NationStates Jolt Archive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C602E04F-7CF1-4566-830D-FD361DA2CA25.htm

I'll also add for those who think US soldiers got their just due.

I bet there's a lot more where that came from.

I agree that it definitely was NOT an isolated incident, but you're going to get slammed for using Al-Jazeera as a source.

I went to a talk today from a woman who was in Iraq as a human shield during the invasion. She stated categorically that things like this, and cold blooded killings were NOT isolated incidents. She showed us some of her footage from the ground, and she was continually harassed by the US military, and ordered to stop filming.

She also had footage of children maimed in the bombing, children who were ill from unsafe drinking water due to the US "tactic" of knocking out Baghdad's water supply.

Also she had met with insurgent leaders, and noted that they are far from the stereotypical extremist the media makes them out to be. Rather many of them are just ordinary people who want their right to self-determination. She made a rather good analogy. If someone comes into your house and destroys things, hurts your friends and family, all the while saying that it's in you best interest, aren't you going to ask them to leave? And if they don't leave, and keep hurting people, you're going to fight them aren't you?

I bet there's a lot more where that came from.

I didn't say for perverted idiots.... I said for people who think... the key word there is think... try it some time.

I agree that it definitely was NOT an isolated incident, but you're going to get slammed for using Al-Jazeera as a source.


Now, I admit Al Jazeera has a bias. It is obvious. But, so does AMerican media. Furthermore, not once have I thought Al Jazeera makes a story up. I think they lay it on thick sometimes but they seem to report whats out there. In my opinion, it's good to get American media feeds and those from Al Jazeera. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Now, I admit Al Jazeera has a bias. It is obvious. But, so does AMerican media. Furthermore, not once have I thought Al Jazeera makes a story up. I think they lay it on thick sometimes but they seem to report whats out there. In my opinion, it's good to get American media feeds and those from Al Jazeera. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm with you there. It's up to us to sift through the spin. :p

Also she had met with insurgent leaders, and noted that they are far from the stereotypical extremist the media makes them out to be. Rather many of them are just ordinary people who want their right to self-determination. She made a rather good analogy. If someone comes into your house and destroys things, hurts your friends and family, all the while saying that it's in you best interest, aren't you going to ask them to leave? And if they don't leave, and keep hurting people, you're going to fight them aren't you?

Another good point. 'Extremists' and 'terrorists' are words that get thrown around a lot. I think they reveal more the speaker's perspective than anything else. After all, maybe the British thought Americans sitting in trees shooting at the Red Army during the American Revolution were terrorists, and yet Americans see them as freedom fighters. I think extremists/terrorists/insurgents recognize themselves as fighting for the liberties of the underdog in this case.

I didn't say for perverted idiots.... I said for people who think... the key word there is think... try it some time.
What's your problem with Potaria? :confused:

You know, I always thought torture was like, hanging people up on hooks, or shooting their family in front of them, or pulling their nails out. I never thought public nudity was considered torture in this day and age.

What's your problem with Potaria? :confused:


He took my comment out of context. WAY out of context.

I was simply saying that there's probably a lot more abuse than they're showing.

What's your problem with Potaria? :confused:

I read his post as being proud of what was done, maybe because the word 'lot' was in italics. If I misread it, then I'm sorry and I take it back.

You know, I always thought torture was like, hanging people up on hooks, or shooting their family in front of them, or pulling their nails out. I never thought public nudity was considered torture in this day and age.

For anyone in any culture, that is extremely humiliating. However, in Islamic culture, nudity takes on higher significance, to a point where no one except husband and wife should be seeing/touching each other naked.

You know, I always thought torture was like, hanging people up on hooks, or shooting their family in front of them, or pulling their nails out. I never thought public nudity was considered torture in this day and age.
Ever heard of psychological torture?

And I'd consider putting broom handles up people's rectums torture... Sleep deprivation... setting dogs on prisoners...

And I'd consider putting broom handles up people's rectums torture...
That's not torture, that's foreplay!

:D

For anyone in any culture, that is extremely humiliating. However, in Islamic culture, nudity takes on higher significance, to a point where no one except husband and wife should be seeing/touching each other naked.
Humiliating, maybe. Scarring? Doubt it. Again, real torture is what concentration camp survivors talk about, not this.

Ever heard of psychological torture?

And I'd consider putting broom handles up people's rectums torture... Sleep deprivation... setting dogs on prisoners...

Not to mention putting lit cigarettes in their ears. But just hazing, folks. Which fruitloop said that anyway?

Ever heard of psychological torture?

And I'd consider putting broom handles up people's rectums torture... Sleep deprivation... setting dogs on prisoners...
Yes. Broom handles do cross the line. Although even then they are minimally physically and mentally violating. Sleep deprivation as torture? Please. I should sue my college for "sleep deprivation" if it's such a terrible, horrible thing. Dogs are set on prisoners in America, I don't see why it's torture when it's being done to PoW's.

Humiliating, maybe. Scarring? Doubt it. Again, real torture is what concentration camp survivors talk about, not this.

I would consider it has enough emotional/mental anguish to be considered torture. Even if you disagree, it's cruel and unusual punishment and shouldn't be done.

I would consider it has enough emotional/mental anguish to be considered torture. Even if you disagree, it's cruel and unusual punishment and shouldn't be done.
Who cares? It's pretty anguishing to be in a war. It's pretty anguishing to be shot at. It's pretty anguishing to be captured. If none of those are torture, sleep deprivation certainly isn't.

Who cares? It's pretty anguishing to be in a war. It's pretty anguishing to be shot at. It's pretty anguishing to be captured. If none of those are torture, sleep deprivation certainly isn't.

If you're referring to the excuse that the soldiers are acting this way due to the stress of war, then those boys either shouldn't have joined the army and/or should have been better prepared for war by the US military.

P.S. I think the UN charters and Geneva conventions care.

Yes. Broom handles do cross the line. Although even then they are minimally physically and mentally violating. Sleep deprivation as torture? Please. I should sue my college for "sleep deprivation" if it's such a terrible, horrible thing. Dogs are set on prisoners in America, I don't see why it's torture when it's being done to PoW's. Well we obviously have different conceptions of what's acceptable for human beings. :rolleyes:

And as for sleep deprivation, you CHOOSE to be up late. Prisoners don't. And IMO dogs should NEVER be set on someone.

If you're referring to the excuse that the soldiers are acting this way due to the stress of war, then those boys either shouldn't have joined the army and/or should have been better prepared for war by the US military.
Ditto.
Although judging by the prisoner abuse scandals, they won't be too bothered by seeing/committing acts of great cruelty.

When we talk about sleep deprivation as torture, we are talking about several days if not weeks at a time.

If you're referring to the excuse that the soldiers are acting this way due to the stress of war, then those boys either shouldn't have joined the army and/or should have been better prepared for war by the US military.

P.S. I think the UN charters and Geneva conventions care.
No, I'm saying that if anything is messing the prisoners up, it's the anguish they got by putting themselves in the war. I'm not using it as an excuse for the U.S. soldiers, since I don't feel they need one.

I'll start caring about charters and conventions when Canada returns our deserters and someone takes the fall for Oil for food.

Well we obviously have different conceptions of what's acceptable for human beings. :rolleyes:

And as for sleep deprivation, you CHOOSE to be up late. Prisoners don't. And IMO dogs should NEVER be set on someone.
What's acceptable is dependable on circumstance. Locking someone in a cage isn't acceptable. Locking someone in a cage in a time of war is.

And I don't choose to be up late any more than the prisoners choose to be up late. If they sleep, they have to pile up naked. If I sleep, I fail. Same general concept.

When we talk about sleep deprivation as torture, we are talking about several days if not weeks at a time.
I've been without sleep for days at a time before. Did I like it? No. Was I traumatized for life? No.

But just hazing, folks. Which fruitloop said that anyway?
If you're talking about whoever said "That's not torture, it's foreplay!", that was me.
:)

No, I'm saying that if anything is messing the prisoners up, it's the anguish they got by putting themselves in the war. I'm not using it as an excuse for the U.S. soldiers, since I don't feel they need one.

I'll start caring about charters and conventions when Canada returns our deserters and someone takes the fall for Oil for food.

Even if you go to war, you have certain rights... such as not being tortured if you're a POW. Those rights are gauranteed by UN charters and Geneva conventions.

Well, maybe you should care that the US was a party that signed those UN charters and Geneva conventions. US reputation is at stake if they don't care. Maybe not all things are just in the world (as you refer to the deserters and oil for food program) but that's not an excuse to commit more unjust acts or have disregard for those acts that we can do something about.

Even if you go to war, you have certain rights... such as not being tortured if you're a POW. Those rights are gauranteed by UN charters and Geneva conventions.

Well, maybe you should care that the US was a party that signed those UN charters and Geneva conventions. US reputation is at stake if they don't care. Maybe not all things are just in the world (as you refer to the deserters and oil for food program) but that's not an excuse to commit more unjust acts or have disregard for those acts that we can do something about.
You have no rights in war. Those rights are guaranteed by human rights abusers, with no authority to actually enforce what they say. Rhetoric is useless if you have no force.

No rational human being would think that one's dealings within the UN could actually reduce someone's reputation. The UN is utterly worthless, Sudan and China on the Human Right's Comission anyone?

If you're talking about whoever said "That's not torture, it's foreplay!", that was me.
:)

No, some loony politician compared it to college hazing and then said about the piling up "Well, cheerleaders do it." I belive he was from Texas.

No, some loony politician compared it to college hazing and then said about the piling up "Well, cheerleaders do it." I belive he was from Texas.
Oh. Wow.
That's the kind of person we need more of!
...
In mental institutions.

You have no rights in war. Those rights are guaranteed by human rights abusers, with no authority to actually enforce what they say. Rhetoric is useless if you have no force.

If this is true, then why do Americans so consistently point to human rights violations by Saddam Hussein as a reason to go to war? If this is true, then why is intelligence and general world opinion of pre-war Saddam and Iraq based on inspectors as well as other things?

No rational human being would think that one's dealings within the UN could actually reduce someone's reputation. The UN is utterly worthless, Sudan and China on the Human Right's Comission anyone?

Like I said, not everything is perfect. There is a large discrepency between what we know what should 'morally' be done vs. what is actually done. That doesn't mean we can't fight for what is 'morally' right. If you think about it, if people continually think what is 'morally' right should be done, then eventually that's what's going to happen. The harder we fight for it, the sooner it can happen. It is a question of where do you want to be, perpetuating history or bridging to the future?

I read his post as being proud of what was done, maybe because the word 'lot' was in italics. If I misread it, then I'm sorry and I take it back.


Hey, it's not a problem. I do it too. These things happen all the time, so no big deal.

Another good point. 'Extremists' and 'terrorists' are words that get thrown around a lot. I think they reveal more the speaker's perspective than anything else. After all, maybe the British thought Americans sitting in trees shooting at the Red Army during the American Revolution were terrorists, and yet Americans see them as freedom fighters. I think extremists/terrorists/insurgents recognize themselves as fighting for the liberties of the underdog in this case.

They did, but the term back then was "irregulars."

When it came time for the British to surrender their representative refused to hand the sword over to any of the Colonials, he insisted on surrendering to the French because they were the only "legitimate" military presence.

No, some loony politician compared it to college hazing and then said about the piling up "Well, cheerleaders do it." I belive he was from Texas.


This is one of the reasons I'm leaving Texas when I graduate. I cannot stand the foul demeanor of these people. And the accents... AAAAGH!

If this is true, then why do Americans so consistently point to human rights violations by Saddam Hussein as a reason to go to war? If this is true, then why is intelligence and general world opinion of pre-war Saddam and Iraq based on inspectors as well as other things?
Because war is the only tool for getting things done. Diplomacy hasn't worked, that's why we're at war now. No one did anything to Saddam until he attacked Kuwait, because nothing else he was doing really mattered on the global scale. If he oppresses his own people, so what? China does, and no one's jumping up to stop them. The only rights you have are the rights the person above you affords you. China could give it's people the right to the freedom of speech. It wouldn't be that nice if they continued shooting for speaking out would it? But what could the people do? Nothing. Rights are only real when someone above you is protecting them.

Like I said, not everything is perfect. There is a large discrepency between what we know what should 'morally' be done vs. what is actually done. That doesn't mean we can't fight for what is 'morally' right. If you think about it, if people continually think what is 'morally' right should be done, then eventually that's what's going to happen. The harder we fight for it, the sooner it can happen. It is a question of where do you want to be, perpetuating history or bridging to the future?
If we were perpetuating history, this prisoners would be sent into gas chambers, or have bamboo shoots driven under their fingernails. Their families would be shot in front of them. They'd be castrated. They wouldn't be fed each day and then released when the war was over.

If we were perpetuating history, this prisoners would be sent into gas chambers, or have bamboo shoots driven under their fingernails. Their families would be shot in front of them. They'd be castrated. They wouldn't be fed each day and then released when the war was over.

This illustrates my point. Before, they thought this was acceptable way of treating the enemy. Then, someone said otherwise. Even if they want to do this now, they couldn't because they would be so blatantly breaking the rules that they would have to answer to someone. So they find a way around... for example, by getting people naked rather than standing in a cage all day. Now, someone can ask is this really torture or torture on the same scale? And like I said, people know this is morally wrong, so we fight to get this outlawed. There will be people continually trying to torture POWs in one way or another. But, the hope is eventually, everyone will develop a moral conscience against it.

This illustrates my point. Before, they thought this was acceptable way of treating the enemy. Then, someone said otherwise. Even if they want to do this now, they couldn't because they would be so blatantly breaking the rules that they would have to answer to someone. So they find a way around... for example, by getting people naked rather than standing in a cage all day. Now, someone can ask is this really torture or torture on the same scale? And like I said, people know this is morally wrong, so we fight to get this outlawed. There will be people continually trying to torture POWs in one way or another. But, the hope is eventually, everyone will develop a moral conscience against it.
It was never thought of an acceptable way of treating the enemy. It was done. There is a difference. Having sex with 7 year olds isn't acceptable. But it is done.

It was never thought of an acceptable way of treating the enemy. It was done. There is a difference. Having sex with 7 year olds isn't acceptable. But it is done.

It was considered a horrific thing but a part of war. That is, until someone wrote down some rules and started enforcing them.... I believe it was the Allies after WWII (correct me if I'm wrong).

It was considered a horrific thing but a part of war. That is, until someone wrote down some rules and started enforcing them.... I believe it was the Allies after WWII (correct me if I'm wrong).
Rules against torture have existed since forever. It still goes on. But you have to draw a line at some point between what is torture and what is acceptable in a time where you are surrounded by people who want to make you dead.

The people who say "Well it's a war and they're trying to kill us" are ignoring a pertinent fact. Eighty percent of those held at Abu Ghraib were non-combatants. Just people out after curfew or accused of petty crimes.

Rules against torture have existed since forever. It still goes on.

I don't think this is true. Rules of engagement haven't been around for that long.


But you have to draw a line at some point between what is torture and what is acceptable in a time where you are surrounded by people who want to make you dead.

You're absolutely correct about this, and some people try to push the line one way and others try to push the line another way. It is something totally subjective. However, taking your example of sex with 7 yr olds. Most people think this is 'morally' wrong so we push the line further and further against it. In my stance, these prisoner abuses are similar. I think it is 'morally' wrong and I think lot's of people think the same way. Hopefully, we are going to ge the line pushed further and further against it.

If this is true, then why do Americans so consistently point to human rights violations by Saddam Hussein as a reason to go to war? If this is true, then why is intelligence and general world opinion of pre-war Saddam and Iraq based on inspectors as well as other things?



Like I said, not everything is perfect. There is a large discrepency between what we know what should 'morally' be done vs. what is actually done. That doesn't mean we can't fight for what is 'morally' right. If you think about it, if people continually think what is 'morally' right should be done, then eventually that's what's going to happen. The harder we fight for it, the sooner it can happen. It is a question of where do you want to be, perpetuating history or bridging to the future?
No, sitting around and thinking happy thoughts has not solved one problem in this world, other than maybe the temporary happiness of the person thinking those thoughts.
Actions, following well-conceived thoughts, solves problems. The problem is most folks don't get past the thinking stage.

No, sitting around and thinking happy thoughts has not solved one problem in this world, other than maybe the temporary happiness of the person thinking those thoughts.
Actions, following well-conceived thoughts, solves problems. The problem is most folks don't get past the thinking stage.

I think actions are being taken. That's why the book on human rights was written in the first place. That's why there's people out their who commit their lives and sometimes lose their lives trying to enforce these laws. Surely, things aren't perfect and the ways of the past aren't going to die out just like that. Surely, there will be a lot of resistence and hypocrisy. But, there is action being taken.

You're absolutely correct about this, and some people try to push the line one way and others try to push the line another way. It is something totally subjective. However, taking your example of sex with 7 yr olds. Most people think this is 'morally' wrong so we push the line further and further against it. In my stance, these prisoner abuses are similar. I think it is 'morally' wrong and I think lot's of people think the same way. Hopefully, we are going to ge the line pushed further and further against it.
The fact that you can call these abuses and not torture should be a subtle clue in the difference between the two. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it any more valid or right. Truth exists apart from perception.

I think actions are being taken. That's why the book on human rights was written in the first place. That's why there's people out their who commit their lives and sometimes lose their lives trying to enforce these laws. Surely, things aren't perfect and the ways of the past aren't going to die out just like that. Surely, there will be a lot of resistence and hypocrisy. But, there is action being taken.
What action? The UN passed something like, what was it, 15 resolutions, while Saddam kept butchering his own people? What did the UN do while the Rwanda genocide went on? What is the UN doing now about the situation in Darfur, Sudan? For the record, I wish the US had ignored the UN and stepped in during the Rwanda situation. And at least the US did something to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, while Europe protested, and the UN did .... nothing. Other than sit around, pass some resolutions, and think happy thoughts.
I repeat, thought must be followed by action, or the thought has no power.

The fact that you can call these abuses and not torture should be a subtle clue in the difference between the two. Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it any more valid or right. Truth exists apart from perception.

Just the fact I can use the word abuse makes it wrong. Maybe it doesn't carry the same connotation as torture but it is wrong. I'm not going into semantics anymore than that.

When you are dealing with something as subjective as right and wrong, all you can go on is what a whole lot of people think. There is no absolute truth to right or wrong. For example, is cannibalism right or wrong? Someone who has grown up in a society of cannibalism sees it as right and someone who has grown up in a society of no cannibalism sees it as wrong. Well, who's to say? In the end, most people see it as wrong, or detrimental in some way. And, therefore, we don't see it being carried out anywhere anymore, at least niot in a systematic way.

Just the fact I can use the word abuse makes it wrong. Maybe it doesn't carry the same connotation as torture but it is wrong. I'm not going into semantics anymore than that.

When you are dealing with something as subjective as right and wrong, all you can go on is what a whole lot of people think. There is no absolute truth to right or wrong. For example, is cannibalism right or wrong? Someone who has grown up in a society of cannibalism sees it as right and someone who has grown up in a society of no cannibalism sees it as wrong. Well, who's to say? In the end, most people see it as wrong, or detrimental in some way. And, therefore, we don't see it being carried out anywhere anymore, at least niot in a systematic way.
There is indeed an absolute right and wrong. What it is, I don't know, but truth exists apart from perception. Like Hell. Maybe it's real, maybe it isn't. But if it is, you'll still go there if you don't believe in it. This is not torture, the scars in the prisoners' psyche will come from the war itself, rather than the abuses.

There is indeed an absolute right and wrong. What it is, I don't know, but truth exists apart from perception. Like Hell. Maybe it's real, maybe it isn't. But if it is, you'll still go there if you don't believe in it. This is not torture, the scars in the prisoners' psyche will come from the war itself, rather than the abuses.

If you don't know what it is, you can't really enforce it. Maybe that truth takes the perception of all to figure out. It's the best answer we have for now. The UN and what it's meant for is like the world's conscience coming together and trying to regulate man's actions. Like Selgin points out, it's not perfect. We don't always follow our conscience. And, sometimes we are just as lazy as f--k. But, the UN is fairly young, and it is a step in the right direction.

If you don't know what it is, you can't really enforce it. Maybe that truth takes the perception of all to figure out. It's the best answer we have for now. The UN and what it's meant for is like the world's conscience coming together and trying to regulate man's actions. Like Selgin points out, it's not perfect. We don't always follow our conscience. And, sometimes we are just as lazy as f--k. But, the UN is fairly young, and it is a step in the right direction.
It isn't. It's done far more to impede human rights and deceny than to aid it. Sanctions kill more people than war. The UN prevents us from acting in Darfur. More people have died from the actions of the UN than have been saved by it.

It isn't. It's done far more to impede human rights and deceny than to aid it. Sanctions kill more people than war. The UN prevents us from acting in Darfur. More people have died from the actions of the UN than have been saved by it.

I highly doubt the US would act on Darfur. There is no oil there. Your assumption here seems to be the US is out for the good of the world. Maybe the UN is trying to keep the US in check because it is not always doing what is good. If I thought the US was out for the good of the world, then I would be talking about how the US is the moral conscience of the world.

The UN has two entities as I see it, the practical and the theoretical. The theoretical is, as I have stated, the attempt at a collective conscience. If I am right, that the UN and its charters on human rights were enacted after WWII, then obviously someone, namely the Allies, developed a consciousness after the notorious Hitler tried to wipe out an entire human race.

On the other hand, there is the practical. The UN is run by people. People who are self serving and imperfect. People who don't always know what they are doing. Oftenly, this gets in the way of good intentions as well.

I highly doubt the US would act on Darfur. There is no oil there. Your assumption here seems to be the US is out for the good of the world. Maybe the UN is trying to keep the US in check because it is not always doing what is good. If I thought the US was out for the good of the world, then I would be talking about how the US is the moral conscience of the world.

The UN has two entities as I see it, the practical and the theoretical. The theoretical is, as I have stated, the attempt at a collective conscience. If I am right, that the UN and its charters on human rights were enacted after WWII, then obviously someone, namely the Allies, developed a consciousness after the notorious Hitler tried to wipe out an entire human race.

On the other hand, there is the practical. The UN is run by people. People who are self serving and imperfect. People who don't always know what they are doing. Oftenly, this gets in the way of good intentions as well.
There was no oil in Somalia. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Bosnea. Or Europe during not one, but two world wars. For you to make that argument shows you don't have the grounding in reality required to make reasonable discourse. Thus, I'm done with you.

There was no oil in Somalia. Or Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Bosnea. Or Europe during not one, but two world wars. For you to make that argument shows you don't have the grounding in reality required to make reasonable discourse. Thus, I'm done with you.

I love it when I get discredited like that. Could it be because I'm bad mouthing the US again?

Each of the places you mention have interestes for the US. Korea is on China's doorstep for example. US got involved in WWII because of Pearl Harbor (in fact, they took an isolationist's stand before then). I would go on about the others but I am by no means an expert on international affairs and their histories. But, nations are self serving.

I love it when I get discredited like that. Could it be because I'm bad mouthing the US again?

Each of the places you mention have interestes for the US. Korea is on China's doorstep for example. US got involved in WWII because of Pearl Harbor (in fact, they took an isolationist's stand before then). I would go on about the others but I am by no means an expert on international affairs and their histories. But, nations are self serving.
No, it's because you're an idiot. Oil has nothing to do with Darfur, it has to do with a failure by the UN. Read the hundreds of other threads on the subject. If we wanted oil, we'd invade Kuwait. Their oil is better and they'd go down faster. CHINA VOTED TO DEFEND SOUTH KOREA! The only country against it was...Russia. Way to not know history at all.

No, it's because you're an idiot. Oil has nothing to do with Darfur, it has to do with a failure by the UN. Read the hundreds of other threads on the subject. If we wanted oil, we'd invade Kuwait. Their oil is better and they'd go down faster. CHINA VOTED TO DEFEND SOUTH KOREA! The only country against it was...Russia. Way to not know history at all.

I don't know how to address this since it kind of twists what I said rather than responds to it. Read what I said more carefully.

Sorry I'm an idiot. I'll try to be more smarter now. :headbang:

I don't know how to address this since it kind of twists what I said rather than responds to it. Read what I said more carefully.

Sorry I'm an idiot. I'll try to be more smarter now. :headbang:
What's there to twist? You, like millions of other idiots, are still playing the oil card. Answer this to yourself: How much money have we made from this war? Then shut up. Then learn about the history of the wars we've involved ourselves in.

What's there to twist? You, like millions of other idiots, are still playing the oil card. Answer this to yourself: How much money have we made from this war? Then shut up. Then learn about the history of the wars we've involved ourselves in.

Take it one step further... why haven't you made money on this war?

Take it one step further... why haven't you made money on this war?
Because:
1) It's inordinately expensive
2) We're not getting any money from Iraq

Because:
1) It's inordinately expensive
2) We're not getting any money from Iraq

And because this war wasn't as easy as the administration arrogantly believed it would be, now was it?

And because this war wasn't as easy as the administration arrogantly believed it would be, now was it?
What the hell does that have to do with anything? We're making zero dollars from it, and then paying expenses. Not making money and paying more expenses than we thought we were. ZERO dollars! And this war is as easy as I thought it was going to be, less than 2000 deaths and an entire nation occupied? I'll take that.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? We're making zero dollars from it, and then paying expenses. Not making money and paying more expenses than we thought we were. ZERO dollars! And this war is as easy as I thought it was going to be, less than 2000 deaths and an entire nation occupied? I'll take that.

Bush's plan was to have Iraq's oil paying for its own reconstruction and repaying its debt to America for liberating it. This was supposed to start last year. To this date, Bush has continually asked congress for more money and more troops. Can you please explain to an idiot such as myself, why the Bush administration decided to deviate from this plan in such an easy war and make the US tax payer pay for it? Please, please tell me. I am dying to know.

Bush's plan was to have Iraq's oil paying for its own reconstruction and repaying its debt to America for liberating it. This was supposed to start last year. To this date, Bush has continually asked congress for more money and more troops. Can you please explain to an idiot such as myself, why the Bush administration decided to deviate from this plan in such an easy war and make the US tax payer pay for it? Please, please tell me. I am dying to know.
Because all the money from the oil is going to the reconstruction, as it was intended to do. The US never said it was going to force Iraq to pay for the debt of liberating it, remember back when the new government was appointed and the US asked other countries to forgive Iraq its debts, and France among others told them to fuck themselves?

Because all the money from the oil is going to the reconstruction, as it was intended to do. The US never said it was going to force Iraq to pay for the debt of liberating it, remember back when the new government was appointed and the US asked other countries to forgive Iraq its debts, and France among others told them to fuck themselves?

The money isn't going to repay for Iraq's recontruction. Why rebuild when someone is just going to come in and blow it up? It is more likely going in Bremer's and Allawi's pockets rather than reconstruction. I think you're kidding yourself here.

The US had every intention of getting money out of Iraq. There are private investors that are expecting returns once the "oil strats flowing again."

The money isn't going to repay for Iraq's recontruction. Why rebuild when someone is just going to come in and blow it up? It is more likely going in Bremer's and Allawi's pockets rather than reconstruction. I think you're kidding yourself here.

The US had every intention of getting money out of Iraq. There are private investors that are expecting returns once the "oil strats flowing again."
Because that's what we said we would do. And how is Bremer possibly making money on it? I think you're creating reality for yourself to argue in.

Speculation. The oil is flowing now. Why aren't we suddenly making billions of dollars?

Because that's what we said we would do.

I know that's what the US said they'd do, that's my point actaully. Try to follow what I say very carefully, ok?


And how is Bremer possibly making money on it? I think you're creating reality for yourself to argue in.

This was an anti-American snide remark, which is possibly, nay most-likely true. I wouldn't be surprised to find several people in high places embezzling money and getting rich off this whole thing.

Speculation. The oil is flowing now. Why aren't we suddenly making billions of dollars?

Oil is flowing but not like it was before, and not in a way where anyone has any control over it. They can't just say let's up production this month. Oil lines are being targeted by rebels.

Bush's plan was to have Iraq's oil paying for its own reconstruction and repaying its debt to America for liberating it. This was supposed to start last year. To this date, Bush has continually asked congress for more money and more troops. Can you please explain to an idiot such as myself, why the Bush administration decided to deviate from this plan in such an easy war and make the US tax payer pay for it? Please, please tell me. I am dying to know.
Umm... no, the plan was for the oil to help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, but not to repay any "debt to America for liberating it". In case you didn't here, the US went and negotiated with several European countries to forgive much of Iraq's pre-war debt, on the theory that it was unjust debt because the people never saw the benefit, and were actually oppressed with some of its fruits.

Well a guy in my Cricket team's friend was working in U.S supplies and was assigned the cleaning up of Uday's(Hussein) palace he managed to aquire( ;) )some of his Cigars.

WOW!

Umm... no, the plan was for the oil to help pay for Iraq's reconstruction, but not to repay any "debt to America for liberating it". In case you didn't here, the US went and negotiated with several European countries to forgive much of Iraq's pre-war debt, on the theory that it was unjust debt because the people never saw the benefit, and were actually oppressed with some of its fruits.

I recognize America went to European countries to ask for pardon on Iraq's debt. Of course, they are not asking for pardon on their own money but someone else's. I highly doubt the US isn't looking for what's in it for them in Iraq. Think about it. Why would any American sacrifice his/her life for someone else's progress? Would you put yourself in danger and even get yourself killed for someone else's sake? I am highly skeptical that anyone would honestly consider giving up their lives and families by answering yes to this.

We can go throughout the world and pick out nations that are giving the US resources for a meager price. Just to name some examples, Nigeria (oil), Philippines (food), and Latin America (diamonds). These countries also tend to have the worst cases of poverty; the most notable example being Nigeria, an oil-rich country with one of the worst cases of poverty (the reason being Shell and Exxon together export 95% of the country's oil). Furthermore, the US opens up economies, such as India's, to American corporations. The first order of business after Saddam was officially declared toppled was to sign contracts with American corporations for water and power.

Bush's plan was to have Iraq's oil paying for its own reconstruction and repaying its debt to America for liberating it. This was supposed to start last year. To this date, Bush has continually asked congress for more money and more troops. Can you please explain to an idiot such as myself, why the Bush administration decided to deviate from this plan in such an easy war and make the US tax payer pay for it? Please, please tell me. I am dying to know.

Umm... no, the plan was to have the oil help pay for the reconstruction, but not to repay "America for liberating it". In case you didn't hear, the US actually got several countries to forgive something like 80% of its prewar debt, on the theory that it was unjust debt, because it went to the corrupt dictator rather than to the people.

I think you just said that.

I recognize America went to European countries to ask for pardon on Iraq's debt. Of course, they are not asking for pardon on their own money but someone else's. I highly doubt the US isn't looking for what's in it for them in Iraq. Think about it. Why would any American sacrifice his/her life for someone else's progress? Would you put yourself in danger and even get yourself killed for someone else's sake? I am highly skeptical that anyone would honestly consider giving up their lives and families by answering yes to this.

We can go throughout the world and pick out nations that are giving the US resources for a meager price. Just to name some examples, Nigeria (oil), Philippines (food), and Latin America (diamonds). These countries also tend to have the worst cases of poverty; the most notable example being Nigeria, an oil-rich country with one of the worst cases of poverty (the reason being Shell and Exxon together export 95% of the country's oil). Furthermore, the US opens up economies, such as India's, to American corporations. The first order of business after Saddam was officially declared toppled was to sign contracts with American corporations for water and power.
Well, 2000 Americans so far thought it worth their lives. Remember, you sign up voluntarily for this army, and by far, most military personnel are extremely committed to their mission in Iraq.
As to signing contracts with American corporations, who should they have signed contracts with? France, Germany, Norway, Sweden - countries that did not shed one drop of blood to free that country? I don't think so.

I think you just said that.
Had connection problems - sorry.

Well, 2000 Americans so far thought it worth their lives. Remember, you sign up voluntarily for this army, and by far, most military personnel are extremely committed to their mission in Iraq.
As to signing contracts with American corporations, who should they have signed contracts with? France, Germany, Norway, Sweden - countries that did not shed one drop of blood to free that country? I don't think so.

how about the iraqis? I know its a far stretch but the only jobs for them don't have to be in the iraqi security force .

OK, you have repeatedly stated that what was done at Abu Gharib was not torture. For example, the statement below.

Yes. Broom handles do cross the line. Although even then they are minimally physically and mentally violating. Sleep deprivation as torture? Please. I should sue my college for "sleep deprivation" if it's such a terrible, horrible thing. Dogs are set on prisoners in America, I don't see why it's torture when it's being done to PoW's.

You have also said you don't believe in the Geneva Convention.

You have no rights in war. Those rights are guaranteed by human rights abusers, with no authority to actually enforce what they say. Rhetoric is useless if you have no force.

So, it would be fine if an enemy were to do the following to captured US soldiers?
Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee and then photographing him naked
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture
A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee

Those are just a few of the US Department of Defense's own findings of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Gharib.

Here are a few pictures of these tortures. (The DOD labeled them abuses. I don't.). Warning! Very graphic!! http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Of course, these photos are ones soldiers took as keepsakes. It is unlikely the show the worst that occurred.

I cannot believe anyone would seek to dismiss the seriousness of these tortures.

OK, you have repeatedly stated that what was done at Abu Gharib was not torture. For example, the statement below.



You have also said you don't believe in the Geneva Convention.



So, it would be fine if an enemy were to do the following to captured US soldiers?
Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
This is excessive.

Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
Likewise
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
Likewise
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
Depends on how cold it was and whether there was a female presence (in this case, there was.)
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear
Should not have even entered the guard's heads.
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped
See above.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
This would cause minimal physical damage, I don't see how this is torture.
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
Frightening and unnecessary.
Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee and then photographing him naked
Deal with it. Your self image is defined by you, not by what someone writes on your leg.
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture
Wrong because of the inclusion of a female.
A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
Plain wrong.
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
I don't see how this is torture.
Those are just a few of the US Department of Defense's own findings of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Gharib.

Here are a few pictures of these tortures. (The DOD labeled them abuses. I don't.). Warning! Very graphic!! http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

Of course, these photos are ones soldiers took as keepsakes. It is unlikely the show the worst that occurred.

I cannot believe anyone would seek to dismiss the seriousness of these tortures.

:headbang: We all wish we (knew about) and could have stopped Abu Ghraib, but I think it's really a media distraction from the real threats.

:headbang: We all wish we (knew about) and could have stopped Abu Ghraib, but I think it's really a media distraction from the real threats.

would that be the US government?

:headbang: We all wish we (knew about) and could have stopped Abu Ghraib, but I think it's really a media distraction from the real threats.

Actually I don't think it got nearly as much media attention as it deserved. Instead we got treated to constant coverage of Scott Peterson and Micheal Jackson. :rolleyes:

Actually I don't think it got nearly as much media attention as it deserved. Instead we got treated to constant coverage of Scott Peterson and Micheal Jackson. :rolleyes:

I'm already sick and tired of the Jackson case.

As for Scott Peterson, well, he actually had some of us believing he was innocent. Until we found about Amber Freya, and he went cyborg in the courtroom. What a naff.

I'm already sick and tired of the Jackson case.

As for Scott Peterson, well, he actually had some of us believing he was innocent. Until we found about Amber Freya, and he went cyborg in the courtroom. What a naff.
It's funny what's considered "news" in our media. Ok, not funny; sad.

It's funny what's considered "news" in our media. Ok, not funny; sad.

24/7
Just let me know if abd when they get convicted. I DON'T NEED ALL THE OTHER time filling crap. (my cap lock got stuck) :gundge:

Argh, my face itches. I think it has something to do with the cat sitting on it. Makes it hard to type too.