NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

Tell me, are you honestly surprised about this incident? I certainly am not.

This story would fall under the category of "News to who?"

oh purlease!

What? You don't think we're outraged by that stuff too? It's just that US soldiers are SUPPOSED to be following the Geneva convention and such. Just because American troops are ignoring their duties doesn't mean we don't find those brutal mob killings disgusting.

*shrugs*
I don't like it, but I can't say I'm suprised.
You invade their country, cause thousands of deaths and act suprised when they show jubilation when one of their enemies is killed?

The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.

*doesn't remember hordes of liberals dancing in the streets*

*blinks*

:?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?
That's because acting outraged over such things would subvert their anti-American, anti-Bush, and anti-military agendas. They'd cheer for such things themselves if they could get away with it.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?
That's because acting outraged over such things would subvert their anti-American, anti-Bush, and anti-military agendas. They'd cheer for such things themselves if they could get away with it.

great. another dittohead

This is because of racism of the worst kind: the kind that excuses acts because one side is considered morally superior to the other. Right? Hence no reference to one side supposedly supporting the Geneva convention.

What happened in the prisons is disgusting, needs to be addressed, and needs to be punished.

http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5109338&section=news

This, and other mob murders are revolting as well and need not be excused.

The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.That's certainly part of it. The other is that the Iraqis are doing pretty much what I would be doing if my country had been invaded by and was being controlled by an invading force. I don't give a shit what reason the invaders would give, whether they honestly thought they were soming in to save me and mine. In my mind, invaders are enemies, and you do whatever you must to get rid of the invaders.

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?

I have no double standards; I think that killing is wrong whoever does it. Yet, I would consider myself a liberal, and no doubt the threadstarter would too.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?
That's because acting outraged over such things would subvert their anti-American, anti-Bush, and anti-military agendas. They'd cheer for such things themselves if they could get away with it.

Oh yay, another mindless BushBot.

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?
It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush Haters

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?
It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush Haters

we're condemning it now, you capitalist swine.

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?
It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush HatersBecause maybe it has not been brought up? Because maybe when it was you weren't around? Perhaps maybe they were showing as much INDIFFERENCE as they (well not they so much as we, I'm lefty) are now? Note that indifference and cheering our troops's deaths are not the same thing.

It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush Haters

thats not the same as saying its OK
i dont recall a big presidential news conference on it either

The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.That's certainly part of it. The other is that the Iraqis are doing pretty much what I would be doing if my country had been invaded by and was being controlled by an invading force. I don't give a shit what reason the invaders would give, whether they honestly thought they were soming in to save me and mine. In my mind, invaders are enemies, and you do whatever you must to get rid of the invaders.

Well..gee...mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power...that way, the Shiites would never have been able to practice their faith, nor held demostrations...Sadr would never have been allowed back into the country because Saddam would have had him shot, the Sunnis would have still be on top, with all the perks given to them at the expense of the Shiites and Kurds, the Kurds would still be an oppressed people and open to violence by Saddam, the rape rooms by Oday and Usay would still be in use, their daughters, moms, and aunt being violated to the vile likes of them...Saddam would still be living large in any of his 37 palaces, all the while giving kickbacks to French and Russian companies.

But at least no international laws would be broke.

Well..gee...mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power...that way, the Shiites would never have been able to practice their faith, nor held demostrations...Sadr would never have been allowed back into the country because Saddam would have had him shot, the Sunnis would have still be on top, with all the perks given to them at the expense of the Shiites and Kurds, the Kurds would still be an oppressed people and open to violence by Saddam, the rape rooms by Oday and Usay would still be in use, their daughters, moms, and aunt being violated to the vile likes of them...Saddam would still be living large in any of his 37 palaces, all the while giving kickbacks to French and Russian companies.

But at least no international laws would be broke.Don't try to make me into a Saddam apologist. That's bullshit and you know it.

The question above had absolutely zero to do with Hussein--it had to do with why I haven't condemned the actions of people who look at the US as invaders, and that's the reason I answered as I did.

Hussein was a sonofabitch, no question, and in the long run, Iraq might be better off that he's gone, although the way we've botched this thing up, it'll be a very long run before things improve. But don't you for one second even try to pretend that the way Hussein ran his country was anywhere close to the top of the list of the reasons the US gave for invasion. The only reason the Bush administration gave was WMD. Danger. Terrorism. Imminent threat to the safety and security to the US.

All this crap about doing it for the good of the Iraqi people is bullshit coverup because they haven't found any other justification. I respect you Salishe, but don't try to make my argument into something it isn't.

I am pissed at both sides on this one. First off, damn the Iraqi's for their anger (we've tried to help them in a roundabout way). Damn our troops for theirs (Himmler, Goering, Gobbels, and the rest of the Nazi cabinet followed "orders" too). Why did we start this thing in the first place? Lord knows why, but now we must not sucumb to the dark temptation of revenge. Saddam was a rough guy but he is still BETTER than a US occupation force that doesn't kick the shit out of the Shiites, for causing chaos in the streets. Have WE ever tried crowd control ?
But now we are there anyway and now we must win their hearts not replace Saddam with Rumsfeld. We are better served to run these morons over with tanks than to capture them and laugh at their wangs. Arabs have more respect for battle than sacreligious humor. We must show them that resistance is futile and not play some kind of "Israeli war of personel attrition". We may not have a damn reason for this but so help me god we will destroy all that should oppose us. Out with the Humvees and IN with the Abrams tanks and lets blow them to pieces !

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

WHAT THE FUCK? WHY WOULD YOU THINK I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS BECAUSE OF MY POLITICAL AFFILIATION? I SUPPORTED THE WAR AND I'M A MODERATE PROGRESSIVE/LIBERAL.

The caps are to show my yelling and anger. This really just touched a nerve.

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

We have problems right here in America, why not America First?
I respect Saddam for his control but it was rather brutal. Most of the people he had killed were iranian spies and their "families", traitors, and general criminals. We kill just the same but we have a red tape justice system that drawls their deaths out over the years, basicly cooking the books. :roll:
We also have a bio-chemical arsenal that would prevent a martian invasion. We use ours to "promote" democratic puppet states and further capitalism. Saddam wanted self-defense, I can't blame the N. Koreans for the same.

The outrage came before the war even began, you ass. When more people than ever before protested the war. The outrage was in the streets, it's been there the entire time. Are you such a fucking moron to believe that the concern was only for Iraqi lives? Pull your head out of your ass. Of course we're outraged, you just had your head burried too far in the sand to hear it.

The difference is there aren't people going on the radio and the airwaves saying "Hey, this is just frat-house style humor." The difference is an unorganized rable in the streets is NOT Iraq, but soldiers wearing my fucking flag and acting on behalf of my fucking government DO represent me, whether I like it or not. Because I have to sit here listening to people say we're better so I want to HOLD THEM TO THAT FUCKING STANDARD. Damn this shit is stupid.

The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.That's certainly part of it. The other is that the Iraqis are doing pretty much what I would be doing if my country had been invaded by and was being controlled by an invading force. I don't give a shit what reason the invaders would give, whether they honestly thought they were soming in to save me and mine. In my mind, invaders are enemies, and you do whatever you must to get rid of the invaders.

Well..gee...mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power...that way, the Shiites would never have been able to practice their faith, nor held demostrations...Sadr would never have been allowed back into the country because Saddam would have had him shot, the Sunnis would have still be on top, with all the perks given to them at the expense of the Shiites and Kurds, the Kurds would still be an oppressed people and open to violence by Saddam, the rape rooms by Oday and Usay would still be in use, their daughters, moms, and aunt being violated to the vile likes of them...Saddam would still be living large in any of his 37 palaces, all the while giving kickbacks to French and Russian companies.

But at least no international laws would be broke.

Settle down there sloshie..... I for one will be happy to say yay for the invasion, down with Saddam as soon as the US government apologizes for giving our friend Saddam all the guns in the first place. The Bush administration has failed to admit their own complicity (we have all seen Rummy and Sadddam in the cosy photos from the 1980's). The fact is that two wrongs do not make a right and they never have. If the administration framed their agression as 'sorry about the 1980's folks, lets correct our mistake then i think a lot more liberals would be willing to support them.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

I, a liberal, was *deeply* disgusted by both of these! dont tell me that I condone of something really sick!

Finally! A chance to post my favoritest picture of Rumsfeld in the whole wide world!!!
http://www.thekillingzone.net/saddam.jpg -Notice Wolfowitz in the background!

Why haven't the conservatives apologized for this??!! Is it because they secretly supported Saddam Hussein? Would they be dancing in the streets if he was re-instated to power? Only if they could get away with it!!! [/sarcasm]

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?
It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush Haters

Gosh, and it happened what? just a couple of hours ago? On a Sunday? Darn.... why didn't we all rush in here from our weekend relaxation to vent....


:roll:


But now that you mention it, while I deplore the desecration of bodies I still do see a slight diference between an expression of that sort towards the invaders by a population still suffering under the circumstances that they find themselves in, and the deliberate actions against prisoners by supposedly well trained troops there to spread freedom, democracy, and an end to the torturous abuses by those in power in Iraq.

What these Iraqis did was abhorent. What the soldiers at the prison did was also abhorent, and also was something which had the capability to completely undermine the effort at hand. From that perspective, there are larger ramifications to the torture case.

-Z-

Heh, another neo-con trying to stir the same old ****. Face it, the liberals whose shadows you see dancing in the streets of America at the news of US casualties do not exist. You would like them to exist, to justify your world view, but that is not quite the same thing. Hatred and delusion, that's the sole premise of this thread. Heh, I doubt you even know what you mean by liberal.

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.
As the worlds only superpower we have a we have a right to take out dictators for those less capable of doing so. We are morally bound to do so when possible, providing the situation won't end up worse in the long run (Like it would if we let communists rule a country).

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.
As the worlds only superpower we have a we have a right to take out dictators for those less capable of doing so. We are morally bound to do so when possible, providing the situation won't end up worse in the long run (Like it would if we let communists rule a country).

Some people might just argue that having the ability does not equate to having the right.

Certainly we might argue that there is no moral mandate to invade a country, occupy it, sell off it's assets, and attempt to inflict your own form of government upon it.

And in fact - I DO argue that point!

-Z-

And to respond to the initial post as well....

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Why are you ragging on only one side here Auburn?

You post a news story from 4:45 ET at about 7:00 ET, and immediately bitch that only the left side of the political spectrum hasn't rushed to the board to scream about this?

Where the hell has the Right been? Why haven't a bunch of conservatives been faster to the news wire and been here screaming about it already?

Oh right..... because being sensible like that wouldn't give you an excuse to simply bash your political opponents and state patent falshoods about people of one political leaning having double standards.

:roll:


Edit: While my commentary on the unfairness of your rant still stands...I just went and actually read the article....

Soooooooooooo.... and noting the bolded point in your quote from above above..... you are complaining that people cheer at westerners getting rescued from a burning vehicle?


Interesting..............

What? You don't think we're outraged by that stuff too? It's just that US soldiers are SUPPOSED to be following the Geneva convention and such. Just because American troops are ignoring their duties doesn't mean we don't find those brutal mob killings disgusting.
Right on the money.

We expect western countries/democracies (and I use that term loosely) to be better than that.

who said it was OK?

what liberal came out and said "good job"?
It has never been condemed by you liberals/progressives/Bush Haters
FALSE!!!!

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?
I don't. I'm against the torture of both. Hell, I hope we FIND them bastards that killed the contractors!

What happened to the last page? Did Stephistan and company not like the opinions expressed therein?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?
I don't. I'm against the torture of both. Hell, I hope we FIND them bastards that killed the contractors!
Ummmm the US already killed 600 Iraqis as retribution when they invaded Fallujah, or did you forget?

Remember these words?:

Pledge to hunt down insurgents
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt pledged to hunt down those who carried out Wednesday’s killings

“We are not going to do a pell-mell rush into the city. It will be deliberate, it will be precise and it will be overwhelming."

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?

[quote=SuperHappyFun]The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.That's certainly part of it. The other is that the Iraqis are doing pretty much what I would be doing if my country had been invaded by and was being controlled by an invading force. I don't give a shit what reason the invaders would give, whether they honestly thought they were soming in to save me and mine. In my mind, invaders are enemies, and you do whatever you must to get rid of the invaders.

Well..gee...mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power...that way, the Shiites would never have been able to practice their faith, nor held demostrations

Remember these words Salishe?

"I say waste the friggin entire Sunni Triangle..the rest of the country is pretty much pacified..let the Shiites and Kurds argue over what is left. "

Different day, same pile of shit?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

The entire problem with you NA,
Is that you actually believe that "us liberals" DONT have a problem with it.
You automatically assume that "us liberals" are anti-american...wich is the most insulting thing ever....or that we dont care about our soldiers.

You cant be argued with..becvuase you simply refuse to listen to anything anyone says...

Wich might be alright if you were ever right about anything...

But you never are.

We are outraged. My uncle is fighting over there right now and God forbid that ever happen to him. I value all life equal. An iraqis life is the same as an American Soldier. I want both to have freedom, a job, clean food, clean water, and an education. I want both to live. So never EVER say that I am not outraged by one of our soldiers getting killed.

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

What about a liberal Arab American? :?

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

What about a liberal Arab American? :?
na,

kill them all

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

whoa have you got problemos.

all life is equal shmakafoo

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

whoa have you got problemos.

all life is equal shmakafoo
one of my countryman's lives is worth more than any other non-American's life.

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

whoa have you got problemos.

all life is equal shmakafoo
one of my countryman's lives is worth more than any other non-American's life.

your a load.

and im ashamed to call you my countryman.

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

whoa have you got problemos.

all life is equal shmakafoo
one of my countryman's lives is worth more than any other non-American's life.

Sad. Little. Man. Or should I say boy because lets face it...your morality is that of a 5 year old.

Luckily not all Americans are as ignorant as you. Nor as vile.

Lets have a look at this sentence...

It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?

Now kids before this gtes carried away, let's hold hands and sing some Chrissie Hynde music. :twisted:

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American
Saying that, how can you possibly start a post about liberals not being outraged by what happened to American soldiers?

When you make comments such as that you don't represent democracy or decency at all. You also tend to lose credibility, not that you already haven't?

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American
Saying that, how can you possibly start a post about liberals not being outraged by what happened to American soldiers?

When you make comments such as that you don't represent democracy or decency at all. You also tend to lose credibility, not that you already haven't?
I am outraged by neither the people cheering dead Brits or the prison abuse. War is War. Shit like that will happen. I accept all of it and don't get all PMSey like some people seem to.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Who said 'we' did? It's wrong, but its more understandable. It's like if Iraq had invaded the USA- would you be more against Saddam Hussein torturing people in Alcatraz or some Rednecks lynching the Republican Guard?

Is a 600 to 4 ratio acceptable?
It would take the whole Arab world to attempt to make up for the loss of one American
Saying that, how can you possibly start a post about liberals not being outraged by what happened to American soldiers?

When you make comments such as that you don't represent democracy or decency at all. You also tend to lose credibility, not that you already haven't?
I am outraged by neither the people cheering dead Brits or the prison abuse. War is War. Shit like that will happen. I accept all of it and don't get all PMSey like some people seem to.

Yet are you outraged by US soldiers being killed, and US security contractors being killed and the deaths being celebrated?

If so, why? As you so eloquently put it "War is War. Shit like that will happen".

Yet are you outraged by US soldiers being killed, and US security contractors being killed and the deaths being celebrated?

If so, why? As you so eloquently put it "War is War. Shit like that will happen".
No I am not outraged by it. I don't lose any sleep over it. Both the contractors and the soldiers over there knew the risk when they signed up and have to deal with it.

What pisses me off is some people not giving a fuck about bodies getting dragged thru the streets while you bitch and moan about some pictures of some naked dudes.

War is war, either hate the whole idea of it (death and destructionave) or accept the fact that war is what it is, like I do.

Ok, I think you missed the issue here. Yes the media has "over-hyped" the whole photos thing but does that make it everything all better? We still walked into a country claiming we were there to stop something we did once we got there. It's not only irony it's tragic irony. And the real issue is that killing is killing and we should be killing & dying in Iraq in first place. By the way - I don't even like Kerry I just think Bush has nothing but the politics of fear on his side.

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

What happened to the last page? Did Stephistan and company not like the opinions expressed therein?

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't touch any thing nor did any other mod I'm aware of.. Stop smoking crack, it will wreck your brain.. :roll:

...maybe a goat ate it. :wink:

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

Wasn't our call to make?...Does Canada dictate to us how to run our affairs?....Does Nigeria?...Sri Lanka?...the UN?...the only thing that gives America the right to do anything is our national interests and the US Constitution..

And pray tell, short of military force, with what means would you have deposed Saddam?..

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

Wasn't our call to make?...Does Canada dictate to us how to run our affairs?....Does Nigeria?...Sri Lanka?...the UN?...the only thing that gives America the right to do anything is our national interests and the US Constitution...

1) Your US Constitution means squat outside of your own borders.

2) No one said the United States were elected as the world police

3) I don't think any sovereign nation should dictate to another.. (I'm happy we finally agree)

1) Your US Constitution means squat outside of your own borders.

2) No one said the United States were elected as the world police

3) I don't think any sovereign nation should dictate to another.. (I'm happy we finally agree)
1. True,
2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.
3. Every state will do what is in its best intrest regardless of what international law is. The international political system is one of anarchy, and until a central authority is made, it will always be like that. The current UN charter is about as binding to the member countries as the Articles of Confederation were to the 13 colonies after the American Revolution.

We Liberals/Progressives/Left Wingers hate these atrocities as much as the next conservative. We may even hate it more because we are ideologically opposed to such brutal actions being more in favour of more subtle methods such as assassinating or kidnapping Saddam or a continuation of diplomacy.
I would only have gone along with the war if we had given the UN inspectors more time to complete their work and if we had planned post-war administration more fully. It disgusts me how the US administration planned so dismally.

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

Wasn't our call to make?...Does Canada dictate to us how to run our affairs?....Does Nigeria?...Sri Lanka?...the UN?...the only thing that gives America the right to do anything is our national interests and the US Constitution...

1) Your US Constitution means squat outside of your own borders.

2) No one said the United States were elected as the world police

3) I don't think any sovereign nation should dictate to another.. (I'm happy we finally agree)

Very weak there Steph..I noticed you didn't say anything bout my last question...pray tell...other then force...would you have undertaken to remove Saddam?..He wasn't going anywhere...and we didn't do it unilaterally...there were 28 UN members that went along with us.

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?
Because France acted in their own self intrest (see #3) and vetoed any UN resolution in the Security Council.

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

Wasn't our call to make?...Does Canada dictate to us how to run our affairs?....Does Nigeria?...Sri Lanka?...the UN?...the only thing that gives America the right to do anything is our national interests and the US Constitution...

1) Your US Constitution means squat outside of your own borders.

2) No one said the United States were elected as the world police

3) I don't think any sovereign nation should dictate to another.. (I'm happy we finally agree)

Very weak there Steph.

No, not weak.. and yet, I don't expect an ex-military grunt to understand the world of diplomacy, any more then you can expect me to know how to fire an AK-47 properly..

When it comes to you, nothing personal.. I'm going to decline the debate.. it's too narrow for my view..

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?
Because France acted in their own self intrest (see #3) and vetoed any UN resolution in the Security Council.

You better check your sources.. France didn't veto any thing.. no resolution was put to vote..

You don't see a problem with that statement?

mebbe we should have let that murderous psyhopath stay in power

As if you had some inherent right to dictate your values and or morals unto another sovereign nation. Some people never cease to amaze.

Ohhh...so you would have been fine with him staying in power then, as long as your Holy Grail of international law was observed?

That's not what I'm saying.. What I'm saying is it wasn't the United States right to unilaterally make that decision. Had this administration had an ounce of knowledge in foreign affairs and international diplomacy, they could of got Saddam out without the huge cost it's been to the American tax payer and more so, the huge cost of lives....

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.

Wasn't our call to make?...Does Canada dictate to us how to run our affairs?....Does Nigeria?...Sri Lanka?...the UN?...the only thing that gives America the right to do anything is our national interests and the US Constitution...

1) Your US Constitution means squat outside of your own borders.

2) No one said the United States were elected as the world police

3) I don't think any sovereign nation should dictate to another.. (I'm happy we finally agree)

Very weak there Steph.

No, not weak.. and yet, I don't expect an ex-military grunt to understand the world of diplomacy, any more then you can expect me to know how to fire an AK-47 properly..

When it comes to you, nothing personal.. I'm going to decline the debate.. it's too narrow for my view..

You presume to much....we tried diplomacy...what you fail to understand is Middle Eastern cultural modes....they regard the fist mightier then the brain....always have..always will...that's why their region has always either had monarchs, tribal warlords, shiekhs, autocrats, dictators, etc..etc...they admire strength and regard compromise as a sign of weakness. The ultimate believers in "might makes right"..

I gave you a simple question...you're response is..."I'm not sophisticated enough to understand your response"?...you believe that piece of paper that you worked so admirably for years for indicates you have a better grasp of world politics/diplomacy...I say it's worthless without knowledge on the ground..an ear to the ground so to speak...

Listen Steph..you're dreaming if you thought Saddam was going to step down on the basis of us sitting down with him for tea. Now..it was a simple enough question..without the use of force..how would the use of diplomacy that you admire so much removed Saddam? He did what he wanted 12 AFTER the first Gulf War..hell.to hear his people he WON that war?

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?
Because France acted in their own self intrest (see #3) and vetoed any UN resolution in the Security Council.

You better check your sources.. France didn't veto any thing.. no resolution was put to vote..
Because France promised to veto any resolution put on the table. The US knew there was no use in putting forth a resolution.

You presume to much....we tried diplomacy...what you fail to understand is Middle Eastern cultural modes....they regard the fist mightier then the brain....always have..always will...that's why their region has always either had monarchs, tribal warlords, shiekhs, autocrats, dictators, etc..etc...they admire strength and regard compromise as a sign of weakness. The ultimate believers in "might makes right"..

Then by your logic, trying to impose democracy is futile and therefore the goals of this war are now rendered irrelevent and false.

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?
Because France acted in their own self intrest (see #3) and vetoed any UN resolution in the Security Council.

You better check your sources.. France didn't veto any thing.. no resolution was put to vote..
Because France promised to veto any resolution put on the table. The US knew there was no use in putting forth a resolution.

Actually if Im not mistaken...

They promised to veto any resolution that involved military conflict, untill all other possibilities had been exhuasted.
The weapons inspectors were finding nothing.....becuase there was nothing to find.....
they werent allowed to finisher their work.....

All other possibilities were NOT exhausted.

2. True, but we have been forced into that role because the UN has no muscle to enforce their decisions.

So why then, did bush invade Iraq, without the full support of the U.N?
Because France acted in their own self intrest (see #3) and vetoed any UN resolution in the Security Council.

You better check your sources.. France didn't veto any thing.. no resolution was put to vote..
Because France promised to veto any resolution put on the table. The US knew there was no use in putting forth a resolution.

France actually told the US to go ahead behind closed doors as was reported.. (I'll find the source) That for political (not economic) reasons they couldn't publicly support them.. but not to put another resolution forward because they might I stress might have to veto it..

As it turns out.. the world was right, the USA and the UK were wrong.. every one sees that now.. why are people holding onto these delusions? Only a very small % agree with what the USA is doing.. about 42% of Americans last time I checked.. they messed it up.. they didn't have a plan.. Bush has wrecked your image.. don't get mad at me.. get mad at the people who did it.. Bush & co..

Any way.. Have a nice day.. I'm gone.. :)

Zep- if you read this from work, can you please find the source about France giving the ok behind closed doors... it's in that article about Bush decided to go to war with Iraq on Sept 20 2001 I believe.. I have to go.. but I want it sourced to back up what I'm saying..

Thanks! Have Great Day Hun :)

Steph!~

Zep- if you read this from work, can you please find the source about France giving the ok behind closed doors... it's in that article about Bush decided to go to war with Iraq on Sept 20 2001 I believe.. I have to go.. but I want it sourced to back up what I'm saying..

Thanks! Have Great Day Hun :)

Steph!~

couldnt ya just call him? :wink:

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?Of course thats not okay, why on earth would it be?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

A typical response from a conservative.

Show me where any, repeat any, "liberals/progressives/Bush haters" have shown any approval of these actions.

It is just as "logical" to say that all conservatives support the indicriminate use of torture and the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Try to remember back to your early schooling where I am confident that you would have heard the old expression "two wrongs do not make a right".

The important difference, of course, is that the coalition forces claim to be acting in support of "freedom" and "human rights".

Zep- if you read this from work, can you please find the source about France giving the ok behind closed doors... it's in that article about Bush decided to go to war with Iraq on Sept 20 2001 I believe.. I have to go.. but I want it sourced to back up what I'm saying..

Thanks! Have Great Day Hun :)

Steph!~

Here you go dear.

The thread that I brought that up in was This one (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137034&highlight=) The one that detailed the fact that GW was focusing on Iraq only nine days after 9-11 despite knowing full well by then that the people that attacked the US had been Al Qaeda.

The specific story that I referenced regarding France's green-light can be foundhere (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1185407,00.html)

And it can be verified via other news stories with simple searches on the people's names involved in that meeting.

To quote from it:

Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead.

France knew it's people would not support this war without better evidence of WMD and complicity in international terrorism than GW had at the time, and it had no intention of involving itself in a percieved rush to war without allowing the inspctors to complete their work, or the discovery of a real "smoking gun". Their offer was that they would not publicly dissent if GW just used 1441 and went ahead, but that if forced to make a public show of support via a UN vote that they would not be able to vote in GW's favor.

But GW insisted on trying to nail them with his whole BS freedom fries / public attempts at humiliation anyway, despite knowing full well what the answer was, and having been told in a way that gave him an out to avoid the diplomatic schism that followed. And GW even went steps further than normally happens in diplomatic dust-ups and made it personal between himself and the French - thus possibly screwing any good chance of support on anything else coming down the line in the future.


Which is why I repeat that GW has no f-ing clue on how to handle foreign relations. And also that he completely sidetracked himself from the real war on terror to go after Saddam.


Somewhere, you just know that Osama is laughing his ass off at the position GW has put himself in.


-Z-

We expect western countries/democracies (and I use that term loosely) to be better than that.

And I reiterate, it is racist. It says, "We believe those middle-eastern guys to be inherently inferior and incapable of behaving like the superior western guys."

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.
As the worlds only superpower we have a we have a right to take out dictators for those less capable of doing so. We are morally bound to do so when possible, providing the situation won't end up worse in the long run (Like it would if we let communists rule a country).

Some people might just argue that having the ability does not equate to having the right.

Certainly we might argue that there is no moral mandate to invade a country, occupy it, sell off it's assets, and attempt to inflict your own form of government upon it.

And in fact - I DO argue that point!

-Z-

Democracy is the only form of moral government. In order to take out a dictator such as Saddam, there is no other choice then some sort of military force. To secure the best future for the country, then we have to occupy it. And selling its assets to companies willing to go in not only provides money for the reconstruction, but gets things organized. If, when the country gets re-organized and independent, it wants to re-nationalize or buy back whatever assets have been sold, they can. And it would be wrong to just put the country under another dictator.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

A typical response from a conservative.

Show me where any, repeat any, "liberals/progressives/Bush haters" have shown any approval of these actions.

It is just as "logical" to say that all conservatives support the indicriminate use of torture and the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Try to remember back to your early schooling where I am confident that you would have heard the old expression "two wrongs do not make a right".

The important difference, of course, is that the coalition forces claim to be acting in support of "freedom" and "human rights".

Smeagol-Gollum, I don't know if you read the other posts on this thread, but New Auburnland severely damaged his credibility on this topic by the comments that he made on this page, regarding the death of Arabs:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149361&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40

While many posters liberal and/or conservative are outraged by the atrocities committed by both sides in this Iraq War, I am far more disturbed/outraged by the views of the original poster of this thread.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Why do you find rape and torturing till dead and the locking up of 100's of innocant Iraqi's OK? :shock:


Why do speak of abuse when it's about pure murder and the growing of US bastards in muslim womens body (wich can mean their dead in a strict muslim society) after their rape in jails?

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Why do you find rape and torturing till dead and the locking up of 100's of innocant Iraqi's OK? :shock:


Why do speak of abuse when it's about pure murder and the growing of US bastards in muslim womens body (wich can mean their dead in a strict muslim society) after their rape in jails?

As of last nite...I've not found one article bout Iraqi women raped in jail by US servicemembers, let alone one confirming pregnancies, but I can show you reams of links to women who were raped by Oday and Usay?

The reality is, it wasn't just America's call to make. You had no right, legally or otherwise.
As the worlds only superpower we have a we have a right to take out dictators for those less capable of doing so. We are morally bound to do so when possible, providing the situation won't end up worse in the long run (Like it would if we let communists rule a country).

Some people might just argue that having the ability does not equate to having the right.

Certainly we might argue that there is no moral mandate to invade a country, occupy it, sell off it's assets, and attempt to inflict your own form of government upon it.

And in fact - I DO argue that point!

-Z-

Democracy is the only form of moral government. In order to take out a dictator such as Saddam, there is no other choice then some sort of military force. To secure the best future for the country, then we have to occupy it. And selling its assets to companies willing to go in not only provides money for the reconstruction, but gets things organized. If, when the country gets re-organized and independent, it wants to re-nationalize or buy back whatever assets have been sold, they can. And it would be wrong to just put the country under another dictator.

Democaracy is no more enherantly moral than any other form of government, unless it were a completely open form which is impossible as no country can manage that and maintain security. If you think that democracy by itself leads to morality in decision making, then you are living in a fantasy world - especially as long as politicians are beholden to business interests that funded their ascent to power. Democracy did, after all, lead to Hitler. And how many other imoral covert ops have come to light from virtually every western government? Shall we make a list?

The only thing democracy does is provide a limit for an imoral governments ability to hold power.

And if you think that military invasion and occupation by external forces is the only way to curb dictatorial regimes, then you should really spend a little more time looking at world history. Ask yourself what happened to many despotic regimes throughout central and south america. Consider how South Africa was finally forced to capitulate on apartheid. It can be done in other ways. However there was no interest in that in Iraq's case, and to bolster the war effort GW has also bolstered the power of other equally egregious dictators who joined up to the coalition. Case in point, providing buckets of financial and military aid to Uzbekistan in return for the use of their airports and air space from which to base operations. The leader of Uzbekistan is known to have political opponenets murdered by such lovely techniques as boiling them alive, and GW has only made him stronger.

The rest of your statements illustrates a seemingly clear level of condescension on your part towards the abilities of Iraqis to govern themselves. Hell - it's not THAT hard - it's been done in all sorts of places much poorer and less skilled. But no, we need to pat them on the head and take them to "government 101" class so they don't make a booboo....

But your assertion that going in and stealing their assets at rock-bottom post war prices is OK because you are assuming that they will be able to afford to buy them all back later once they have got back on their feet is the real kicker. This action only condems them to a longer period to return to wealth as they are losing needed profits from assets at the time that they need them the most. If you truly want the country to be able to rebuild itself quickly, then what is needed is capital infusions in the way of loans and joint projects - not the theft of property. By putting no restriction on the profits being siphoned out of the country by foreign owners you severely limit their ability to rebuild the country.


Not to mention the fact that having a puppet government under the thumb of the occupiers approving such sales with no mechanisms for accountability is just morally reprehensible on far too many levels to count. I will be very curious to see how many of these transplanted expatriots with money have sold themselves high-value items at rock bottom prices, but somehow I doubt that the details of the sales will ever reach the light of day.

-Z-

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


shame on you!

you think thats "ok' with me? is that what you think? That somebody dies and I say ok?

NO! I protest the invasion as a whole. whats not ok wit me is the invasion not the killing of innocent americans. Shame on you for calling it "OK" with me or any other american. its you who isnt a patriot not me, for trying to make us seem heartless and uncaring about your fellows.

please apoligize. your comments are inexusable.

S-P

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Why do you find rape and torturing till dead and the locking up of 100's of innocant Iraqi's OK? :shock:


Why do speak of abuse when it's about pure murder and the growing of US bastards in muslim womens body (wich can mean their dead in a strict muslim society) after their rape in jails?

As of last nite...I've not found one article bout Iraqi women raped in jail by US servicemembers, let alone one confirming pregnancies, but I can show you reams of links to women who were raped by Oday and Usay?

Salishe you are lying as hell and you know it. The free press in EU is full of testimonies of US servicemen and released Iraqis that speak about approx. 16 raped women that are confirmed untill today (aoh yes, republican voyeurs like you don't believe EU press, servicemen and Iraqi's, you want to have it on photo by uS raping servicemen as the famous "Schneider" or "Snider" that comes back in all reports of HRW, Red Cross aso..


I remember that you had the same behaviour when we spoke ya about the first abuses and murders on prissonars. Every time you see a photo that confirms the neuteral, not involved nations press or the reporst in wich interviews with released prissonars.

Why does the group of female Iraqi lawyers does not have anymore acces aftyer the outbreak of the scandal?

"We are raped as beast. The body of your women is full of bastardchildren. If have weapons, please use them to kill us in thois prison. In the name of God (3x).

Your sister Noor"

Letter smugled out of Abu Graib

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?

I have no double standard, although it pleases you to try and attribute one to me and to all those who disagree with you. Prison abuse is wrong. Rejoicing over fallen soldiers is wrong. Murder and violence is wrong. The Iraqis who were doing that are just as wrong as the American soldiers who had their photos taken while committing prison atrocities.

Why do you have a double standard on why it's okay for us to do it and not them?

The difference is that the Iraqi youths are not acting in my name and with my tax dollars. The American government is.
What SHF said.

After all, we know that most of the Mid-easters hate westerners and will act hostile towards us. Hence, we are not surprised by their actions, but then, we, who pride ourselves on being humane and everything, see how these soldiers are conducting themselves. They do against our ideals, so, we are naturally outraged.

Why is do you liberals/progressives/Bush haters have no problem with this:

"Crowds of Iraqi youths danced and cheered as rescuers dragged a bloodied body, wearing a flak vest, from the driver's seat of one vehicle. Others looted tires and set two vehicles on fire. "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_31

But scream bloody murder over the prison abuse?

Killing is killing and violence is violence so why do you have the double standard when it comes to who is doing the killing and violence?


Why do you find rape and torturing till dead and the locking up of 100's of innocant Iraqi's OK? :shock:


Why do speak of abuse when it's about pure murder and the growing of US bastards in muslim womens body (wich can mean their dead in a strict muslim society) after their rape in jails?

As of last nite...I've not found one article bout Iraqi women raped in jail by US servicemembers, let alone one confirming pregnancies, but I can show you reams of links to women who were raped by Oday and Usay?

Salishe you are lying as hell and you know it. The free press in EU is full of testimonies of US servicemen and released Iraqis that speak about approx. 16 raped women that are confirmed untill today (aoh yes, republican voyeurs like you don't believe EU press, servicemen and Iraqi's, you want to have it on photo by uS raping servicemen as the famous "Schneider" or "Snider" that comes back in all reports of HRW, Red Cross aso..


I remember that you had the same behaviour when we spoke ya about the first abuses and murders on prissonars. Every time you see a photo that confirms the neuteral, not involved nations press or the reporst in wich interviews with released prissonars.

Why does the group of female Iraqi lawyers does not have anymore acces aftyer the outbreak of the scandal?

"We are raped as beast. The body of your women is full of bastardchildren. If have weapons, please use them to kill us in thois prison. In the name of God (3x).

Your sister Noor"

Letter smugled out of Abu Graib

I'm lying huh...no...I said I have not found any credible reports of the kind of raping that was insinuated. As soon as I've done some research I'll let ya know..

Democaracy is no more enherantly moral than any other form of government, unless it were a completely open form which is impossible as no country can manage that and maintain security. If you think that democracy by itself leads to morality in decision making, then you are living in a fantasy world - especially as long as politicians are beholden to business interests that funded their ascent to power. Democracy did, after all, lead to Hitler. And how many other imoral covert ops have come to light from virtually every western government? Shall we make a list?

The only thing democracy does is provide a limit for an imoral governments ability to hold power.
Which is why Democracy is so good. If a leader is bad, he can be voted out of office. If a law is bad, politicans who are against the law can be voted into office. Of course, a strong constitution and independent judicial system is needed to stop dictators rising from power and keep things right, which has been a problem in multiple countries throughout the world, not just only limited to Iraq.

And if you think that military invasion and occupation by external forces is the only way to curb dictatorial regimes, then you should really spend a little more time looking at world history. Ask yourself what happened to many despotic regimes throughout central and south america.
Many times in Central and South America, dictators were toppled by revolution and then there was a period of democracy for a bit, then another dictator came. This process in action may very well be going on in Columbia right now - the President is hoping to change the constitution to extend his length in office.

Consider how South Africa was finally forced to capitulate on apartheid. It can be done in other ways. However there was no interest in that in Iraq's case, and to bolster the war effort GW has also bolstered the power of other equally egregious dictators who joined up to the coalition. Case in point, providing buckets of financial and military aid to Uzbekistan in return for the use of their airports and air space from which to base operations. The leader of Uzbekistan is known to have political opponenets murdered by such lovely techniques as boiling them alive, and GW has only made him stronger.
True. In order to get the Taliban, we needed to do this. If there had been a democratic country near by that would suffice, we would have used it. Instead, we had Iran, Pakistan, China, and the 3 stans. Neither of these have particularly strong democratic governments, and many are outright dictatorships. There was no way we could go into Afghanistan without securing the support of at least some of these countries.

The rest of your statements illustrates a seemingly clear level of condescension on your part towards the abilities of Iraqis to govern themselves. Hell - it's not THAT hard - it's been done in all sorts of places much poorer and less skilled. But no, we need to pat them on the head and take them to "government 101" class so they don't make a booboo....
Certainly in a country rife with violence and all sorts of civil strife, it would be necessary to help them out? We did the same thing to Japan, even Germany, which had experienced Democracy during the inter-war period of WW1 and WW2. It would be silly to think that we could pull out now and hope that Iraq becomes a nice democracy, because it won't. History shows that just snapping your fingers and saying Democracy dosen't work, the Commonwealth of Independent States is perhaps a perfect example of it. Very few of the former Soviet Bloc is a real democracy, only the 3 Baltic States come close to not having too much corruption or vote rigging.

But your assertion that going in and stealing their assets at rock-bottom post war prices is OK because you are assuming that they will be able to afford to buy them all back later once they have got back on their feet is the real kicker. This action only condems them to a longer period to return to wealth as they are losing needed profits from assets at the time that they need them the most. If you truly want the country to be able to rebuild itself quickly, then what is needed is capital infusions in the way of loans and joint projects - not the theft of property. By putting no restriction on the profits being siphoned out of the country by foreign owners you severely limit their ability to rebuild the country.
Iraq had no corporations itself to rebuild the country. Saddam Hussein made sure of that. And we can't give it to the governing council, because government is always one of the worst administrators of business and is horribly inefficient. Having countries like France and Russia, to whom Saddam Hussein owed tons of money, forgive their debt was the most critical part of the procedure. If Iraq had had sufficient infrastructure and a sufficent industrial base after the second Gulf War, keeping the rebuilding to Iraqi companies would have been a viable idea.


Not to mention the fact that having a puppet government under the thumb of the occupiers approving such sales with no mechanisms for accountability is just morally reprehensible on far too many levels to count. I will be very curious to see how many of these transplanted expatriots with money have sold themselves high-value items at rock bottom prices, but somehow I doubt that the details of the sales will ever reach the light of day.

-Z-
Well, a lot of the rebuilding contracts were sold by the Pentagon and US Government, not the Iraqi Governing Council.

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

We expect western countries/democracies (and I use that term loosely) to be better than that.

And I reiterate, it is racist. It says, "We believe those middle-eastern guys to be inherently inferior and incapable of behaving like the superior western guys."

How is it racist to expect disciplined soldiers working within a chain of command by a code of ethics to behave better than semi-organized geurilla fighters doing what they can to achieve their means? Do not try to play the race card on this one. I realize that when Bush declared war on "terrorists" he opened the door to all kinds of creative, convenient explanations of who is and is not the enemy, but this argument is really transparent.

The US fights with trained, supposedly disciplined soldiers. The "terrorists" (to use the vague terms of the current administration) do not, and profess no ethics. I think it's quite reasonable to deplore both actions while being more outraged at the conduct of the parties who ought to have been trained better.

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

You have a good point there...but I would have expected NA to be able to defend his position rather than just go silent. Of course I suppose it means he has no come back...

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

You have a good point there...but I would have expected NA to be able to defend his position rather than just go silent. Of course I suppose it means he has no come back...

He's spent most of the thread with his head in the sand, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

You have a good point there...but I would have expected NA to be able to defend his position rather than just go silent. Of course I suppose it means he has no come back...

He's spent most of the thread with his head in the sand, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Seems to be the case...

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

You have a good point there...but I would have expected NA to be able to defend his position rather than just go silent. Of course I suppose it means he has no come back...

He's spent most of the thread with his head in the sand, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Seems to be the case...

So what about an Arab who has American citizenship?
Arab Americans are Americans, so they don't count into my "whole Arab world"

LOLOLOL weak...very weak indeed

Hey, he's got a good-and-evil, black-and-white view of the world to support. Such a delusion can't be easy to maintain. So long as people can be categorized, NA's system is maintained.

You have a good point there...but I would have expected NA to be able to defend his position rather than just go silent. Of course I suppose it means he has no come back...

He's spent most of the thread with his head in the sand, I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Seems to be the case...

I'm sure this has been said before, but I really feel the need to say it again. This is not alright, and no one ever said it was alright. The fact that more fuss is made by the liberal media over the prison abuses is a demonstration of why partisan politics is dehumanizing for everyone involved, but that does not mean that the actions of militants in Iraq or elsewhere are condoned by liberals in general, or even by the liberal media.

As of last nite...I've not found one article bout Iraqi women raped in jail by US servicemembers, let alone one confirming pregnancies, but I can show you reams of links to women who were raped by Oday and Usay?

And your point is what?
The fact that Oday and Usay were rapists is just that, a fact.
Precisely what connection do you wish to make to allegations about US and Coalition mistreatment?
Spell it out.