no doubt now that America is nothing special, and nothing will fix that. People can still argue that they uphld this or that, defend this or that, but the empirical evidence is that the US is like the rest when it comes to humanity, maybe not with the worst, but certainly not deserving of a special category either.

I'm sure you're correct to say that when the Conventions were written they probably no doubt didn't think in terms of what we know today as "terrorism" .. certainly we know the terrorists could care a less about the Geneva Conventions. However, in fairness the Iraqi's are not terrorists. I agree since the American invasion of Iraq groups have crossed into the country from different terrorists factions. However, despite that, once captured I don't see why sticking to our roots of being the more humane people that our values so often reflect, or that we say over and over again that we are and that they are not, shouldn't be followed. I'm not saying perhaps the rules of engagement aren't perhaps outdated given conventional war is more or less probably a thing of the past. However, I don't believe treating people in a humane fashion ever goes out of style.

I heard a pundit the other day say "We can't lose the war in Iraq militarily, however, we can't win the war in Iraq either"

Sure, the big part of going to war in the first place was to unseat Saddam, but that certainly wasn't the only part. This term we see thrown around "Heats & Minds" How can any one expect to show the Arab world that we reach for a higher standard of humanity when we can't even follow the most basic rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's. Or more importantly civilians. If we throw these values away.. I do believe the terrorists have won and forever have changed who we are.

I appreciate the points you've listed regarding standing by our principles as a nation ...

There has been demonstration of a higher road taken by the U.S. in regards to the way this situation has been handled -- meaning there are actions being taken on our end to address any shortcomings in communications, leadership, et al and an open acknowledgement that this approach is not the norm, rather the rarer exception.
This approach has been openly acknowleged by the the Arabic community as an improvement upon previous ruling party (Saddam's forces) actions against prisoners.

As far as judged and assessing values ... what should we value more? Human lives saved by using sometimes extreme interrogation methods or projecting an image of weakness and vulnerability?
Change is inevitable and we need to evolve with the realities of the world around us in order preserve the tenets of our nation's founding principles (life, liberty...).

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

C'mon Steph, you seem to be twisting around what I said. Is everything
completely black and white with you?

No of course not. However I believe very strongly that there is no good argument for breaching the Geneva Conventions. I believe some one in this thread said this some pages back.. there is a price to be paid for taking the higher ground.. I agree with that.. and it's well worth it in the long run. It's what makes us different, more human and put more value on human life. Just because some thing becomes a challenge you don't start breaking the rules.

I'm not saying who is the more evil of the two and the despicability of their actions ... they're both in a league of their own in that regard.

What is different though is the method by which we would deal with deterrence and attempting to get intel, especially in extreme "ticking bomb" situations when approaching the two different mindsets.
The fundamental difference separating the two is that of a religious fervor so strong and misguided that it tests the limits of fanaticalism to the extreme.

How much longer do you suppose WWII would have lasted and how many more millions would have been killed if today's terrorists were the aggressors back then?

I'm sure you're correct to say that when the Conventions were written they probably no doubt didn't think in terms of what we know today as "terrorism" .. certainly we know the terrorists could care a less about the Geneva Conventions. However, in fairness the Iraqi's are not terrorists. I agree since the American invasion of Iraq groups have crossed into the country from different terrorists factions. However, despite that, once captured I don't see why sticking to our roots of being the more humane people that our values so often reflect, or that we say over and over again that we are and that they are not, shouldn't be followed. I'm not saying perhaps the rules of engagement aren't perhaps outdated given conventional war is more or less probably a thing of the past. However, I don't believe treating people in a humane fashion ever goes out of style.

I heard a pundit the other day say "We can't lose the war in Iraq militarily, however, we can't win the war in Iraq either"

Sure, the big part of going to war in the first place was to unseat Saddam, but that certainly wasn't the only part. This term we see thrown around "Heats & Minds" How can any one expect to show the Arab world that we reach for a higher standard of humanity when we can't even follow the most basic rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's. Or more importantly civilians. If we throw these values away.. I do believe the terrorists have won and forever have changed who we are.

Even if its moral high ground vs. people's lives?

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.


Hmmm the red cross? I used to think they were honest until 9/11. They started a fund for the families who lost people. Then they started a second fund and started placing 1/2 of the money received as it was far more then expected.

They kind of forgot to mention it or even ask.

I think it was Fox News :shock: who broke the story.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.


Hmmm the red cross? I used to think they were honest until 9/11. They started a fund for the families who lost people. Then they started a second fund and started placing 1/2 of the money received as it was far more then expected.

They kind of forgot to mention it or even ask.

I think it was Fox News :shock: who broke the story.

You're confusing the American Red Cross with the International Red Cross. It was the American Red Cross that perpetrated the 9/11 scandal.

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.

just how in hell do you expect us to interrogate them?


Not by torture; lower yourself to the level of the beast and you become a beast.

I was a terrorist and the Red Cross came around to interview me..guess what...I'm going to tell the Red Cross that I was an innocent man unfairly imprisoned..simple lie that goes a long way eh?

And again..I ask you...how do you extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause?...how would YOU get the intel?

I guess the title of this thread applies to you :(

You still haven't answered the question: do you have evidence that all the prisoners in the wing where the photos were taken are terrorists or taken in combat with insurgents?

And how would I extract information from a man prepared to die for his cause? I wouldn't. Not if that would mean that I myself would have to lower myself to his/her level.

How do you get someone to talk?

If you havent eaten in a week or two, you'd sell your god damn soul for a peanut butter sandwich.

Starvation goes against Geneva I belive! ;)

...the men in this wing where the photos were taken are terrorists..or taken in combat with insurgents...

You have evidence of this?

Personall, I put me more trust in the Red Cross than the US Military these days. And when that same Red Cross claims that 90 percent of the detainees at Abu Ghraib, had been "arrested by mistake", I'll put my money on that.


Hmmm the red cross? I used to think they were honest until 9/11. They started a fund for the families who lost people. Then they started a second fund and started placing 1/2 of the money received as it was far more then expected.

They kind of forgot to mention it or even ask.

I think it was Fox News :shock: who broke the story.

You're confusing the American Red Cross with the International Red Cross. It was the American Red Cross that perpetrated the 9/11 scandal.

Whoops me bad! :oops:

I'm sure you're correct to say that when the Conventions were written they probably no doubt didn't think in terms of what we know today as "terrorism" .. certainly we know the terrorists could care a less about the Geneva Conventions. However, in fairness the Iraqi's are not terrorists. I agree since the American invasion of Iraq groups have crossed into the country from different terrorists factions. However, despite that, once captured I don't see why sticking to our roots of being the more humane people that our values so often reflect, or that we say over and over again that we are and that they are not, shouldn't be followed. I'm not saying perhaps the rules of engagement aren't perhaps outdated given conventional war is more or less probably a thing of the past. However, I don't believe treating people in a humane fashion ever goes out of style.

I heard a pundit the other day say "We can't lose the war in Iraq militarily, however, we can't win the war in Iraq either"

Sure, the big part of going to war in the first place was to unseat Saddam, but that certainly wasn't the only part. This term we see thrown around "Heats & Minds" How can any one expect to show the Arab world that we reach for a higher standard of humanity when we can't even follow the most basic rules of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of POW's. Or more importantly civilians. If we throw these values away.. I do believe the terrorists have won and forever have changed who we are.

I appreciate the points you've listed regarding standing by our principles as a nation ...

There has been demonstration of a higher road taken by the U.S. in regards to the way this situation has been handled -- meaning there are actions being taken on our end to address any shortcomings in communications, leadership, et al and an open acknowledgement that this approach is not the norm, rather the rarer exception.
This approach has been openly acknowleged by the the Arabic community as an improvement upon previous ruling party (Saddam's forces) actions against prisoners.

As far as judged and assessing values ... what should we value more? Human lives saved by using sometimes extreme interrogation methods or projecting an image of weakness and vulnerability?
Change is inevitable and we need to evolve with the realities of the world around us in order preserve the tenets of our nation's founding principles (life, liberty...).

Yet, every thing points to torture doesn't work. People will say whatever you want to hear to have you stop. It's bad Intel. You're not going to get good Intel from torturing people. It also changes who we are, I realize you're American and I Canadian, but we do share some of the same values as a people. I know that as a Canadian our population would never be ok with this. I know when a couple of our troops in Somalia killed that man, our government disband the whole regiment. The shit hit the fan and heads rolled. As it should be.

Womblingdon - Yes, even if it means we lose a few lives in the process. Lets not forget we also are willing to let people die instead of making any deals with terrorists. We must stand on principle at all times. Because if we don't stand for some thing, then we stand for nothing.

Hard to debate which group would be worse other than to point to a fundamental difference ... Nazis would appear to have had members who could be reasoned with.

I believe about 6 million dead Jewish people may of disagreed with you.. :?

Ahm Steph!

Not everybody in the Nazi party was anti-Jewish and believed in the extermination of the Jews.

I dated a German whos grandfather was on the Eastern Front. Combat unit so he never saw any of the attrocities(so he claimed) and he said that they had heard talk of it but "we refused to believe it"

Wasn't Schindler in the Nazi party! ;)

I dated a German whos grandfather was on the Eastern Front. Combat unit so he never saw any of the attrocities(so he claimed) and he said that they had heard talk of it but "we refused to believe it"
Impossible. My grandfather fought on the Russian side, in a combat unit too, he said the war crimes were in-your-face stuff, you couldn't escape it, bodies everywhere you looked. 20m people died there, it was impossible not to see the results of at least one massacre. Some areas, like the Ukraine, lost a quarter of their civilian population killed. Any village you entered had its story.

The way I see it, the moment one begins to view torture, physical or psychological, as acceptable in some circumstances, one loses their claim to civilisation. Simple as that.


As it was once said

"When you look into the Abyss, remember that the Abyss also looks into you"


America has tried to rise above the rest, and it has failed. The rest of the world is in no doubt now that America is nothing special, and nothing will fix that. People can still argue that they uphld this or that, defend this or that, but the empirical evidence is that the US is like the rest when it comes to humanity, maybe not with the worst, but certainly not deserving of a special category either.

:lol: you are one of the Canadians aren't you?

Just because we have the shrub doesn't mean complete failure. We are human and will rise above this bleek period.

You may think the great american experiment is over but I don't.

America still has special qualites and there are many who still belive in them. We just forgot about them due to 9/11.

People are starting to wake up again.

Don't place the whole countries views from what people say here.

:lol: you are one of the Canadians aren't you?.

Tactical Grace lives in the UK.

I dated a German whos grandfather was on the Eastern Front. Combat unit so he never saw any of the attrocities(so he claimed) and he said that they had heard talk of it but "we refused to believe it"
Impossible. My grandfather fought on the Russian side, in a combat unit too, he said the war crimes were in-your-face stuff, you couldn't escape it, bodies everywhere you looked. 20m people died there, it was impossible not to see the results of at least one massacre. Some areas, like the Ukraine, lost a quarter of their civilian population killed. Any village you entered had its story.

But that is were it gets hard. Some were German and yet some were by the USSR.

What did your grandpa do?

Mine is Polish and fought the Germans during the invasion and for the Brits....

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.

:lol: you are one of the Canadians aren't you?.

Tactical Grace lives in the UK.

Thanks! I also just read his Russin Grandfather post!

Comment retracted!

But that is were it gets hard. Some were German and yet some were by the USSR.

What did your grandpa do?

Mine is Polish and fought the Germans during the invasion and for the Brits....
On the Eastern Front, he commanded the artillery batallion of an assault regiment in the Red Army.

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.

Like the British Empire lost any trace of respectability in India?

EDIT: Wait, that came out wrong. What I meant to say was that yes, we have learned a valuble lesson here. We have learned the same lesson that all previous Empire builders eventually learned. At some point, your reach exceeds your grasp and then bad things start to happen. This seems to be a natural turning point in the evolution of nations. What is interesting will be seeing if we can hold it together as our dreams of empire collapse as the UK did or if we fall apart completely like the Roman empire. Time will tell.

What is done in the heat of battle is one thing; what is done with detained inmates is another.

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.

Like the British Empire lost any trace of respectability in India?

Actually, yes, only worse.. because we live in a digital age of instant media.. the actions of the British Empire were not as well known as the actions of what people now do because of the age we live in.

I do believe that American credibility and image perhaps has been forever damaged over the war in Iraq and the unilateralsim of the shrubs actions. At the very least I think it will take years to repair, if ever. The "magic" the USA once enjoyed and the way America was thought of around the world in the past, is gone. I do agree with Tactical in that. That doesn't mean all American people are bad, far from it. It does mean that the world will probably never see America quite the same way again.

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.
Like the British Empire lost any trace of respectability in India?
They certainly did, but the humiliation was not globalised the same way such things are today. For a long time, the British got away with absolutely staggering brutality in its colonies. It would have lost them a lot sooner had the subjects seen what was going on elsewhere through the eyes of a global media. Pursuing imperial ambitions is a lot more difficult now, because people have so much more information on which to judge you.

Yet, every thing points to torture doesn't work. People will say whatever you want to hear to have you stop. It's bad Intel. You're not going to get good Intel from torturing people. It also changes who we are, I realize you're American and I Canadian, but we do share some of the same values as a people. I know that as a Canadian our population would never be ok with this. I know when a couple of our troops in Somalia killed that man, our government disband the whole regiment. The shit hit the fan and heads rolled. As it should be.

Steph - I admire your idealism :D
However, the world stage is not black and white. The shades of grey are pretty astounding when you view a situation like this in a vaccum rather than in the context of the bigger picture.
It's been just a week since "the shit hit the fan" and there has been swift reaction and measures taken by the administration toward addressing the (organizational) issues involved.

What else do you propose should have been done in the past week by the administration/Rumsfeld that hasn't already been done?

Womblingdon - Yes, even if it means we lose a few lives in the process.
Well, I prefer sticking to my beliefs that human sacrifices are ultimately immoral, and I refuse to pay with other people's lives for keeping my hands clean and making myself feel oh so noble and enlightened. Neither will I agree to be sacrificed so someone else could feel oh so noble and enlightened- because this is, in the end, what the "moral argument" boils down to.


Lets not forget we also are willing to let people die instead of making any deals with terrorists. We must stand on principle at all times. Because if we don't stand for some thing, then we stand for nothing.
But this is different. Dealing with terrorists is not a solution because of the "first rule of blackmail"- you pay once, you will pay always. Dealing with terrorists means inviting more terrorism. It simply doesn't pay off in terms of saving lives.

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.

Well if the world can never forgive a country for past mistakes then the world is a sorry place.

But you are right. It is a black spot but I still find people forgiving espeically if you make an effort.

We still have great ideals. Just many seem to have forgetten them these days. :(

What else do you propose should have been done in the past week by the administration/Rumsfeld that hasn't already been done?
Rumsfeld should have stepped down. had this been British or Japanese parliament, it would be expected for him to resign. It still baffles me not only that he has done nothing of the sort, but that people argue that his staying is a good thing. I don't understand it.

I am British in fact, and I understand that many Americans believe in thos "special qualitites", but the world is no longer buying it. America has lost any trace of specialness over this. Maybe not in the minds of Americans, but in the minds of everyone else, and that's a new problem it will have to deal with.

Like the British Empire lost any trace of respectability in India?

EDIT: Wait, that came out wrong. What I meant to say was that yes, we have learned a valuble lesson here. We have learned the same lesson that all previous Empire builders eventually learned. At some point, your reach exceeds your grasp and then bad things start to happen. This seems to be a natural turning point in the evolution of nations. What is interesting will be seeing if we can hold it together as our dreams of empire collapse as the UK did or if we fall apart completely like the Roman empire. Time will tell.

Berkylvania has just touched on something. Many if not most americans don't view ourselves as an empire.

We could actually be a force for good if we could accept that fact.

Sometimes I wonder if they actually teach Manifest Destiny in school anymore? :roll:

Berkylvania has just touched on something. Many if not most americans don't view ourselves as an empire.

We could actually be a force for good if we could accept that fact.

Sometimes I wonder if they actually teach Manifest Destiny in school anymore? :roll:
Empires are rarely forces for good, even if intended that way. The "progress" that they achieve invariably comes at a huge human cost. Another problem is that an official acknowlegement of empire invites further attack, for all empires invite attack by the mere fact of their existence. Also, with today's technology, empires are so energy intensive that they burn themselves out a lot faster. The lifetime of empires has historically shrunk with each new advance in technology. The last challenge that the US would face is that Europe would be duty-bound to oppose it properly, should the US officialy declare imperial ambitions.

I would think that the authors of the PNAC being in teh head of the US administration would be a declaration of US ambitions.

But that is were it gets hard. Some were German and yet some were by the USSR.

What did your grandpa do?

Mine is Polish and fought the Germans during the invasion and for the Brits....
On the Eastern Front, he commanded the artillery batallion of an assault regiment in the Red Army.

Mine was a foot-slogger in Poland and went into the Para in England.

Impressive. Artillery command is not for dumb people. The German I mentioned said he still got nitemares over atillery attacks. I think he said the Katushas(sp) were the worst.

Rumsfeld should have stepped down. had this been British or Japanese parliament, it would be expected for him to resign. It still baffles me not only that he has done nothing of the sort, but that people argue that his staying is a good thing. I don't understand it.

Culture does play a role in the handling of world matters ...
Are you saying in Britain or Japan it is viewed as more honorable for a top leader to step down and let others muddle through managing the situation, especially when the actions have been conducted by a finite number of individuals considerably further down in the chain of command?
That approach would seem to be a further and more complicating traversty...

The more honorable approach in the U.S. political culture in this situation, however, is for the top person to stay at the helm and be a part of the solution - that's what Rumsfeld is doing, his sworn duty to lead his department through this latest challenge.

Berkylvania has just touched on something. Many if not most americans don't view ourselves as an empire.

We could actually be a force for good if we could accept that fact.

Sometimes I wonder if they actually teach Manifest Destiny in school anymore? :roll:
Empires are rarely forces for good, even if intended that way. The "progress" that they achieve invariably comes at a huge human cost. Another problem is that an official acknowlegement of empire invites further attack, for all empires invite attack by the mere fact of their existence. Also, with today's technology, empires are so energy intensive that they burn themselves out a lot faster. The lifetime of empires has historically shrunk with each new advance in technology. The last challenge that the US would face is that Europe would be duty-bound to oppose it properly, should the US officialy declare imperial ambitions.

True but the peoples denials of the fact allows for men like the Shrub to do what they do.

However, the term empire has also changed. You don't have the sizable armies of the past to force changes on countries.

I don't think Europe has to fear American intentions to forcibly instill it's will on everybody. PNAC will fail. It is designed by men who miss the Cold war.

I still want to belive that the US and Europe are still friends in the end. Even the French! :P I view this period as more like a fight between siblings.

In time the EU will fail its first form. The US will fail it's design.

I would think that if we took the best of the EU laws and the best from the Consititution and the Bill of Rights, we would end up with a pretty damn good set of laws for say a world goverment?

It will happen someday. It has to happen. That is the only way will we see the end of the possible destruction of man.

Mine was a foot-slogger in Poland and went into the Para in England.

Impressive. Artillery command is not for dumb people. The German I mentioned said he still got nitemares over atillery attacks. I think he said the Katushas(sp) were the worst.
His were 152mm field artillery. Actually, his first choice of military career was to train as a surgeon in the medical corps, but the war interrupted that and he had to fall back on his artillery officer training. He never did get to pursue that ambition, sadly.

How many Liberals, worldwide, speak out in anger when Palestinian suicide bombers kill busloads of civilians? How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators?

Actually, my answer to both questions is "all", at least certainly for me. Yep, all *liberals*.

Bush is over.. his approval rating as of today is @ 44%, no president in history has ever won re-election (or re-appointment in Bush's case) with numbers this low 6 months before an election. Kerry will win by default.. mark my words.. You heard it here folks!

Does getting the most votes count as winning? :lol:

Mine was a foot-slogger in Poland and went into the Para in England.

Impressive. Artillery command is not for dumb people. The German I mentioned said he still got nitemares over atillery attacks. I think he said the Katushas(sp) were the worst.
His were 152mm field artillery. Actually, his first choice of military career was to train as a surgeon in the medical corps, but the war interrupted that and he had to fall back on his artillery officer training. He never did get to pursue that ambition, sadly.

That is sad. But that war actually messed up people. For example, my grandfather never strove to do anyting and was a bluecolor his whole life. I have a great-uncle on the american side who was really messed up from the Battle of the Bulge. He would not talk about it. What little we could get out of him was that his unit was over run and he spent a time chasing the Germans trying to get back to their lines.

One of his few times for humor was the Olympics. I don't remember the event but a new record was set and he scoffed and said

"That's nothing! You should have seen all the records I saw for running, jumping, and climbing at the Bulge."

"You would be amazed at what you can do when you have a tank chasing you and shooting at you!"

:lol:

"You would be amazed at what you can do when you have a tank chasing you and shooting at you!"

:lol:
Very true. I bet quite a few unofficial records have been set that way.

i would rather be dtripped naked with oother men and have pictures taken of me than get beheaded
y is having peop;le get nakesd a big deal...im anked right now

Actually, yes, only worse.. because we live in a digital age of instant media.. the actions of the British Empire were not as well known as the actions of what people now do because of the age we live in.

I do believe that American credibility and image perhaps has been forever damaged over the war in Iraq and the unilateralsim of the shrubs actions. At the very least I think it will take years to repair, if ever. The "magic" the USA once enjoyed and the way America was thought of around the world in the past, is gone. I do agree with Tactical in that. That doesn't mean all American people are bad, far from it. It does mean that the world will probably never see America quite the same way again.

Perhaps that's a good thing. While it's nice perhaps to be covered in a patina of perfection, it's an impossibly high pedistal to be on. We were doomed to fall eventually. Is this the way I'd have personally liked to see it happen? Of course not, but who ever is completely happy when reality catches up to the press releases? We're a growing nation and still, in the course of things, a bold new one. We offer many advantages and our own special set of disadvantages, like every other society on the planet. We've gotten our nose bloodied here and have learned a lesson.

The problem is, and this is something you touched on, due to the almost instantaneous availability of information, we are having to make our mistakes under the incredibly focused beam of a very public magnifying glass. The problem with such scrutiny is that it's all too easy to burn the thing being watched.

No nation is without shame, particularly a nation with dreams of empire (which the US has, if we want to admit it or not). They've all done reprehensible things in the past and will continue to do them in the future. It's just important to remember that we must make these same mistakes in a very public platform, whereas every empire before us has at least had the luxury of privacy for their disgraces. It will be interesting to see how this affects the process. Obviously it speeds it up somewhat, but it will be interesting to see what other ways it will change national evolution.

Actually, yes, only worse.. because we live in a digital age of instant media.. the actions of the British Empire were not as well known as the actions of what people now do because of the age we live in.

I do believe that American credibility and image perhaps has been forever damaged over the war in Iraq and the unilateralsim of the shrubs actions. At the very least I think it will take years to repair, if ever. The "magic" the USA once enjoyed and the way America was thought of around the world in the past, is gone. I do agree with Tactical in that. That doesn't mean all American people are bad, far from it. It does mean that the world will probably never see America quite the same way again.

Perhaps that's a good thing. While it's nice perhaps to be covered in a patina of perfection, it's an impossibly high pedistal to be on. We were doomed to fall eventually. Is this the way I'd have personally liked to see it happen? Of course not, but who ever is completely happy when reality catches up to the press releases? We're a growing nation and still, in the course of things, a bold new one. We offer many advantages and our own special set of disadvantages, like every other society on the planet. We've gotten our nose bloodied here and have learned a lesson.

The problem is, and this is something you touched on, due to the almost instantaneous availability of information, we are having to make our mistakes under the incredibly focused beam of a very public magnifying glass. The problem with such scrutiny is that it's all too easy to burn the thing being watched.

No nation is without shame, particularly a nation with dreams of empire (which the US has, if we want to admit it or not). They've all done reprehensible things in the past and will continue to do them in the future. It's just important to remember that we must make these same mistakes in a very public platform, whereas every empire before us has at least had the luxury of privacy for their disgraces. It will be interesting to see how this affects the process. Obviously it speeds it up somewhat, but it will be interesting to see what other ways it will change national evolution.

Very insightful, I fully agree.

Actually, yes, only worse.. because we live in a digital age of instant media.. the actions of the British Empire were not as well known as the actions of what people now do because of the age we live in.

I do believe that American credibility and image perhaps has been forever damaged over the war in Iraq and the unilateralsim of the shrubs actions. At the very least I think it will take years to repair, if ever. The "magic" the USA once enjoyed and the way America was thought of around the world in the past, is gone. I do agree with Tactical in that. That doesn't mean all American people are bad, far from it. It does mean that the world will probably never see America quite the same way again.

Perhaps that's a good thing. While it's nice perhaps to be covered in a patina of perfection, it's an impossibly high pedistal to be on. We were doomed to fall eventually. Is this the way I'd have personally liked to see it happen? Of course not, but who ever is completely happy when reality catches up to the press releases? We're a growing nation and still, in the course of things, a bold new one. We offer many advantages and our own special set of disadvantages, like every other society on the planet. We've gotten our nose bloodied here and have learned a lesson.

The problem is, and this is something you touched on, due to the almost instantaneous availability of information, we are having to make our mistakes under the incredibly focused beam of a very public magnifying glass. The problem with such scrutiny is that it's all too easy to burn the thing being watched.

No nation is without shame, particularly a nation with dreams of empire (which the US has, if we want to admit it or not). They've all done reprehensible things in the past and will continue to do them in the future. It's just important to remember that we must make these same mistakes in a very public platform, whereas every empire before us has at least had the luxury of privacy for their disgraces. It will be interesting to see how this affects the process. Obviously it speeds it up somewhat, but it will be interesting to see what other ways it will change national evolution.

Ok...we are agreeing on way to many things Berk...either I'm gonna make you a Libertarian or we are going to storm back into the Republican National Convention and retake the Party back from the Christian-cross-on-lapel types.

In a way it is a relief to be seen as just like any other nation...that pedestal was just way to high for us to forever stand up on it...We're human beings..nothing more...nothing less. We will make mistakes, and we will accomplish great achievements...I would have thought the World would have recognized that with my generation that is unfair to expect perfection of us..that somehow we should not be expected to act just like any other nation.

I remember a conversation I had...coincidentally with a Canadian (No offense to Steph or Zep....O' Canada...woo.woo..)..He had met me in Los Angelos International as I was coming home from my first tour of duty in Vietnam...of course..he was anti-war..and saw my uniform (they always had to zero on me in uniform..go figure)...asked me how I could commit some of the atrocities that were being accused of us against the Vietnamese..I said to him "What..you expected something else of us?...tell me..did I have a halo on my head before I went?..no..why do you expect me to have one at all?"...He just stared at me..."But..but.you're Americans?"...and I said.."yes..and you're Canadian...and your point is?"

Ok...we are agreeing on way to many things Berk...either I'm gonna make you a Libertarian or we are going to storm back into the Republican National Convention and retake the Party back from the Christian-cross-on-lapel types.If the Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative wing of the Republican party could take it back, the world would be so much better of a place. I may disagree with some of the solutions that that wing of the party puts forth for the problems that beset the country, but they're honest disagreements and I can generally reach a compromise with them. And even if I can't, the discussions are at least reasonable. I wish the McCain/Snowe/Chaffee Republicans were the majority in the party instead of the minority.

Ok...we are agreeing on way to many things Berk...either I'm gonna make you a Libertarian or we are going to storm back into the Republican National Convention and retake the Party back from the Christian-cross-on-lapel types.If the Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative wing of the Republican party could take it back, the world would be so much better of a place. I may disagree with some of the solutions that that wing of the party puts forth for the problems that beset the country, but they're honest disagreements and I can generally reach a compromise with them. And even if I can't, the discussions are at least reasonable. I wish the McCain/Snowe/Chaffee Republicans were the majority in the party instead of the minority.

I wish that Senate Democrats like Z. Miller/Breaux/Lieberman made uo the majority of their party, rather than the minority. :cry:

I wish that Senate Democrats like Z. Miller/Breaux/Lieberman made uo the majority of their party, rather than the minority. :cry:I'll make you a deal--you take Miller, Lieberman and Breaux (even though I voted for him) and we'll take McCain, Snowe and Chaffee. Deal?

I wish that Senate Democrats like Z. Miller/Breaux/Lieberman made uo the majority of their party, rather than the minority. :cry:I'll make you a deal--you take Miller, Lieberman and Breaux (even though I voted for him) and we'll take McCain, Snowe and Chaffee. Deal?

How about this.

Take them all and start a 3rd party?

I wish that Senate Democrats like Z. Miller/Breaux/Lieberman made uo the majority of their party, rather than the minority. :cry:I'll make you a deal--you take Miller, Lieberman and Breaux (even though I voted for him) and we'll take McCain, Snowe and Chaffee. Deal?

How about this.

Take them all and start a 3rd party?

We'd never have enough Reps to do anything more then be an annoyance to either party..now..Senators..this is where our strength would lay...We all see how just one independent threw the Senate in a tizzy..can you imagine if we got a block of like 4 of them?

Ok...we are agreeing on way to many things Berk...either I'm gonna make you a Libertarian or we are going to storm back into the Republican National Convention and retake the Party back from the Christian-cross-on-lapel types.If the Libertarian/Fiscal Conservative wing of the Republican party could take it back, the world would be so much better of a place. I may disagree with some of the solutions that that wing of the party puts forth for the problems that beset the country, but they're honest disagreements and I can generally reach a compromise with them. And even if I can't, the discussions are at least reasonable. I wish the McCain/Snowe/Chaffee Republicans were the majority in the party instead of the minority.

Me too. Fiscal conservatives don't launch holy wars like religious conservatives... :shock:

I wish that Senate Democrats like Z. Miller/Breaux/Lieberman made uo the majority of their party, rather than the minority. :cry:I'll make you a deal--you take Miller, Lieberman and Breaux (even though I voted for him) and we'll take McCain, Snowe and Chaffee. Deal?

Red Rover, Red Rover, send John, Olympia, & Lincoln on over... :lol:

Ok...we are agreeing on way to many things Berk...either I'm gonna make you a Libertarian or we are going to storm back into the Republican National Convention and retake the Party back from the Christian-cross-on-lapel types.


I just read this. Why in God's name would you wish Libertarianism on me, Salishe? What have I ever done to you? :D

As for the other, I'm up for it, but I don't think the Christian-cross-on-lapel types are going to go without a bloody and, ironically, "holy" fight and, as a pacificst, I'm afraid I'm limited to non-violent protest. :D

And thats suppossed to be an excuse for Rumsfelds' incomptence? Look, if he isn't up for the job he should make room for someone who is, period.

Obviously you haven't been following any of the coverage that has illustrated over the past three years what an incredible job Rumsfeld has been doing in heading up our national defense.


Obviously you haven't been following any of the recent coverage that illustrated that Rumsfeld has had knowledge of POW being tortured by US soldiers for half a year or so, and neglected to bring that information to the attention of Congress... :roll:

If you are talking bout Iraq..the investigations have only go on since January....

It was Rumsfeld himself who admitted having had knowledge of the torture of POW by US soldiers since last year. Like I said "half a year or so". What do the investigations that you brought up have to do with this?


and it was being handled.....and if it was being handled..of what military purpose does it serve for the Secretary of Defense to talk to Congress?

This is about the stupidest apology you've brought forth thus far in an attempt to defend Rumsfeld, Salishe, which is saying something :(

If you really think that "because it served no military purpose" is good enough then you go and tell that to all the senators who feel, and rightfully so I should add, that Rumsfeld was in neglect when he kept that data from them. Their reply would undoubtedly be: "Don't be daft, boy!"


they aren't in his Chain of Command are they?...

Again, bringing this forth as an apology for his neglect is pathetic. Especially considering it comes from the same person who tried to make a case for the spirit of the law being more important than the letter of the law, something that can easily be extended to "the spirit of one's responsibilities is more important than the responsibilities that exist in your workcontract". Don't let this slight oversight on your part bother you though.

*just more petty excuses that aren't worth reading*

Oh..what a revisionist we are....systematic rape?...hardly..there are reports but hardly system-wide..

Everything indicates that the tortured POW were indeed systematically raped.


and they are being handled..were being handled..and I agree whole-heartedly that passive interrogation techniques should be utilized...and in fact many nation's law enforcement and military utilize these methods.

I see. "Because many nation's law enforcement and military utilize these methods it MUST BE ALLRIGHT!!".... :roll: Real solid reasoning there, Salishe. Just as I've come to expect from you. :lol:

And I don't know that they weren't terrorists??...Do you have some proof they weren't?..

Yes, the army itself admits that 70% to 90% is innocent. Also, as mentioned in a previous post, innocent till found guilty in the court of law, right? Or maybe that doesn't apply to Iraqi POW? :(

As for orders given..not one of the over 30 investigations currently being conducted indicates that any high ranking officer or State Dept official gave orders too..alluded too..suggested too that torture was acceptable.

As you pointed out, those investigations are still being conducted. Who knows what they will turn up with? Personally, I find it hard to believe soldiers would just go and risk getting their ass court-martialed by torturing POW simply because they feel like it. You'd have to admit that to be very unlikely.


..can you provide one shred of proof that any orders came down to abuse or torture prisoners?

Again, it seems most unlikely torture on that scale, we're not talking about a random event here, at the hands of US soldiers was the result of a few soldiers who acted on their own initiative because they felt it was.... the right thing to do? fun? deserving?

dp

In a way it is a relief to be seen as just like any other nation...that pedestal was just way to high for us to forever stand up on it...We're human beings..nothing more...nothing less. We will make mistakes, and we will accomplish great achievements...I would have thought the World would have recognized that with my generation that is unfair to expect perfection of us..that somehow we should not be expected to act just like any other nation.

Actually, it was the US who put the US on a pedestral, expecting perfection from the US, not the world. The world has been well aware for quite some time now how flawed the US is. And the only one's the USofA has ever fooled into buying that false image of the USofA is that same USofA.

Mmmmh, oki, thats not entirely true, some third world countries fell for the myth as well :(

... How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators?

Every single Liberal I know supports that idea...I cant say the same for my Rigth-wingers friends.

... How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators?

Every single Liberal I know supports that idea...I cant say the same for my Rigth-wingers friends.
Then why did no Liberals support the war to remove Saddam from power? You guys must have a very odd definition of dictator.

Then why did no Liberals support the war to remove Saddam from power? You guys must have a very odd definition of dictator.
It is simple. For a lot of people, such as myself (actually I am a Centrist), support for a war is conditional on being told the truth about it. Since the US and UK governments treated me (and everyone else) like an idiot over this issue, they do not have my support on it. It really does not matter what the cause actually is anymore. They tried to get me to buy their sh*t, I had them clocked, they lose out.

The same goes for the future too. Next time they try to sell me a war and patronise me, they won't have my support either, regardless of the war's actual morality.

... How many Liberals, total, support the idea of freeing oppressed peoples from brutal dictators?

Every single Liberal I know supports that idea...I cant say the same for my Rigth-wingers friends.
Then why did no Liberals support the war to remove Saddam from power? You guys must have a very odd definition of dictator.

There is some thing to be said for the way things are done. The ends don't always justify the means.. Saddam was an evil dude.. but the way the shrub went about it, leaves much to be desired. It's not just about the end result, yet, how you get there matters too. Lets not forget our old math teachers.. ;)