NationStates Jolt Archive

White House Turns Tables on Former American POW's. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-pow15feb15,0,3155150.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

I've complained for a long time about conservatives claiming that they support the troops by hoping, for no good reason, that they have to stay in the place where people are shooting them and trying to blow them, but liberals don't support them by trying to get them brought home to their families.

Well, if anyone can sensibly defend this I'd love to hear how.

Can't defend it. Kinda hope that by 'trying to blow them', you mean with bombs, and not in the Chasey Lain sense.

Can't defend it. Kinda hope that by 'trying to blow them', you mean with bombs, and not in the Chasey Lain sense.

That'd be damned funny.

"They're coming at us, we have to fall back!!"

"Maybe up your end of the battle they are"

Whoops, that was supposed to be a dialogue, not a couple of innuendos.

Can't defend it. Kinda hope that by 'trying to blow them', you mean with bombs, and not in the Chasey Lain sense.


Oh, you mean that's NOT why they don't want gays in the military?

I can see the point of view from both sides. It's not as clear-cut as you'd have us believe.

I can see the point of view from both sides. It's not as clear-cut as you'd have us believe.

What's not clear about it?

The law to which we are a signatory is that no state can be absolved of responsibility for torture. We may not have been in a position to enforce that clause if, let's say, it was Iran who conquered Iraq, because then there wouldn't really BE an Iraq anymore. But WE did it and Iraq, and all it's responsibilities are ours to bear.

Whether or not Iraq is to follow the Geneva convention in support of our troops is entierly up to the White House. And they've decided "screw the troops." Their claim of "these aren't the same Iraqis that were in control back then," is just a red herring. If we went to Iraq to correct Saddam's failings then this would be one of them, and really easy to fix.

But Bush won't. He's a cruel, evil, heartless man who, if he ever did meet Christ, would have him arrested for being a hippy eco/narco-terrorist and probably for vagrancy.

What's not clear about it?

The law to which we are a signatory is that no state can be absolved of responsibility for torture. We may not have been in a position to enforce that clause if, let's say, it was Iran who conquered Iraq, because then there wouldn't really BE an Iraq anymore. But WE did it and Iraq, and all it's responsibilities are ours to bear.

Whether or not Iraq is to follow the Geneva convention in support of our troops is entierly up to the White House. And they've decided "screw the troops." Their claim of "these aren't the same Iraqis that were in control back then," is just a red herring. If we went to Iraq to correct Saddam's failings then this would be one of them, and really easy to fix.

But Bush won't. He's a cruel, evil, heartless man who, if he ever did meet Christ, would have him arrested for being a hippy eco/narco-terrorist and probably for vagrancy.
Good post. Eutrusca, Commando2 and a few of those other hard-liners ought to get on here and do a little explaining. Maybe a perspective might be altered for the better.

Anyone remember what happened to the Weimar Republic after the british and french finished raping her coffers? Seems to me the Bush admin is attempting to avoid and similar complications. Is it likely to happen? No. But then, how likely was it to happen the first time. And this time there is a much more volatile element in play.

Yes, please explain Republicans. How could you support an administration that doesn't not support our troops?

Funny, really. The hard-line Reps don't seem to be on this thread at all. Shall we just start callin them names till one appears?

They won't touch it because they know it's wrong.

They won't touch it because they know it's wrong.

Maybe it's because I don't know how to make the thread title bold and they don't know it's here.

Anyone care to educate me?

The problem is twofold. First, American soldiers are forbidden from accepting anything with a value more than $200 from any foreign national, and are prohibited from recieving anything of value from a foreign government, for any reason. And second, the government which tortured those soldiers is not the government which is in place right now. We, as the US, are attempting to get other nations to cancel Iraq's debt to them, and we couldn't very well be consistent in that argument if we allowed this suit to go forward.

As far as defending troops and supporting war goes, you have to look at the complete picture of the reasons behind the war, which party has voted to increase military funding so our troops are well armed and in less danger, and bear in mind that our troops sign up for the duties they are given, fully understanding what that may mean.

Your question was trivial, which I think explains why it hasn't gotten more attention.

The problem is twofold. First, American soldiers are forbidden from accepting anything with a value more than $200 from any foreign national, and are prohibited from recieving anything of value from a foreign government, for any reason. And second, the government which tortured those soldiers is not the government which is in place right now. We, as the US, are attempting to get other nations to cancel Iraq's debt to them, and we couldn't very well be consistent in that argument if we allowed this suit to go forward.

As far as defending troops and supporting war goes, you have to look at the complete picture of the reasons behind the war, which party has voted to increase military funding so our troops are well armed and in less danger, and bear in mind that our troops sign up for the duties they are given, fully understanding what that may mean.

Your question was trivial, which I think explains why it hasn't gotten more attention.
Actually your response is somewhat trivial, you don't seem to be actually looking at the whole picture here. Exactly how long ago did Bush decide to forgive all the loans to Iraq since the invasion even though the people of the United States (as well as a few others) have to pay for the "restructuring" and all that, AND we were supposed to be paid back in the oil money acquired?
In July 2003 (the 21st) the Bush administration intervened on the US District Court decision, to argue that the claims from the POWs should be dismissed. Is it the argument of integrity, not to require payback while trying to develop Iraq?
And how long ago did same administration decide to increase death pay to family members of military, and by how much an increase? Hmmm?
You know a few things about this situation but obviously not as much as you need to really give a good explanation, imo.
But since you think you know the complete reasons, how bout enlightening us?
You did, after all, read the article, right?

White House Turns Tables on Former American POW's. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-na-pow15feb15,0,3155150.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

I've complained for a long time about conservatives claiming that they support the troops by hoping, for no good reason, that they have to stay in the place where people are shooting them and trying to blow them, but liberals don't support them by trying to get them brought home to their families.

Well, if anyone can sensibly defend this I'd love to hear how.
Good post and I can imagine it would be difficult for defenders of the Bush Administration to come up with a logical answer to this betrayal of their own troops.

I found some more articles on this, including one from the much maligned (by the pro Bush camp) 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/20/60minutes/main584810.shtml)

As well as the Stop POW Torture (http://www.stoppowtorture.org/index.php) web site.

All is fair in love and war?

Good post. Eutrusca, Commando2 and a few of those other hard-liners ought to get on here and do a little explaining. Maybe a perspective might be altered for the better.
Looks like they are MIA?

I can defend the liberals, but not the conservatives. It is simple. Liberals have no power after the November elections. The only power they had prior to this was to deadlock the congress on certain issues.

As far as the artical goes, however, it sounds to me like the administration is just cheap. They need to increase the deficit in more destructive ways like invading iran or syria, not giving money to the people that have to go there and be shot at. The conservatives, although they say they support the troops, really just support the war. If they actually supported the troops, we wouldn't be in Iraq. War is a last resort and never the best option.

hallelujia <-sp?

:D

The law to which we are a signatory is that no state can be absolved of responsibility for torture.

but legaly speaking the state that did the tourturing no longer exists

As far as the artical goes, however, it sounds to me like the administration is just cheap.

ask youself - what was the point of the lawsuit?

was it for compesation or was it punitive?

if it was for compesation we would pay the troops, not the fledgling Iraqi government - the suit was clearly punitive but the party that was ment to be punished no longer exists

but legaly speaking the state that did the tourturing no longer exists
Iraq still exists.

BTW, I visited your web site. Nice story there about the Chinese eating babies...LMAO. You really shouldn't post that kind of propaganda, unless of course you do believe that it is true. :eek:

http://thehugkid.com/index.php?document=china.html

Not to mention that China is far more evil, they eat, I mean they really eat, babies, fetuses are a delicacy over there (it aint like Chinese restaurants round here). Plus dead babies are sold as earrings and such. But besides the babies, the people there have no rights once so ever, um... its communism... duh!

It is this kind of hate propaganda that actually fuels wars, such as the one in Iraq. Try to understand your neighbour instead of spreading malicious lies. Perhaps there will be less wars and less POWS?

but legaly speaking the state that did the tourturing no longer exists

Well that could be argued but really it was us who took the place over. The government no longer exists, but the state does.

Like I said, when we took control of the state we took responsibility for their debts. Damage caused by the take-over is ours to make right. First among those damages to rectify would be that done to our troops. And it is long standing policy that a country's debts are still to be honored by the new governments. That's why we still hold African countries to the debts of previous military dictators. And it's why Bush had to ask Iraq's creditors to forgive its debts. Legally Iraq was still beholden to them because as far as the US is concerned it is the same state.

And the state does still exist. We control it. It is entierly up to the White House if Iraq will honor its debts, and the White House has chosen 'no.'

Iraq still exists.

so? are we asking the current southern state governments for slave reperations? are we asking the current Japanese government for compensation for out POWs (mind you, we appreciated the appology but we understand that they're not reponsable for the actions of their predecesors)

you can't blame the current Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people at large, for the actions of saddam and his henchmen

BTW, I visited your web site. Nice story there about the Chinese eating babies...LMAO. You really shouldn't post that kind of propaganda, unless of course you do believe that it is true. :eek:

mmmmm.....not serious, but thank you none the less

http://thehugkid.com/index.php?document=china.html

Not to mention that China is far more evil, they eat, I mean they really eat, babies, fetuses are a delicacy over there (it aint like Chinese restaurants round here). Plus dead babies are sold as earrings and such. But besides the babies, the people there have no rights once so ever, um... its communism... duh!

don't worry, thats just Cuga, hes the antithisis of serious

It is this kind of hate propaganda that actually fuels wars, such as the one in Iraq.

if anything it was sympathy for the sufferings of the Iraqi people that motivated the Neo-Cons to war, not hate

Try to understand your neighbour instead of spreading malicious lies. Perhaps there will be less wars and less POWS?

we did understand Iraq, and we understood the daily sufferings of the Iraqi people - we wern't going to just stands by and watch this happen

maybe you should try to understand the oppression of the people we liberated before you write off all war as evil and hate motivated

Well that could be argued but really it was us who took the place over. The government no longer exists, but the state does.

the Bat'his state no longer exists

a geographical location named Iraq does, but the Bat'hist state, which commited those crimes does not

Like I said, when we took control of the state we took responsibility for their debts. Damage caused by the take-over is ours to make right. First among those damages to rectify would be that done to our troops. And it is long standing policy that a country's debts are still to be honored by the new governments. That's why we still hold African countries to the debts of previous military dictators. And it's why Bush had to ask Iraq's creditors to forgive its debts. Legally Iraq was still beholden to them because as far as the US is concerned it is the same state.

while the new government inherited the old national debt they don't inherit the guilt of the old regime

And the state does still exist. We control it. It is entierly up to the White House if Iraq will honor its debts, and the White House has chosen 'no.'

a new state exists, not the one responsible for the war crimes and not obligated to pay for them

so? are we asking the current southern state governments for slave reperations? are we asking the current Japanese government for compensation for out POWs (mind you, we appreciated the appology but we understand that they're not reponsable for the actions of their predecesors)

you can't blame the current Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people at large, for the actions of saddam and his henchmen

It's not a matter of blame. The US has explicitly acknowledged that either America or the new Iraqi government is responsible for the old regime's debts. Again, that's why we ASKED European countries to forgive the debts rather than just saying "debts? you'll have to take that up with Saddam, if you can find him."


if anything it was sympathy for the sufferings of the Iraqi people that motivated the Neo-Cons to war, not hate

I thought it was weapons biological weapons.. uh, nuclear weapons.. uh him gassing his own people... uh :licks the bomber: "can't take it back now"

We attacked because he switched to the Euro, and if other oil producing nations followed suit our dollar value would plummet.

we did understand Iraq, and we understood the daily sufferings of the Iraqi people - we wern't going to just stands by and watch this happen
No, we were going to get in there and show them how to do it properly. Forget raping their wives and mothers. Rape their sons and smear menstral blood on them.

maybe you should try to understand the oppression of the people we liberated before you write off all war as evil and hate motivated

Sort of besides the point. This is a thread about America honoring the debts it has assumed.

The same logic used when talking about forgiving Iraqi foreign debt using the Doctrine of Odious Debts - debts should not be imposed when "contracted and utilised, for purposes which, to the lenders' knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation." Link:

Odious Debt (http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=9396)

The government of Iraq under Saddam inflicted injury on the POW's, with a completely different set of laws. The current government operates under a completely different set of rules and did nothing to these POW's. Those who committed the war crimes should be held accountable, not the fledgeling government of Iraq, many of whom suffered just as much, if not more, than the American POW's. There is nothing inconsistent here.

so? are we asking the current southern state governments for slave reperations? are we asking the current Japanese government for compensation for out POWs (mind you, we appreciated the appology but we understand that they're not reponsable for the actions of their predecesors)

you can't blame the current Iraqi government, or the Iraqi people at large, for the actions of saddam and his henchmen
It was YOUR Congressmen who passed the law, allowing for this claim to be made in the first place.



mmmmm.....not serious, but thank you none the less



don't worry, thats just Cuga, hes the antithisis of serious
Well there is some other stories there too that kind of slams the rest of the world for not following the US lead into Iraq.


if anything it was sympathy for the sufferings of the Iraqi people that motivated the Neo-Cons to war, not hate
Ummmm when Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq, it was NOT to save the people of Iraq, it was for the claim that Iraq possessed WMD, and harboured terrorists....which remain unsupported.


we did understand Iraq, and we understood the daily sufferings of the Iraqi people - we wern't going to just stands by and watch this happen
Yet your government continued to support UN sanctions against Iraq.

maybe you should try to understand the oppression of the people we liberated before you write off all war as evil and hate motivated
There are many oppressed people in the world....it doesn't mean that you invade their countries to make the oppression worse than what it was.

It just so happens that the oppressed people of Iraq are sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, and that makes them a favourable people to liberate. If all they had was widgets, the US wouldn't be there?

It's not a matter of blame. The US has explicitly acknowledged that either America or the new Iraqi government is responsible for the old regime's debts. Again, that's why we ASKED European countries to forgive the debts rather than just saying "debts? you'll have to take that up with Saddam, if you can find him."

DEBTS for monitary loans and material givings

not for punitive decisions passed against the old regime, if they held the UN embargo would still be in place

I thought it was weapons biological weapons.. uh, nuclear weapons.. uh him gassing his own people... uh :licks the bomber: "can't take it back now"

yeah, him gassing his own people - kinda evoked some sympathy for the Iraqis

We attacked because he switched to the Euro, and if other oil producing nations followed suit our dollar value would plummet.

BS - we'd just trade in Euros

its not like they use dollars now anyway, that would have had a tiny impact - besides - with the UN embargo we were getting next to no oil out of Iraq anyway

if this was about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC in new york and mutter three words "lift the embargo"


No, we were going to get in there and show them how to do it properly. Forget raping their wives and mothers. Rape their sons and smear menstral blood on them.

do you hear what your saying? some female interorgator rubbed marker ink on a saudi terrorist's face and you would dare compare that to saddam's atrocities?

learn yourself some history son

It was YOUR Congressmen who passed the law, allowing for this claim to be made in the first place.

MONITARY claims

we never thought anyone would have the gaul to try to hold the new government accountable for saddam's actions

Well there is some other stories there too that kind of slams the rest of the world for not following the US lead into Iraq.

those are mildly serious

Ummmm when Bush went to Congress for permission to invade Iraq, it was NOT to save the people of Iraq, it was for the claim that Iraq possessed WMD, and harboured terrorists....which remain unsupported.

and we put al capone in prison for the rest of his life on tax evasion

wecolme to America

Yet your government continued to support UN sanctions against Iraq.

do you honestly blame the rape, murder, tourture and genocide of the saddamist regime on the sanctions?

There are many oppressed people in the world....

we're coming for them

it doesn't mean that you invade their countries to make the oppression worse than what it was.

come on, would you rather live in a chaotic democracy with a nice future or a saddistic dictatorship with no light at the end of the tunnel

I understand that often there are times where military intervention is not the best option

Iraq was not one of those times

It just so happens that the oppressed people of Iraq are sitting on the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, and that makes them a favourable people to liberate. If all they had was widgets, the US wouldn't be there?

yes, yes we would

we wen't to Iraq first because of their support of terrorism, the level of oppression of their people and the threat they pose to their neighbors

yugoslavia didn't have any oil and we hit that

N Korea dosn't even have widgets and you'd better believe that if there is an oppertunity we'll be on that like its hot

Maannnn....

I already posted this and nobody noticed :(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397938

MONITARY claims

we wen't to Iraq first because of their support of terrorism, the level of oppression of their people and the threat they pose to their neighbors


N Korea dosn't even have widgets and you'd better believe that if there is an oppertunity we'll be on that like its hot
M'kay, don't get on anyone else's case here about history when you yourself have a few points to polish, case in point, spelling.
Others ...
As for Iraq and support of terrorism, look around this site and read up on what is going on with Pakistan currently and keep that straight face, especially considering Syria and Lebanon. rightwing bs line.
-
"if anything it was sympathy for the sufferings of the Iraqi people that motivated the Neo-Cons to war, not hate"
So what makes you think anything in a neoconservative protocol is a support of sympathy for suffering? Really, an example here other than the excuse of Iraq.
-
"we did understand Iraq, and we understood the daily sufferings of the Iraqi people - we wern't going to just stands by and watch this happen"
Furthermore, we like to completely ignore issues like Darfur and only poke our heads up when a corporate interest is being hampered or an opportunity to make a killing is being cluttered with sociological collateral damage. Put a good face on it.
-
"maybe you should try to understand the oppression of the people we liberated before you write off all war as evil and hate motivated"
That isn't what was said. Maybe you should reread the line.
-
"a new state exists, not the one responsible for the war crimes and not obligated to pay for them"
Oh really. In Bush's forgiveness, as i posted earlier, a majority of americans and a great great many who don't agree with this bs at all get to shoulder the debt instead. Look it up and/or at least reference to the last page.
-
"yeah, him gassing his own people - kinda evoked some sympathy for the Iraqis"
Yeah, i'm sure sympathy was first & foremost on Rumsfeld's mind when he was buddying up with Saddam not very long ago, back when we made buddies with them to piss off Iran. Lotsa sympathy there too for the weapons we supplied 'em. Maybe you should learn some history and get off Domici and Canuck's back. As for Rummy, there's undoctored photo and text evidence, check it out yo!
-
"BS - we'd just trade in Euros"
Good thing you're paying attention to the value of US currency of late. and HOW MANY times did the Japanese bail us out by devaluing their currency in the last year alone, as well as how many people are on our admin's ass about getting a handle on that deficit? Look it up ....
-
"if this was about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC in new york and mutter three words "lift the embargo"
Yeah, or just invade someone you know can't do sh*t about it after trumping up claims and getting people to lie for you about it, THEN blame it on the guy before you! Tadah! So, for example, the integrity of Condi Rice and the not one, but 52 reports from April to Sept '01 regarding Al Qaida and co? Hmmm?
-
"we wen't to Iraq first because of their support of terrorism, the level of oppression of their people and the threat they pose to their neighbors"
Yeah, heard this or some other bullsh*t like it. Maybe above.
"learn yourself some history son"
That would be .... you ... but it's not too clear what the hell that means. Yours and the rightwingers' version?

the Bat'his state no longer exists

a geographical location named Iraq does, but the Bat'hist state, which commited those crimes does not
By the same logic Clinton's Democratic state no longer exists. Do laws passed under his administration no longer have any effect? If so I can't wait to tell my stoner friends that anti marijuana laws passed in the 30's are out of effect.



while the new government inherited the old national debt they don't inherit the guilt of the old regime

a new state exists, not the one responsible for the war crimes and not obligated to pay for them

If we went in there to make right what Saddam made wrong then taking care of our troops conpensation is part of that. Whatever money is going in and out of Iraq some of it should be diverted to those troops.

For the White House to pass this cruelty off as some sort of perveted compassion for Iraq is completly fallacious.

DEBTS for monitary loans and material givings

not for punitive decisions passed against the old regime, if they held the UN embargo would still be in place

yeah, him gassing his own people - kinda evoked some sympathy for the Iraqis

Um, no, he used gas on the Kurds after we told the Kurds "just attack Saddam, we got your back." And then we ran away on them and told them, "we don't got your back, don't bother attacking, you can't win." Then they attacked anyway and he killed them. If the Michigean Malitia attacked the White House do you think that Bush would give them milk and cookies or something.

BS - we'd just trade in Euros

its not like they use dollars now anyway, that would have had a tiny impact - besides - with the UN embargo we were getting next to no oil out of Iraq anyway

if this was about oil all W would have had to do was walk into the SC in new york and mutter three words "lift the embargo"
Not about oil, about American control of trade. Because the oil cartel OPEC trades in dollars, all countries that want to trade with them have to keep a large reserve of dollars.

Whenever you read about foreign countries having a "cash reserve for imports" that's the sort of thing they're talking about, only thing is you can have a reserve of pounds, shekels, or rupees for any old imports, but if you want to import oil you need dollars. This keeps the value of the dollar artificially high.

If the rest of the middle east had seen that Saddam was able to trade for oil in Euros without consequence then other countries would have cashed out of dollars and bought Euros. Not all in one go, but enough that the value of the dollar would fall so quickly that we wouldn't be able to buy enough Euros to compete on the oil market.

The net result of not going to war would have been for us to sell dollars to the EU and the EU to sell Euros to us and for both entities to have an equitable trading relationship. The thought that America should have an equal probably would have sent Bush paroxsysmic. If not him, then certainly his neo-con puppet masters who actually have brains.

do you hear what your saying? some female interorgator rubbed marker ink on a saudi terrorist's face and you would dare compare that to saddam's atrocities?

Um.. Check again, I think you'll see that I mentioned the raping of children under our rulership. Unless of course you think man-on-boy rape is really down there with ink on the face. You might, it would explain your support of Bush.

learn yourself some history son
I'll have you know that by the end of the year I'll hold a masters in history. That's right, I'll be the History Master (ok, not much of a title, and the plain robe and cardboard hat are, frankly, a sucky superhero motif, but there you have it).

The judgement was a punitive measure meant to punish a regime which no longer exists. The comparison to Clinton's government is invalid because our government remains intact, just a change in leadership. Sadam's government does not exist and the new ELECTED Iraqi government cannot be held liable for judgements on another government. It's not like declaring bankruptcy where judgements can be enforced, it's that the defendant, if you will, NO LONGER EXISTS.

Please try to separate the emotion involved with the terrible acts perpetrated on our soldiers from the legality of enforcing a judgement against a tyrranical government which is not in place. While I agree it is a bit awkward for our goverment to be the ones opposing its soldiers in court, it is the right position to take, albeit an unpopular one.

I would liken this to upholding a murder conviction against a deceased ex-husband by sentencing the wife and her new husband to prison for lack of a suitable inmate. That makes about as much sense as upholding the judgement against Saddam's government by demanding payment from this new, completely unrelated government.

Actually, under international law there is no automatic assumption of relieving debts upon a change of regime. That is, for example, a part of why Bush 'n co. have worked so hard to get countries to forgive Iraq's debts.

The fact that a GOVERNMENT has changed does not alter any obligations that it imposed upon it's country while it was in power.

hallelujia <-sp?

Hallellujah, but that's only in latin characters. If only I had hebrew script enabled I could spell it correctly.

ask youself - what was the point of the lawsuit?

was it for compesation or was it punitive?

if it was for compesation we would pay the troops, not the fledgling Iraqi government - the suit was clearly punitive but the party that was ment to be punished no longer exists

According to the article, roughly 2/3'rds of the moneys awarded were compensatory and not punative. I would aggree that the punative damages are not necessarily in order any longer, but the Administration is arguing that they deserve NO money, not even the costs of their medical treatments or psychological therapy for themselves and their families, nor the lost wages et cetera that this caused.

They are showing their true colors here.

The judgement was a punitive measure meant to punish a regime which no longer exists.


Compensation isn't punishment. If the soldiers were demanding that the Iraqi government be sentenced to prison, then yes, that punishment could not be passed on to the new government. But compensation is more like a loan. When the Saddam regime tortured the POWs, they were taking something from them that had to be paid back if it was demanded. If the previous government had huge debts when it was removed, the new government should be expected to pay them. If the country can't afford to, then the American government should be expected to, as they took responsibility for Iraq when they invaded it.

The judgement was a punitive measure meant to punish a regime which no longer exists.

Reread the article. Roughly 2/3rds of the judgement awarded were compensatory not punative. I would agree that the punative damages are no longer in order, but compensatory damages are repayment of things owed, not an attempt to punish an unjailable party. Those troops were awarded that money because the courts felt that it accurately reflects the cost they and their families bear for the crimes committed against them. To argue that they do not still have those costs, or that the Iraqi or American government is not still responsible for those costs is a refutation of every legal precedent on the subject in history. It is also a slap in the face to the American soldier, nay, to soldiers everywhere.

Maannnn....

I already posted this and nobody noticed :(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=397938

I guess the trick is to taunt them. "So what do you think of your "support the troops neo-con messiah now, nyah nyah" type of deal.

That and my fellatio related typo.

Sex jokes and jeers brings 'em in every time.

Just wanted to clarify....

I think the US government should be the ones to compensate its soldiers for their trying experiences. We, as the liberating power, have the obligation to either persuade the creditors to forgive the debts, to pay them ourselves, or to pass them on to the new government. Historically, a liberated country's debts are forgiven - the world recognizes that this is probably the best way to foster success in an otherwise hopeless situation.

With regard to this particular judgement, the punitive portion should be expunged, and the compensatory damages should be picked up by the US military or government. This seems like the intelligent answer, although I'm sure you will all agree that the US government - and governments in general -have a long history of non-intelligent solutions to problems (on both sides of the aisle).

:rolleyes:

I see both sides of the issue, as you all should, of cource i am going to draw a conclusion from slave reparation money.

I don;t belive in slave reparation money. In my mind, making the iraqi people pay now is like your family paying a black family because your great great great great great grandparents had a slave. I odn;t think that me, or you should pay for the sins of others. I think that is wrong. I don;t think the current people in iraq should have to pay for what a cruel regime did. If iraq has to pay, i expect germany to pay

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1324630,00.html

I do see that the POWs should get paid damages by someone. I don;t think the iraqi people should. I think they hould pull it out of Saddams currently frozen assets, or as a stipend (for lack of a better word) per month to POWs. Noone can soundly defend either side.