NationStates Jolt Archive

March 11, 2005 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A boy no older than 11 was among the children held by the Army at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, the former U.S. commander of the facility told a general investigating abuses at the prison.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski did not say what happened to the boy or why he was imprisoned, according to a transcript of her interview with Maj. Gen. George Fay that was released by the American Civil Liberties Union.

...

Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates. One boy "looked like he was 8-years-old," Karpinski said.

"He told me he was almost 12," Karpinski said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."




Then they wonder why the world considers the US a force for evil.

Considering that Karpinski was in command, one wonders why she didn't do something.

I can hardly imagine that she had orders to detain 8-year olds. So this sounds like gross stupidity on her part.

Considering that Karpinski was in command, one wonders why she didn't do something.

I can hardly imagine that she had orders to detain 8-year olds. So this sounds like gross stupidity on her part.

Gross stupidity, you say? Well, that sounds bad. After all, if I was in jail, I'd hope that the person in command of the jail wasn't grossly stupid. If such a person got such a demanding job, I'd wonder what sort of quality check the person had to go through to get the job.

Considering that Karpinski was in command, one wonders why she didn't do something.

I can hardly imagine that she had orders to detain 8-year olds. So this sounds like gross stupidity on her part.

Thats what I hope we will learn. Why were children detained and what has become of those detained children? Most importantly, were those children victims of abuse and subject to the same torture tactics used on adults? We have all heard the claims about Iraqi children being raped by US contractors while in custody but up until now alot of us had been dismissing those claims. Now with this latest revelation, I can no longer simply dismiss those rumors as anti-US propaganda.

Gross stupidity, you say? Well, that sounds bad. After all, if I was in jail, I'd hope that the person in command of the jail wasn't grossly stupid. If such a person got such a demanding job, I'd wonder what sort of quality check the person had to go through to get the job.

Indeed.

Hopefully he can go home without getting abused. The last thing the US needs are children telling their parents US soldiers abused them.

On March 16, 2004, Palestinian terrorists associated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah group tricked a 12-year-old boy into carrying a large bomb in his school bag into a checkpoint near Nablus. Abdullah Quran's life was saved only because a cell phone rigged to detonate the 13-pound bomb failed to set off the explosive at the checkpoint as it had been designed to do. The border guard heard the cell phone and opened the bag.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/palestinians/


I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but I prefer that they keep erring on the side of caution.

Then they wonder why the world considers the US a force for evil.
I'm still wondering...

Look, our army is enormous, if certain individuals aren't doing their jobs, that's their fault, and you can't blame the higher-ups who were probably as unaware of this as we were.

Hopefully he can go home without getting abused. The last thing the US needs are children telling their parents US soldiers abused them.

That was some time ago (probably over a year - Karpinski was relieved of command a long time ago).

No telling a) why the kid was there, b) if he was released, c) why she, the commander, let this go on.

March 11, 2005 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- A boy no older than 11 was among the children held by the Army at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, the former U.S. commander of the facility told a general investigating abuses at the prison.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski did not say what happened to the boy or why he was imprisoned, according to a transcript of her interview with Maj. Gen. George Fay that was released by the American Civil Liberties Union.

...

Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates. One boy "looked like he was 8-years-old," Karpinski said.

"He told me he was almost 12," Karpinski said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."




Then they wonder why the world considers the US a force for evil.

The US, quite frankly, is a force for freedom over tyranny. If you think otherwise, i want some of what you're drinking.

The ends justify the means. Or are you one of those "pro-freedom" lefties, stuck in a paradox, who hates the free vote in Iraq and the relative freedom in Afghanistan, with Taliban and Saddam ousted? (God, not another one...)

I want to know if it's possible that these kids

a)Shot a gun at someone perhaps and truly earned their way into the prison

or

b)have parents who are terrorists and are there simply because their parents are.

The ends justify the means. Or are you one of those freedom-loving lefties who hates the free vote in Iraq and the relative freedom in Afghanistan, with Taliban and Saddam ousted? (God, not another one...)
Dude, it's an 11 year old kid. There has to be a better way to deal with him if he fell in with the wrong crowd. Maybe separate detention facilities with education and councelling.

The US, quite frankly, is a force for freedom over tyranny. If you think otherwise, i want some of what you're drinking.

The ends justify the means. Or are you one of those freedom-loving lefties who hates the free vote in Iraq and the relative freedom in Afghanistan, with Taliban and Saddam ousted? (God, not another one...)

I want to know if it's possible that these kids

a)Shot a gun at someone perhaps and truly earned their way into the prison

or

b)have parents who are terrorists and are there simply because their parents are.
The ends never justify the means, ever. If you kill people to force freedom on them, the ends of freedom to not justify the means of killing them to do it.

Dude, it's an 11 year old kid. There has to be a better way to deal with him if he fell in with the wrong crowd. Maybe separate detention facilities with education and councelling.

Fair enough. I wonder, though, if there are extenuating circumstances we don't know about that necessitated his incarceration there.

I'm still wondering...

Look, our army is enormous, if certain individuals aren't doing their jobs, that's their fault, and you can't blame the higher-ups who were probably as unaware of this as we were.

You cannot get any higher up out in the field than a Brigadier General. The other three ranks of generals are so high in the chain of command that they do not go to the field except to boost morale. They spend all of their time in washington working on policy and other high level issues. There is no way to get higher than a Brigadier General, and that is who was in charge of Abu Ghraib and who is quoted on this article as admitting to having seen children who looked no older than 8 in prison and visiting them often. This wasnt an enlisted person, it was one of the highest ranking officers, a Brigadier General (O-7), someone who makes over $95,000 a year. One of the Army's elite. There just is no higher-up than that. The highest up you could possibly go was obviously aware.

The ends never justify the means, ever. If you kill people to force freedom on them, the ends of freedom to not justify the means of killing them to do it.

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.

I'm still wondering...

Look, our army is enormous, if certain individuals aren't doing their jobs, that's their fault, and you can't blame the higher-ups who were probably as unaware of this as we were.


Nuremberg proved otherwise

havent you ever seen Red Dawn?? Children are the greatest threat, there's no telling what they can do if you upset them. :) ;) :sniper: :mp5:

on a more serious not what would you prefer??? shooting him on sight when they came upon whatever he was arround when they detained him? prison is better than death and he was probably there so he would stay near his brother instead of being alone in a new country where he was considered a possible threat.

havent you ever seen Red Dawn?? Children are the greatest threat, there's no telling what they can do if you upset them. :) ;) :sniper: :mp5:

on a more serious not what would you prefer??? shooting him on sight when they came upon whatever he was arround when they detained him? prison is better than death and he was probably there so he would stay near his brother instead of being alone in a new country where he was considered a possible threat.

Obviously his parents were still in town and loved him and were able to care for him, otherwise he would not have been crying to be allowed to see his mom. Unless of course the US murdered his parents first and didnt tell him.

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.
That isn't evne my bloody contention. My contention is the ends never justify the means especially if the means involve killing and otherwise abusing the people you are supposedly liberating from tyranny.

Nuremberg proved otherwise
No, Nuremburg proved you can't say, "I was just following orders."

If there are no orders to abuse anyone, and you abuse someone, that's not the same as the Nuremburg defense.

You're just guilty AND stupid.

No, Nuremburg proved you can't say, "I was just following orders."

If there are no orders to abuse anyone, and you abuse someone, that's not the same as the Nuremburg defense.

You're just guilty AND stupid.

the Nuremburgh defense is what the soldiers accused of abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib have been using (unsuccessfully)

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.


Using your logic, the fact the France continued to operate as a nation after 1940 indicates that the French wanted to be occupied by the freedom bringing Germans. It's been proven that in every militarily occupied country, check out the recent study on the collaboration of the Channel Islanders, the average joe just wants to get by. In Iraq, that means geting out to vote beacuse that is what the occupiers want. If in fifty years, after the americans go home, people in Iraq are still talking about the 'great liberation' then you can make a case for the purity of american motive. Compelled freedom is no freedom.

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.
Alright, if the US is a force for freedom, as you say, then how come we oust out un-friendly yet elected leaders and tolerate totalitarian regimes as long as they remain friendly to us (Saudia Arabia comes to mind). America is a force for freedom alright, but on our terms. Your people can love you, but if you're unfriendly to the US, you gotta go. Your people can suffer from the worst afronts to civil liberties in the world (Hey, its Saudia Arabia again) but if you're friendly with the US, then you can execute every other person in your country (just make up a plausible excuse, we suggest 'terrorist'). I'm tired of having meaningful conversations, only to have someone jump in who thinks that the US and its military are endorsed by God and therefore can do nothing wrong.

No, Nuremburg proved you can't say, "I was just following orders."

If there are no orders to abuse anyone, and you abuse someone, that's not the same as the Nuremburg defense.

You're just guilty AND stupid.

It also proved that political higher ups were responsible for the actions of thier subordinates, look at Speer; he didn't kill anyone personally but the Todt organization was responsible for russian slave labour deaths. Speer was held accountable as head of the organization.

Obviously his parents were still in town and loved him and were able to care for him, otherwise he would not have been crying to be allowed to see his mom. Unless of course the US murdered his parents first and didnt tell him.



Right... the kid was DETAINED hence there was a reason he was there, would you prefer they arrest his parents and put them in there too?

Right... the kid was DETAINED hence there was a reason he was there, would you prefer they arrest his parents and put them in there too?

No, I would preffer that children not be put in prison. Specially in a prison with rampant abuse. Even supposing that there is absolutely nowhere else to put them, the parents should be allowed to see them.

No, I would preffer that children not be put in prison. Specially in a prison with rampant abuse. Even supposing that there is absolutely nowhere else to put them, the parents should be allowed to see them.


What if that's not possible? his mother could be anyone, anywhere. If they let a visitor come in how are they to know they are not sharing information, or even carying a weapon of some sort. This is a WAR ZONE not a kindergarden class. The kid did or was associated with something unlawful and thus was detained. We do the same thing with juvie... they are unable to see their parents except on visitation days and we KNOW who their parents are.

No, Nuremburg proved you can't say, "I was just following orders."

If there are no orders to abuse anyone, and you abuse someone, that's not the same as the Nuremburg defense.

You're just guilty AND stupid.

Just ask Slobodan Milosevic. He never gave orders for mass murder. He simply hinted and insinuated that such things ought to be done. His underlings "acted on their own accord." That way, nailing anything on him has been harder than one might think for a man who is so obviously responsible for mass murders.

Obviously, comparing Milosevic's doings to what goes on in Abu Ghraib is quite a leap, but one should keep in mind that the question of who is responsible for what isn't always that easy...

You know what's even worse? Terrorists DO use children that young as suicide bombers.

That isn't evne my bloody contention. My contention is the ends never justify the means especially if the means involve killing and otherwise abusing the people you are supposedly liberating from tyranny.

I know, that's a terrible side-effect of war: innocent lives.

But I think if you weigh the success of Saddam's overthrow and resulting free vote, most iraqis will say it was worth it.

there are two things, imo, that need to happen to really make this an overall success:

1)The Sunnis' interests must not be cast aside in the new Iraqi government.

2)Iraq must have a solvent/viable police force and armed forces to put down future insurgency.

(sorry if i sounded angry earlier... i am not a morning person, especially with the weekend so near. hehe)

the Nuremburgh defense is what the soldiers accused of abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib have been using (unsuccessfully)

Which is pretty foolish. I would have gone directly for the Chewbacca defense...

No, I would preffer that children not be put in prison. Specially in a prison with rampant abuse. Even supposing that there is absolutely nowhere else to put them, the parents should be allowed to see them.

So the reason you haven't taken one of the many civilian jobs in Iraq to make this better is? :D

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.

Um, how does they voting for rule of their country and wanting America to leave...somehow vindicate a war that was founded on unsound principles.

Clearly some of the iraqis wanted to be free from Saddam, but the majority, nope, they want to be free in general. Which is why some Iraqis say," America go home" because right now we are stealing their power and autonomy.

Ends never justify the means. Heavenly Father said it, Jesus said it, and the founding fathers said it.
"Good intentions pave the way to hell"
So, looks like you want us to pave our way to hell?

freedom was unwanted in Iraq.Freedom was wanted...

freedom is still wanted.

They dont want the US in charge.
They dont want the US to shape their constitution.
They dont want the Halliburtons...
They dont want to live under the US military boot.

freedom is still very much wanted.

So the reason you haven't taken one of the many civilian jobs in Iraq to make this better is? :D

There arent any civilian jobs that allow you to make a positive difference. I dont see how helping set up computer networks or the telecommunications infrastructure (which is what I would be qualified to do) would help make the situation better. However, I am considering going as part of a church sponsored mission.

The US, quite frankly, is a force for freedom over tyranny. If you think otherwise, i want some of what you're drinking.

The ends justify the means. Or are you one of those "pro-freedom" lefties, stuck in a paradox, who hates the free vote in Iraq and the relative freedom in Afghanistan, with Taliban and Saddam ousted? (God, not another one...)

I want to know if it's possible that these kids

a)Shot a gun at someone perhaps and truly earned their way into the prison

or

b)have parents who are terrorists and are there simply because their parents are.

Why do yanks keep saying you have "freedom" in afganistan????

The place is TOTALLY run by drug running warlords outside of kabul. SAme guys that were in place before the invasion. WTF???

the Nuremburgh defense is what the soldiers accused of abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib have been using (unsuccessfully)

It might help, at least in terms of "mitigating circumstances" in a military court-martial, if you could prove that someone gave you an order.

Merely saying that someone gave you the order verbally doesn't count. For reasons that you can obviously understand.

I've been in the Army before, and you DO get instructions on character:
http://atiam.train.army.mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/296756-1/fm/22-100/ch2.htm#2-19

And you do get instructions on how to treat prisoners (how to make ethical decisions, for those idiots who may never have had any experience in making ethical decisions) and what to do when you encounter illegal orders (let's say that someone DID give you a verbal order to do something that you thought was illegal):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/7-21-13/chap1.htm (look at the ethical reasoning process).

As a typical enlisted soldier I would not perform torture or abuse on any prisoner or detainee. If it was a verbal order, I would ask for it in writing. And if I was given a written order, I would disobey on the basis that it was an illegal order. Something in writing mandating torture would be enough to cover my ass.

Wow. As an American I am embarrassed by my country's behavior over the last 4 years.

-- Our handling of the spy plane that crashed landed in China was terrible. We get caught spying on a rising superpower and simply demand our plane back. The world saw us as an arrogant sore loser.

-- And while considering China... our gov't is so in the pocket of the massive corporations that they have allowed them to exploit cheap slave labor overseas to the point that we now have allowed China to ascend so rapidly that they are about to control all of East Asia. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'm affraid of how our gov't will handle this. They seem to be very short sighted. It's bullying, war, or lies and war.

-- In May of 2001 the Bush admin gave $40 million to the Taliban Government in Afghanistan despite the warnings from everyone from the media to intelligence people that that money could actually be used to fund terrorist activities in that state aimed against the U.S., and we did it all in the name of the Taliban destroying their poppy crop. So the Taliban warehoused their opium gum and allowed its black market price to skyrocket before selling it for much more than they could have made before we bribed them to "destroy" it.

-- After being attacked on September 11 by mostly Saudis we attack Afghanistan allowing many Pakistani and Saudi terrorist suspects to flee, and we've still done nothing to the ruthless dictators in Saudi Arabia. In fact, we support that tyrannical government all while claiming victory over tyranny in the Middle East.

-- We then attack Iraq because they are an imminent threat to our security. We are told that inaction will result in a "mushroom cloud" over our cities. There were no WMD in Iraq. And now Americans are justifying the means with the ends?!?!?!?!?! The last time I check we are still occupying that country. Elections held under an occupying force are not recognized by the U.S. government as being valid. Not only that but there are bombings everyday in that county with tens of thousands dead and still dying, and you're going to justify the means with those ends???? And you wonder why Americans look like complete idiots to the rest of the world.

-- It was so embarrassing to watch the Olympics this year. I remember growing up in the Cold War era and everyone pulling for America. I can recall the speculation that the communist block countries were cheating in order to look superior to the rest of the free world. And now we are the ones who everyone is rooting against. And it is our athletes who are cheating, and getting caught. It's really sad.

-- The rest of the world is moving toward cleaning up the environment, and yet we, who really could make the biggest difference won't accept global movements to clean up the environment. We turn a blind eye to solid scientific evidence that we are harming the environment, and do so all in the name of corporate greed. Our gov't is so bought and paid for by large corporations that they'd rather pollute in the name of greed than keep a clean house. We are kind of like the one house on the block that refuses to clean up the yard. Everyone else keeps a clean house but we just let the garbage pile up and weeds to overgrow until we just pollute the rest of the neighborhood with out stink. Only in this case our stink is actually harming the entire planet.

-- Enron. A bunch of Bush buddies from Texas steal billions of dollars from hard working Americans by creating what essentially amounts to a phony business, and trumping it up as a major energy player only to turn around and steal all of the money that honest people invested in it. And now our President wants us to put our Social Security in the stock market so our hard earned money can become easy prey to the corrupt, greedy, salivating wolves who are already thinking of ways to get richer off of us if Bush's plan goes through.

--Then just weeks after Trent Lott’s comments that America would be better today had Strom Thurmond(Thurmond ran on a platform of racism) been elected President, Bush turns around and petitions the Supreme Court to declare affirmative action in college admission unconstitutional. Not long after that Bush also announces that he supports changing our country’s Constitution so it includes discrimination against same sex couples. Adding discrimination to our Constitution after over 200 years of working against discrimination would be a major blow to our country's claim to freedom.

--Most of my fellow Americans don’t seem concerned about the Patriot Act. This is a document that far too closely resembles the beginnings of the Nazi party’s days in Germany when they began to strip peoples rights away with clever, good sounding, nationalistic names. What resulted after that…well I hope we don’t see Americans detained for no reason other than they are part of the political opposition, but should we see another terrorist attack here in America, reason may be thrown out the window, and then it will be too late. We need to repeal the Patriot Act now before it is too late.

I could go on (value of the dollar, trade deficits, budget deficits, etc), but I think you get the point. I’m not a democrat or a republican. I believe they are both largely responsible for the mess we’re in and neither party seems to want to do anything to fix this. They are more than happy to just continue with the status quo as long as that will keep them in power, and Americans don’t care. Give them TV and an SUV and the world around them seems to be just fine. Heck they’ll even defend our country’s actions blindly(children being detained, generals saying it’s fun to shoot Arabs, a war based on lies) because it’s Patriotic and that’s good. I don’t know when we will wake up and realize that our country is ill and needs an antidote fast. It’s not going to be an easy fix, and I’m afraid it’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

There arent any civilian jobs that allow you to make a positive difference. I dont see how helping set up computer networks or the telecommunications infrastructure (which is what I would be qualified to do) would help make the situation better. However, I am considering going as part of a church sponsored mission.

So you don't think that setting up telco isn't stabilitizing?
Think about all the stuff those people don't have.
I think working phones would help the the Iraqis to NOT listen to terrorists and volunteer to help them. Any infrastructure improvements can only help!

I would never go as part of a church mission to an Islamic nation. That's just asking for trouble. :(

Wow. As an American I am embarrassed by my country's behavior over the last 4 years.

<<SNIP>>

Wow. All that crap, and not a single on topic point. :rolleyes:

I know, that's a terrible side-effect of war: innocent lives.

But I think if you weigh the success of Saddam's overthrow and resulting free vote, most iraqis will say it was worth it.

there are two things, imo, that need to happen to really make this an overall success:

1)The Sunnis' interests must not be cast aside in the new Iraqi government.

2)Iraq must have a solvent/viable police force and armed forces to put down future insurgency.

(sorry if i sounded angry earlier... i am not a morning person, especially with the weekend so near. hehe)
Are you Iraqi? No, bequiet

Why do yanks keep saying you have "freedom" in afganistan????

The place is TOTALLY run by drug running warlords outside of kabul. SAme guys that were in place before the invasion. WTF???
Well, now women and girls are free to go to school or work, homosexuals don't face the death penalty, religious minorities don't face persecution at the hands of the government, Women need not wear a burqua or be accompanied by a male relative when they go about their business outside the house. I'd say that's alot more free than when the Taliban were in charge.

Don't forget - they now play football in the football stadiums - good ol' European football - not that American crap.

Under the Taliban, that was forbidden. The football stadium was where men had their hands cut off and women were shot in the head at close range for entertainment.

Don't forget - they now play football in the football stadiums - good ol' European football - not that American crap.

Under the Taliban, that was forbidden. The football stadium was where men had their hands cut off and women were shot in the head at close range for entertainment.

Um... <tap> <tap> <tap>

http://www.nfleurope.com/

It's only a matter of time. :D

Coming soon: http: //www.nflmiddleeast. com

Sadam was evil
So were all the Taliban
but did we act right?

Should we have waited?
Got much more U.N. support
Before starting war?

Locking up children
Is not ever justified
it is sick and wrong

When a person or group decides that they have the motivation and justification to not only kill others for their cause, but to kill themselves, it is quite plain that they will be willing to use teenagers and children to achieve their aims. Why do you think the Israeli's keep getting crap over their harsh treatment of children? And people continue to complain after there have been numerous incidents of teenagers and younger carrying suicide bombs.

Did it occur to anyone that the child may have been there for his own protection? Iraq is not a very safe place, and if he messed up an attack well enough to get caught, I doubt the higher-ups would be too pleased. I'm not saying this is the case - I don't know - but I'm offering it as a suggestion for at least part of the cause.

Are you Iraqi? No, bequiet

But I presume that you ARE Iraqi and moreover are an elected representative or spokesperson? No? Then either be quiet, or let other people say their part.

A boy no older than 11 was among the children held by the Army at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison,

Vietcong soldiers were of a simmilar age. Non government forces are not above using children of this age to fight their wars.

you all can go to Hell, I'm goin to Texas

if we do not kill, thats right, i said KILL you maoist/marxist/leftist pussies, all radical muslims they will kill us. look at what happened in spain, its not just Americans they are after, its anyone who does not believe in jihad, they want your mind body and soul

do they have to hack off your familys heads with a knife before you realize this?

Sadam was evil
So were all the Taliban
but did we act right?

Should we have waited?
Got much more U.N. support
Before starting war?

Locking up children
Is not ever justified
it is sick and wrong

I think that haiku
is excellent poetry
But these are silly.

Don't forget - they now play football in the football stadiums - good ol' European football - not that American crap.

Under the Taliban, that was forbidden.Why would the Taliban forbid Football?

The ends never justify the means, ever.

WTF, the ends never justify the means, ever? Then everything is unjustified, always.

I think you really want to say that in this case the ends don't justify the means; and stop making blanket statements.

You're one of those would be lawyers.

Why would the Taliban forbid Football?

They needed the stadium for beheadings. (Look it up).

For those who argue that the ends justify the means:

If Iraqis are so adament about using children to get you out of the country, exactly what ends are you trying to accomplish? Spreading democracy? Are these the acts of a country that wants democracy?

Let's recall Vietnam. People there didn't want American intervention. That's why little kids were handing US soldiers live gernades!

For those who argue that the army is so large that the higher ups can't be held accountable for those under them:

What happened to background checks and earning your way up the ladder based on merit? Was this person picked off the street or considered fit for this job based on past excellence?

Did it occur to anyone that the child may have been there for his own protection? Iraq is not a very safe place, and if he messed up an attack well enough to get caught, I doubt the higher-ups would be too pleased. I'm not saying this is the case - I don't know - but I'm offering it as a suggestion for at least part of the cause.


So they thought locking him up in a prison where sexual humiliation and torture was the order of the day would be a safer place?

For those who argue that the ends justify the means:

If Iraqis are so adament about using children to get you out of the country, exactly what ends are you trying to accomplish? Spreading democracy? Are these the acts of a country that wants democracy?

Let's recall Vietnam. People there didn't want American intervention. That's why little kids were handing US soldiers live gernades!

For those who argue that the army is so large that the higher ups can't be held accountable for those under them:

What happened to background checks and earning your way up the ladder based on merit? Was this person picked off the street or considered fit for this job based on past excellence?


A lot of people in vietnam (the south) did want US intervention. They were pretty upset when the US left.

To your main point, you would have to show that the vast majority of Iraqi's are prepared to use thier kids for this. As I see it, it is but a tiny, tiny minority who are prepared to do this. By that standard you may as well argure that th US government should dissolve itself because of those loons i Idaho who are prepared to sacrifice their childrens future because they think the US is corrupt.

To your main point, you would have to show that the vast majority of Iraqi's are prepared to use thier kids for this. As I see it, it is but a tiny, tiny minority who are prepared to do this. By that standard you may as well argure that th US government should dissolve itself because of those loons i Idaho who are prepared to sacrifice their childrens future because they think the US is corrupt.

Agreed. It is not likely very many Iraqis are willing to give up there children even if the US are there for a long time.

Why would the Taliban forbid Football?

Ocean, for all that you think the US is evil, and the Taliban were just good, innocent, God-fearing people, we know for a fact that:

1. Taliban men can rape any woman they choose, old or young, and then throw down a piece of paper from their mullah saying that it's not raped, but that it's marriage - and then walk away from the "marriage" on the spot.

2. Listen to any music - sung, taped, on a CD, MP3, etc., or listen to someone drumming his fingers on a desktop - and you'll be shot on the spot.

3. Be accused of theft - not tried and convicted - just accused - and we'll take you to the stadium and cut your hands off. Sometimes with some local anesthetic, sometimes not. That will be done in groups of nearly a hundred at a time.

4. Women WILL be beaten, sometimes to death, if caught outside the house without their father, husband, or brother.

5. Men WILL be shot for not growing a beard. Barbers will be shot for shaving any man.

6. All this shooting, beating, etc., takes place without any trial or hearing.

7. Soccer, and any other organized sport, is forbidden - on pain of death. Children were shot on the spot for improvising a football (soccer) game.

The US may not be perfect - they have their abuses - but they do not compare to what the Taliban do. And by comparison, the current Afghan situation is nowhere as brutal as the Taliban.

WRONG

ENDS justify MEANS when MILLIONS of Iraqis brave terrorist violence to vote for their country's new leadership... representing the first free vote in Iraq in about 50 years.

For something to be FORCED on someone means that the person doesn't WANT it... CLEARLY, the MAJORITY of Iraqis WANTED to be free from the dictatorial Saddam.

The success of the vote renders invalid your contention that freedom was unwanted in Iraq.
The Iraqis wanted to be free from Saddam's regime but I think given enough time, the Iraqi people would do it themselves. They would have taken control via Civil War and there would be no need for American intervention. The Iraqi people would select a leader based on however they all deemed fit. Now a Civil War is beginning after America's intervention to try to create a democracy. America calls Iraq a new government but in fact it's not because it's not an actual state. The people want to break it down and mold it the way THEY want and recreate their own vision of an Iraqi state. This time it's not just about the Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd war.

Hmm, if I saw an 11 year old kid with a bomb strapped to his chest, I'd do more than imprison him. See, that way, it's not a question of 'torturing and abusing Iraqi children' then it's just another statistic in the "innocent" people killed during the invasion. I think 11 years old is old enough to know what happens when you put on a backpack full of explosives, though.

Perhaps it's a good thing I'm not a Brigadier General.

For those who argue that the ends justify the means:

If Iraqis are so adament about using children to get you out of the country, exactly what ends are you trying to accomplish? Spreading democracy? Are these the acts of a country that wants democracy?

Um, the IRAQIs aren't, the terrorists are. Most of the "insurgents" in Iraq are not Iraqis!

Let's recall Vietnam. People there didn't want American intervention. That's why little kids were handing US soldiers live gernades!

*Some* were. I seem to remember a whole lot of Vietnamese coming by boat and fighting to get a flight *out* of 'Nam. Between 1981 and 2000, the United States accepted 531,310 Vietnamese refugees and asylees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_American
...and those were the ones able to get out!

For those who argue that the army is so large that the higher ups can't be held accountable for those under them:

What happened to background checks and earning your way up the ladder based on merit? Was this person picked off the street or considered fit for this job based on past excellence?

I don't argue that, I say that all (privates up to generals who knew) should be held accountable for any actual crimes. I don't consider a woman rubbing her breasts in the face of a guy a crime.
Electordes to the testicles and TURNING IT ON? That's a crime.

you all can go to Hell, I'm goin to Texas

if we do not kill, thats right, i said KILL you maoist/marxist/leftist pussies, all radical muslims they will kill us. look at what happened in spain, its not just Americans they are after, its anyone who does not believe in jihad, they want your mind body and soul

do they have to hack off your familys heads with a knife before you realize this?

Marxism is a violent over throw of the government

Whispering Legs,
Do you have BBC,Reuters or AFP sources for all your Allegations?

If you only have US sources...or US puppet sources...Then I dont even need to bother with all that shit.

lets start with your first Allegation.


1. Taliban men can rape any woman they choose.

Show me the Links.

They needed the stadium for beheadings. (Look it up).
You sure they just weren't doing that cause they were short of footballs?

You sure they just weren't doing that cause they were short of footballs?
likely they were short of Stadiums.(they only have one)

The other three ranks of generals are so high in the chain of command that they do not go to the field except to boost morale.

Yeah, because they're "too good" to actually risk their lives. I think the higher ranking a member of the military is, the more risky jobs they should do.

<<<El.Bumpo<<<

Whispering Legs,
Do you have BBC,Reuters or AFP sources for all your Allegations?

If you only have US sources...or US puppet sources...Then I dont even need to bother with all that shit.

lets start with your first Allegation.


1. Taliban men can rape any woman they choose.

Show me the Links.