NationStates Jolt Archive

No Matter what your view on the War, do you think the US Military holds their soliders to higher standards than they should be held to??

I mean, it is war. Do you think that the US is fair in the way that it handles it's soliders.

Do you think if the Romans/Germans/French where in the same position they would do the same.

I know when I was in Afghanistan with the Marines we had to be on our "best" behavior around the locals.

Almost to a fault, we couldn't use any forceful methods to get information out.
Forceful meaning, threating language, loud music, dogs... etc.

I think it hurts the military to be so harsh on these things

That's why we wear the white hats.

I'm here before someone says the standards aren't high enough and then some shit about the average Norwegian military clerk being able to slaughter 10 American Marines before they even eat their morning Urghghhhaarjj or whatever the hell they do in the morning.


That said, all of this nasty crap that is normal for humans in such a position to do (Go check out that one study about zapping people behind a wall), the military is doing all it can to keep people from shitting bricks left and right.

I know when I was in Afghanistan with the Marines we had to be on our "best" behavior around the locals.

Almost to a fault, we couldn't use any forceful methods to get information out.
Forceful meaning, threating language, loud music, dogs... etc.

I think it hurts the military to be so harsh on these things

To do otherwise would be to open ourselves to much more "critiques" of the actions we have taken there than we already have...

Is there some reason you believe they shouldn't be treated with the respect you would want them to treat you with, if the situation were reversed?

Regards,
Gaar

its war, and because of that people's lives are at stake. soldiers should be held to the highest standards as they are effectively judge, jury & executioner out there (unless scrutinised not to). we hold judges to high standards, why not soldiers? sure they have to make split-second decisions, but that's what training is for - does the training mean nothing?

If you consider that the al-Q guys that we fought killed a Navy Seal that they captured, one might be less inclined to want to take them prisoner at all.

But, that's why they make the rules.

If you consider that the al-Q guys that we fought killed a Navy Seal that they captured, one might be less inclined to want to take them prisoner at all.

But, that's why they make the rules.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.

its war, and because of that people's lives are at stake. soldiers should be held to the highest standards as they are effectively judge, jury & executioner out there (unless scrutinised not to). we hold judges to high standards, why not soldiers? sure they have to make split-second decisions, but that's what training is for - does the training mean nothing?
You can't train a soldier for every situation. Nor a judge. However, if a judge hesitates, the stenographer has more to type. If a soldier hesitates, people die.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.

If you consider who did it first, and which one was official, and which one was not, which one court martialed its own men, and which one did not, you'll know where we get the moral highground.

If you consider who did it first, and which one was official, and which one was not, which one court martialed its own men, and which one did not, you'll know where we get the moral highground.


I'm not talking about abu ghraib.

I'm not talking about abu ghraib.
Are you talking about the video of marines sawing off an Arab's head with a rusty knife then?

1. ... do you think the US Military holds their soliders to higher standards than they should be held to??

2. Do you think that the US is fair in the way that it handles it's soliders.

3. Do you think if the Romans/Germans/French where in the same position they would do the same?
1. No. I think we hold our miitary personnel to the highest standards consistent with their being the military arm of a democratic super-power.

2. Generally, yes. Pay could always be higher and benefits better, but living standards for military personnel are probably the best in the world. More attention should be given to the dependents of military personnel, particularly support during wartime, but even that is far and above what is provided to the dependents of most other military organizations around the world.

3. No.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.
Unadulterated bullshit.

I'm not talking about abu ghraib.

Neither am I. The first people to kill non-combatants in the war on terror - al-Qaeda, on Sept 11.

The first people to kill a prisoner - al-Qaeda. His name was Neal Roberts, and he was cut limb from limb on video.

Neither am I. The first people to kill non-combatants in the war on terror - al-Qaeda, on Sept 11.

The first people to kill a prisoner - al-Qaeda. His name was Neal Roberts, and he was cut limb from limb on video.


There is no "eye for an eye" in matters like this, you are either a moral power or a torture/murder power.

There is no "eye for an eye" in matters like this, you are either a moral power or a torture/murder power.
Eye for an eye is the only true justice. Anything else is unfair to one party or the other.

There is no "eye for an eye" in matters like this, you are either a moral power or a torture/murder power.
That's why we have investigations.
That's why we have court martials.
If you knew anything about military history, you would know that mistreatment, torture, and killing of prisoners is a function of small group dynamics more than anything else. That is, if you were acquainted with the research done by the British in WW II.

And that's why we have court martials. And hearings. And we can question what goes on.

al-Qaeda, the Taliban - none of them have those things.

That's what makes us morally superior.

You won't hear their officers going round saying you have to treat the enemy with respect, even though they just eviscerated your friend.

Eye for an eye is the only true justice. Anything else is unfair to one party or the other.


It is barbarian and uncivilized justice.

Civilized peoples do not practice "eye for an eye."

When America is claiming to be fighting wars for the good of the Iraqi people, it's pretty important it doesn't let the Army go arround shooting innocent people too often.

They've already lost WMDs as a reason, lets try not to make it a totally pointless war.

It is barbarian and uncivilized justice.

Civilized peoples do not practice "eye for an eye."
Actually, it was eye for an eye that STOPPED barbarian justice, if you have any grasp of history. Civilized people do practice eye for an eye, I challange you to find a nation that doesn't.

You can't train a soldier for every situation. Nor a judge. However, if a judge hesitates, the stenographer has more to type. If a soldier hesitates, people die.
Agreed, but the training and scrutiny of the soldiers means they should know when to hesitate and when not to. its the difference between an ill-disiplined fighting force and a disciplined one. essentially, they may not be trained for every situation and obviously can't hesitate, but without due scrutiny and high standards, the soldiers won't hesitate at all and innocent lives may be lost.
to be frank (hi frank haha), the soldiers sign up to putting their life on the line, innocents do not. i would rather a soldier hesitate and loose the life of another soldier than not hesitate and loose an innocent life.

That's why we have investigations.
That's why we have court martials.
If you knew anything about military history, you would know that mistreatment, torture, and killing of prisoners is a function of small group dynamics more than anything else. That is, if you were acquainted with the research done by the British in WW II.

And that's why we have court martials. And hearings. And we can question what goes on.

al-Qaeda, the Taliban - none of them have those things.

That's what makes us morally superior.

You won't hear their officers going round saying you have to treat the enemy with respect, even though they just eviscerated your friend.

Who, so far, has been court martialed due to our continuing "extraordinary rendition" program?

What is your opinion on the now atty general's memo for Bush in march 2003 explaining how he could not be held accountable for ordering torture?

Agreed, but the training and scrutiny of the soldiers means they should know when to hesitate and when not to. its the difference between an ill-disiplined fighting force and a disciplined one. essentially, they may not be trained for every situation and obviously can't hesitate, but without due scrutiny and high standards, the soldiers won't hesitate at all and innocent lives may be lost.
to be frank (hi frank haha), the soldiers sign up to putting their life on the line, innocents do not. i would rather a soldier hesitate and loose the life of another soldier than not hesitate and loose an innocent life.
And that's the problem. I value the lives of our citizens and countrymen more than the enemy's.

I know when I was in Afghanistan with the Marines we had to be on our "best" behavior around the locals.

Almost to a fault, we couldn't use any forceful methods to get information out.
Forceful meaning, threating language, loud music, dogs... etc.

I think it hurts the military to be so harsh on these things


Just so you're aware, a lot of us here in the US are proud and thankful we have the Marines, regardless of how you might feel reading these forums.
So- Thank You. Im glad you made it home.

Actually, it was eye for an eye that STOPPED barbarian justice, if you have any grasp of history. Civilized people do practice eye for an eye, I challange you to find a nation that doesn't.


The United Kindgom
Canada
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Switzerland
Italy
Germany
France
Holland
&c.

The United Kindgom
Canada
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Switzerland
Italy
Germany
France
Holland
&c.
The United Kingdom doesn't jail rapists and murderers for life?

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.

Really?!?!

And yet we are charging OUR Troops with these crimes, they ARE being held to account.

Do you think Al Qaeda is doing the same with their "Soldiers" (using the term very loosely) that don't adhere to the Geneva Conventions?

Regards,
Gaar

I don't understand why we're talking about this...

Who, so far, has been court martialed due to our continuing "extraordinary rendition" program?

What is your opinion on the now atty general's memo for Bush in march 2003 explaining how he could not be held accountable for ordering torture?

I have no problem with extraordinary rendition. For one thing, you have no evidence that the prisoners are being mistreated. Secondly, you are raising the question - an act that cannot be done with anything that al-Qaeda does within their ranks. I'm sure it's being investigated and questioned - but until something comes of it, I can't offer an opinion.

The March 2003 memo does not "explain how he could not be held accountable for ordering torture". It says nothing of the sort.

Really?!?!

And yet we are charging OUR Troops with these crimes, they ARE being held to account.

Do you think Al Qaeda is doing the same with their "Soldiers" (using the term very loosely) that don't adhere to the Geneva Conventions?

Regards,
Gaar

Who, as yet, has been disciplined or held accountable for our continuing 'extraordinary rendition' program ?

What is your take on alberto gonzales' memo of march 2003 explaining how bush could have people tortured with immunity?

I also have no problem with killing, without trial, any non-uniformed, armed combatant who happens to walk by, as long as I'm within the rules of engagement.

I don't have to shout a warning, or wave hello, or jump up and down to get their attention before I open up on them, either.

Rules of war, you know.

Who, as yet, has been disciplined or held accountable for our continuing 'extraordinary rendition' program ?

What is your take on alberto gonzales' memo of march 2003 explaining how bush could have people tortured with immunity?

You expect instantaneous results. You assume that every accusation is a truth - and should skip any investigation or trial and proceed straight to punishment.

And the memo says nothing of the sort. That's a twisted way to express what the memo never said.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.
WHOA there killer. I'd like you to show me where we killed actual POWs. Seing as how most of the captives are terrorists who generally target innocent civilians, and think blowing up babies scores them bonus points in their idea of heaven, I don't see how they deserve to be treated any better than they show their OWN captives. And seeing as how I doubt they knew about Guantanamo Bay before CNN told them, I don't think that gives them an excuse now to kill innocents before even learning that we used torture. Besides, we use those methods on *military* personnel, and not just some random journalist that comes up to us asking for a story.

Now, if you can't think rationally and logically, or at least display that you know what you are talking about, then you can shut up. It makes no sense for the US to abide by a code of war ethics that the enemy doesn't follow, especially when the UN seems to be unlikely to give a shit about Iraqis committing war crimes, unless they be in the support of the US. I'd say if you want to talk about "reciprosity", by which I assume you mean the use of "reciprocal force," then it's high time the US be allowed to use some REAL muscle.

Who, as yet, has been disciplined or held accountable for our continuing 'extraordinary rendition' program ?

What is your take on alberto gonzales' memo of march 2003 explaining how bush could have people tortured with immunity?

As others KEEP pointing out, they don't believe such a thing was actually said in the memo.

Perhaps YOU could provide a LINK to information supporting YOUR accusation?

You don't expect us to just take YOUR WORD that it was said, do you?

Regards,
Gaar

When America is claiming to be fighting wars for the good of the Iraqi people, it's pretty important it doesn't let the Army go arround shooting innocent people too often.

They've already lost WMDs as a reason, lets try not to make it a totally pointless war.
Let me place you in the position of a US soldier in Iraq:

For days now, you have been patrolling a section of Baghdad noted for nsurgent activity. Your stress levels are through the roof because you have to be constantly vigilant.

It feels as though your nerve endings are out about fifty feet from your body. You are hot, tired and sweaty, and your backpack feels more like 500 lbs rather than the scaled down 50 lbs you actualy carry on patrol. Yesterday, two of your best friends were killed in a particularly gruesome way by an IED, their body-parts scattered over a 1/4 acre of Iraq.

As you walk down a dusty side-street, your weapon sweeping from side to side as you scan every dorrway and window, you suddenly become aware of a car speeding toward you. You have one instant to see what you think is a woman with a veil behind in the driver's seat.

One of your patrol members fires a warning shot into the air and every member of the patrol begins to shout for the car to stop. it does not, but instead continues speeding directly toward the patrol.

Quick! What do you do?

When America is claiming to be fighting wars for the good of the Iraqi people, it's pretty important it doesn't let the Army go arround shooting innocent people too often.

They've already lost WMDs as a reason, lets try not to make it a totally pointless war.


They dont "go around shooting innocent people too often"- you think anyone feels good when a civilian is killed by mistake? it terrible when one innocent person is killed and there have been relatively few civilian casualties considering whats going on. Are you that naive or ignorant?


"totally pointless war" ? saddam hussein and his two bastard sons and "chemical ali" and a whole host of other sociopaths maimed, tortured, raped and killed more OF THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN than any weapon of mass destruction-that reason alone is enough to have them all put on playing cards and methodically eliminated. Where is the ACLU? I swear, the Iraqi people had less civil rights than spotted owls.
I think that the positive elements of the forceful removal of these scumbags from power are already starting to show themselves. The country will rebuild its structure and government and the people will start to enjoy the benefits of their natural resources. Instead of a handful of psychos getting trailer loads of cash.

And that's the problem. I value the lives of our citizens and countrymen more than the enemy's.
they're still people, even if they are your enemies. even more than that, innocent people are just that - innocent. surely it is immoral to value any life over that of an innocent? (just a question, not necessarily what i think... :))

they're still people, even if they are your enemies. even more than that, innocent people are just that - innocent. surely it is immoral to value any life over that of an innocent? (just a question, not necessarily what i think... :))
No, it isn't. For practical purposes, different lives are more or less valuable than another. For instance, in war, do you put more emphasis on recruiting the triathalon winners or the cripples? American soldiers in war are always more valuable than enemy soldiers.

Let me place you in the position of a US soldier in Iraq:

For days now, you have been patrolling a section of Baghdad noted for nsurgent activity. Your stress levels are through the roof because you have to be constantly vigilant.

It feels as though your nerve endings are out about fifty feet from your body. You are hot, tired and sweaty, and your backpack feels more like 500 lbs rather than the scaled down 50 lbs you actualy carry on patrol. Yesterday, two of your best friends were killed in a particularly gruesome way by an IED, their body-parts scattered over a 1/4 acre of Iraq.

As you walk down a dusty side-street, your weapon sweeping from side to side as you scan every dorrway and window, you suddenly become aware of a car speeding toward you. You have one instant to see what you think is a woman with a veil behind in the driver's seat.

One of your patrol members fires a warning shot into the air and every member of the patrol begins to shout for the car to stop. it does not, but instead continues speeding directly toward the patrol.

Quick! What do you do?

I follow my training and open fire with the intentions of defending myself and my squad, knowing anything is possible there-that even women are utilized on suicide missions and pray I am right this time and pray I will return home intact to my family and that my squad does too. ( I have to do all of this knowing an imbedded reported might be nearby to record it all so that everyone in the world will have the luxury of reviewing it at their safe leisure a thousand times in slow motion and spout off thier theory without fear of retribution because of guys like me out there putting it on the line. Sorry-that was a rant-but YOU ARE RIGHT)

Unadulterated bullshit.

Complete and total crap. And now your point is utterly disproven too! Isn't this a great way to have a rational discussion?

Anyone who thinks "They did it first!" qualifies as a rational defense for POW abuse or the deaths of civilians, really needs to go back to childhood and work their way back up. The point of not torturing people is because torture is supposedly wrong, and America claims to have The Moral High Ground here. And can not justify the civilian casualties with other civilian casualties.

Now, if you want to say "The mountains of dead Iraqi children are justified because we had no other choice, and more people would have died had we not bombed the hell out of Iraq and made them eat hot democracy for jesus", then you might have a (debatable) point. If you want to say torture is justified because it saves lives with the intelligence it gives us, then you may have a point- not one backed up by actual facts and an easily refutable one, true, but at least the beginnings of logical thought are in there somewhere.

But saying that because of things Al Quaeda did we are justified in torturing soldiers in Iraq is a flawed argument born of wilful ignroance.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.


Source please?

I follow my training and open fire with the intentions of defending myself and my squad, knowing anything is possible there-that even women are utilized on suicide missions and pray I am right this time and pray I will return home intact to my family and that my squad does too. ( I have to do all of this knowing an imbedded reported might be nearby to record it all so that everyone in the world will have the luxury of reviewing it at their safe leisure a thousand times in slow motion and spout off thier theory without fear of retribution because of guys like me out there putting it on the line. Sorry-that was a rant-but YOU ARE RIGHT)
I don't consider it a rant at all. And yes, I am right. Then again, I usually am. :D

I find that the people who are quick to judge the US about its conduct in war are most likely people who have never been in a war themselves.

Unlike our enemies, we investigate ourselves. We review our policies.

People get court martialed. Officers admonish their men - sometimes to an ass-covering extreme.

But at least we try.

Our enemies don't try to be good. They go out of their way to be horrific and bad. Their idea of a fun day is killing thousands of innocent civilians in flaming death - just for the hell of it. Their idea of fun is raping women, then throwing a piece of paper on the dead body saying "it's OK, we were married in the eyes of Allah". Their idea of fun is shooting women in the head because they made the mistake of walking outside without their father or brother, or made the mistake of singing a song. They shot children because the children were flying kites.

Next time you want to compare the US to its enemies, go out and find an example of the US doing the things its enemies does.

We investigate; we question. They never do. They laugh about it, and think those things will send them to heaven.

Let me place you in the position of a US soldier in Iraq:

*snip situation*


That one seems pretty open and shut. She's obviously trying to kill me and my friends, and she hasn't obeyed a warning to stop, Im going to take her out.

I don't think many people are beating up on the soldiers on the ground for the shit situation they are in. People are pissed that they are dumped in these situations by stupid politicians and crappy foreign policy. Personally, I "support our troops" by NOT WANTING THEM TO DIE, not by mindlessly agreeing with the political viewpoint that has them shoved into harms way more often then is necessary.

Anyway, there is a difference between clamping down on needless abuse of prisoners, and giving soldiers a hard time for being in a crappy situation. What is it about the American right wingers that makes them think that clamping down on assholes who sexually abuse prisoners is somehow going "too far" or "not supporting our troops?"

Complete and total crap. And now your point is utterly disproven too! Isn't this a great way to have a rational discussion?

Anyone who thinks "They did it first!" qualifies as a rational defense for POW abuse or the deaths of civilians, really needs to go back to childhood and work their way back up. The point of not torturing people is because torture is supposedly wrong, and America claims to have The Moral High Ground here. And can not justify the civilian casualties with other civilian casualties.

Now, if you want to say "The mountains of dead Iraqi children are justified because we had no other choice, and more people would have died had we not bombed the hell out of Iraq and made them eat hot democracy for jesus", then you might have a (debatable) point. If you want to say torture is justified because it saves lives with the intelligence it gives us, then you may have a point- not one backed up by actual facts and an easily refutable one, true, but at least the beginnings of logical thought are in there somewhere.

But saying that because of things Al Quaeda did we are justified in torturing soldiers in Iraq is a flawed argument born of wilful ignroance.
Nowhere have I ever said that the knowing killing of innocent civilians or the torture of POWs is justified. It is not ... ever. But you are confusing the fog of war with intentionality. And I have never seen anything remotely approaching "mountains of dead Iraqi children," nor have I seen evidence of premeditated torture of POWs. Perhaps you can enlighten me with something other than inflamatory rhetoric and wild, unsubstantiated left-media bullshit?

I don't consider it a rant at all. And yes, I am right. Then again, I usually am. :D


Dont force me to torture you by putting a pair of panties on your head

nor have I seen evidence of premeditated torture of POWs. Perhaps you can enlighten me with something other than inflamatory rhetoric and wild, unsubstantiated left-media bullshit?

While I agree with the bulk of what you say, if you haven't seen evidence of this you haven't been watching the News.

Why do YOU suppose people are being charged with JUST THAT in the Military right now?

I'm not trying to say that these actions were condoned in any way, but they DID happen.

Abu Graebe(sp) anyone?

Regards,
Gaar

Dont force me to torture you by putting a pair of panties on your head

Please! I want the woman in the thong to give me a lap dance...

No, it isn't. For practical purposes, different lives are more or less valuable than another. For instance, in war, do you put more emphasis on recruiting the triathalon winners or the cripples? American soldiers in war are always more valuable than enemy soldiers.
I disagree. All lives are of equal and unequivocal value, it is only the value placed on what people can do with their lives (or their in/abilities as you point out) that changes. Life is invaluable.
hence, the lives of the enemy soldiers are every bit as 'valuable' as those of american soldiers, in my view.

ps: i am something of a pacifist :)

Nowhere have I ever said that the knowing killing of innocent civilians or the torture of POWs is justified. It is not ... ever. But you are confusing the fog of war with intentionality. And I have never seen anything remotely approaching "mountains of dead Iraqi children," nor have I seen evidence of premeditated torture of POWs. Perhaps you can enlighten me with something other than inflamatory rhetoric and wild, unsubstantiated left-media bullshit?


The only "mountains of dead Iraqi children" I saw were when saddam gassed the Kurds.

Please! I want the woman in the thong to give me a lap dance...


I know its an atrocity of war, but I once paid to be handcuffed to a bed and have panties pulled over my head.

Now, just for a moment, imagine the woman in the thing was the prisoner and the terrorist was the captor. I'm quite sure they would have treated her with dignity and respect.

Dont force me to torture you by putting a pair of panties on your head
Go ahead and try it, my man. I guarantee you'll pull back a nub! :D

Go ahead and try it, my man. I guarantee you'll pull back a nub! :D

It was a joke- I got chunks of guys like you in my stool. :D

While I agree with the bulk of what you say, if you haven't seen evidence of this you haven't been watching the News.

Why do YOU suppose people are being charged with JUST THAT in the Military right now?

I'm not trying to say that these actions were condoned in any way, but they DID happen.

Abu Graebe(sp) anyone?

Regards,
Gaar
I beg to differ. The charges for officers consisted of derilection of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer. The charges for enlisted soldiers were for murder ( essentially making the wrong decision given the circumstances ) and charges less than torture. If I had a site which presented accurate and unbiased data on this I would post it, but I was unable to find one.

It was a joke- I got chunks of guys like you in my stool. :D
Uh huh. Suuuure you do! Not any of the 'Nam vets I know! LOL!

The only "mountains of dead Iraqi children" I saw were when saddam gassed the Kurds.
'Nuff said.

Uh huh. Suuuure you do! Not any of the 'Nam vets I know! LOL!

You're right- I have too much respect for 'Nam vets anyway. \
I was just through your neck of the woods on the way home after Bike Week in Daytona.

No Matter what your view on the War, do you think the US Military holds their soliders to higher standards than they should be held to??

I mean, it is war. Do you think that the US is fair in the way that it handles it's soliders.

Do you think if the Romans/Germans/French where in the same position they would do the same.

The Roman Empire fell for many reasons but a contributing factor was the barbarization of the army. The German riech fell for m,any reasons but a contributing factor was the neglect of the army. The French republic has had a dodgy record with miltary wins historically. The French Navy was helpful in the US Revolution.

Please compare the current US military to finer examples. These aren't apple to apple comparisons.

Finally, it is an all volunteer army. What could be fairer than volunteering for service?

Eye for an eye is the only true justice. Anything else is unfair to one party or the other.
Eye for an eye is precisely the kind of thinking that brings us unending hate-fests like Israel/Palestine. Eventually someone has to be the big kid and take the high road.

The US kills and tortures its POWs now, there is no american moral highground from which to condemn something like this.

The americans dont seem to understand reciprocity.


There's been several pages of vehemenent denial of these facts here and a few calls for proof. It may take me a while (I've got a life), but I'll either post some links to proof or if it comes to it, arrange ftp transfer for some broadcasts from the BBC and other sources regarding this, to whoever would like to see them. *something gives me the feeling though that some will never acknowledge them*

Don't forget also that the US government handily redefined torture, quite recently, specifically to allow these practices to go on. The US government definitions, of what is not torture, now allow for them to carry out practices which are banned under the Geneva convention and most other civilised nations would not allow. These include the inflicting of psychological trauma, pain and use of force upon a person, repeatedly and for very lengthy periods, with the caveat, as long as it doesn't kill them. But hey accidents happen...

Neither am I. The first people to kill non-combatants in the war on terror - al-Qaeda, on Sept 11.

The first people to kill a prisoner - al-Qaeda. His name was Neal Roberts, and he was cut limb from limb on video.


Flawed logic, Legs. You talk as if the world came into existance on September 11. Something I think al-Qaeda would have a different idea of who started the "war" (though technically wars are waged against countries not abstract ideas). The U.S. has killed civillians even before the CIA trained Osama bin Laden in the art of terrorism.

Eye for an eye is the only true justice. Anything else is unfair to one party or the other.


"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -Muhatma Gandhi

Actually, it was eye for an eye that STOPPED barbarian justice, if you have any grasp of history. Civilized people do practice eye for an eye, I challange you to find a nation that doesn't.


An eye for an eye would require that murderers be executed. The U.S. aside, most civilized countries don't have the Death Penalty.

I found a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html)
Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin said in the new memo that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish. His opinion is meant, according to its language, to undermine any notion that those who conduct harmful interrogations may be exempt from prosecution.

This second effort by the Bush administration to parse the legal meaning of the word "torture" was provoked by the damaging political fallout from the disclosure this summer of the first memo, drafted in August 2002 and criticized by human rights lawyers and experts around the globe.
according to the article, the justice department overturned the bush memo, however, so don't be angry at america, be angry at the Bush administration.
This is the reason, above all others, that I have developed a belief that the bush admin. is a dark, dark evil in the heart of America.

It's still being argued over and it's still not enough...

*More linkage* (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510392005?open&of=ENG-313)

Plus they're now looking to farm out more and more of the work to nations where it isn't an issue, which is even worse in my eye.

They dont "go around shooting innocent people too often"- you think anyone feels good when a civilian is killed by mistake? it terrible when one innocent person is killed and there have been relatively few civilian casualties considering whats going on. Are you that naive or ignorant?


"totally pointless war" ? saddam hussein and his two bastard sons and "chemical ali" and a whole host of other sociopaths maimed, tortured, raped and killed more OF THEIR OWN COUNTRYMEN than any weapon of mass destruction-that reason alone is enough to have them all put on playing cards and methodically eliminated. Where is the ACLU? I swear, the Iraqi people had less civil rights than spotted owls.
I think that the positive elements of the forceful removal of these scumbags from power are already starting to show themselves. The country will rebuild its structure and government and the people will start to enjoy the benefits of their natural resources. Instead of a handful of psychos getting trailer loads of cash.

Naive or ignorant? I could ask you the same thing. Civillian casualties have been upwards of 10,000, four times what were killed in the World Trade Center.

Also Saddam doesn't consider the Kurds to be "his own people" any more than early American settlers considered the Native Americans they committed genocide against to be their "own people".

Complete and total crap. And now your point is utterly disproven too! Isn't this a great way to have a rational discussion?

Anyone who thinks "They did it first!" qualifies as a rational defense for POW abuse or the deaths of civilians, really needs to go back to childhood and work their way back up. The point of not torturing people is because torture is supposedly wrong, and America claims to have The Moral High Ground here. And can not justify the civilian casualties with other civilian casualties.

Now, if you want to say "The mountains of dead Iraqi children are justified because we had no other choice, and more people would have died had we not bombed the hell out of Iraq and made them eat hot democracy for jesus", then you might have a (debatable) point. If you want to say torture is justified because it saves lives with the intelligence it gives us, then you may have a point- not one backed up by actual facts and an easily refutable one, true, but at least the beginnings of logical thought are in there somewhere.

But saying that because of things Al Quaeda did we are justified in torturing soldiers in Iraq is a flawed argument born of wilful ignroance.


Thank you, Indi.

I found a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37687-2004Dec30.html)

according to the article, the justice department overturned the bush memo, however, so don't be angry at america, be angry at the Bush administration.
This is the reason, above all others, that I have developed a belief that the bush admin. is a dark, dark evil in the heart of America.

You mean the dark, dark Bush administration that appointed the Justice Dept.that overturned the memo?