NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1944.shtml)

New Iraqi Government, Same "Old Tactics"
by Gary Benoit
July 29, 2005

The new Iraqi regime has put Saddam's torturers back to work, yet the West has thus far looked the other way.
“Secret torture chambers, the brutal interrogation of prisoners, murders by paramilitaries with links to powerful ministries” — these police-state practices sound like a description of Saddam Hussein’s abusive regime. But according to the July 3 edition of The Observer, a British newspaper, this “grim trail of abuse” is now being “carried out by forces loyal to the new Iraqi government.” (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html)

The Observer article, entitled “Revealed: grim world of new Iraqi torture camps,” (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520136,00.html) begins by describing the evidence of multiple abuses written across the body of a recent torture victim. “The gruesome detail is important,” The Observer says. “Hanging by the arms in cuffs, scorching of the body with something like an iron and knee-capping are claimed to be increasingly prevalent in the new Iraq. Now evidence is emerging that appears to substantiate those claims. Not only Iraqis make the allegations. International officials describe the methods in disgusted but hushed tones, laying them at the door of the increasingly unaccountable forces attached to Iraq’s Ministry of the Interior.”

Another British newspaper, The Times, reported on July 7: “Iraqi security forces, set up by American and British troops, torture detainees by pulling out their fingernails, burning them with hot irons or giving them electric shocks, Iraqi officials say.” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1683578,00.html)

How could this be happening in the new Iraq, which supposedly has rejected torture? And why do the torture techniques sound eerily similar to those practiced by Saddam’s regime? The Times article, entitled “West turns blind eye as police put Saddam’s torturers back to work,” (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1683578,00.html) offers this explanation: “In their haste to put police on the streets to counter the brutal insurgency, Iraqi and US authorities have enlisted men trained under Saddam Hussein’s regime and versed in torture and abuse….” The Times added: “Among the worst offenders cited are the Interior Ministry police commandos, a force made up largely of former army officers and special forces soldiers drawn from the ranks of Saddam’s dissolved army.” All of this is happening, says The Times, “under the noses of US and British troops whose mission is to end the abuses of the former dictatorship. Instead, they appear to have turned a blind eye to the constant reports of torture from Iraqi prisons.”

A third British source, BBC News, opined on July 27 that “the return to torture and killing by security forces is another embarrassment for the American and British governments, which have partly justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds of ending the kind of abuses committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718999.stm) The principal “justification” for invading Iraq, of course, was the supposed threat from the reputed weapons of mass destruction. With both “justifications” now discredited, the British and U.S. governments should be not just embarrassed but ashamed — and they should be held accountable by outraged Brits and Americans. But in the United States at least, our media have thus far given scant coverage to the mounting evidence of the systematic use of torture in the new Iraq.

^up^

There was another thread that discussed this. Unfortunately it didn't get much attention either.

El Caudillo, you MUST discuss the articles, NOT simply reproduce them -- otherwise, it is spam.

El Caudillo, you MUST discuss the articles, NOT simply reproduce them -- otherwise, it is spam.

Thanks for the note Katganistan. Although I did not post this thread, this was a rule I was not aware of and I am glad you brought this to my attention.

Wonderful. All it took was $50 billion +, hundreds of thousands of casualties and the stirring up of an already volatile region to turn Iraq into the same place that it already was, with the added bonuses of Islamic fundamentalism, mass kidnappings and a murder rate that makes Bogota look like Stockholm.
Congratulations, Dubya! You should be really proud.

Wonderful. All it took was $50 billion +, hundreds of thousands of casualties and the stirring up of an already volatile region to turn Iraq into the same place that it already was, with the added bonuses of Islamic fundamentalism, mass kidnappings and a murder rate that makes Bogota look like Stockholm.
Congratulations, Dubya! You should be really proud.

yeah but halliburton got lots of lovely contracts, so who cares?

Wonderful. All it took was $50 billion +, hundreds of thousands of casualties and the stirring up of an already volatile region to turn Iraq into the same place that it already was, with the added bonuses of Islamic fundamentalism, mass kidnappings and a murder rate that makes Bogota look like Stockholm.

mission accomplished!

I think I called this one twelve months ago.

Hooray for democracy.

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!

No worries, it gives us another excuse to invade them if our economic policies that we put in place in Iraq don't pan out like we planned or they try to change them.

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!
Because he is perceived in some quarters in "Ummurrika" as being semi-Divine.

I think it's up to the government of Iraq to decide its own policies - the perogative of all nations. It's up to the the rest of the world whether it wants to file protests. If there is compelling evidence to indicate that the US is involved then it's fair game, but I seriously doubt we set them up in the torture business.

Well... the Bolsheviks recruited some chaps from the Okhranka, a lot of Savakis were employed by the then new secret police in post-revolutionary Iran... Iraq proves that specialists in that field are still in demand whenever a new regime springs up.

Giving the article the benefit of the doubt ... that the "torture" wasn't reported by some old Baathist kingpins or Muqtada al-Sadr and his ilk, there's still a couple of huge differences between the old Iraq and the new Iraq:

a)It is no longer ruled by a dictator... a government has been elected.

b)Most importantly, the government was elected by the people of Iraq.

well, might as well throw in another...

c)The majority now rule (or will, once enough insurgents/terrorists are killed and Iraq has viable police/armed forces)

--------------

As for it being about oil, for the hundredth time, that slur cannot be substantiated. One would think that if the US controlled Iraqi oil, that our gas prices would drop...

--------------

As for bush being impeached, lmao... he was elected by the majority, something Clinton could never claim.

Because he is perceived in some quarters in "Ummurrika" as being semi-Divine.

It's not "Ummurrika", it's "You Ass", Eh?

As for bush being impeached, lmao... he was elected by the majority, something Clinton could never claim.

Nobody said impeached. They said tried for treason. There probably are grounds but it'll never happen. Incidentally, Clinton got rather large majorities both times he ran for office. The first time W ran he did not get more than 49% of the voters for him. Just like Al Gore. But we've been over this already.

One would think that if the US controlled Iraqi oil, that our gas prices would drop...

why would one think something as stupid as that?

We anarchists have known about this for a long time. The end result will probably be a dictatorship that obeys the wishes of the American empire.

It's not "Ummurrika", it's "You Ass", Eh?

I'm not quite getting it. Elucidate.

I'm not quite getting it. Elucidate.


Hah - I believe he is saying U.S.A. (You Ass Eh) because Uhmurrica can include Canada and Mexico.

I think I called this one twelve months ago.

Hooray for democracy.

New boss same as the old boss. Seen it coming as well.

I think it's up to the government of Iraq to decide its own policies - the perogative of all nations. It's up to the the rest of the world whether it wants to file protests. If there is compelling evidence to indicate that the US is involved then it's fair game, but I seriously doubt we set them up in the torture business.


If this is true then wouldn't you at least expect the US Govt. to call the new Iraqi govt. on it? Shouldn't the US make sure that it isn't being seen as complicit in this? Silence on something doesn't mean complicity but it sure does look like it if you are silent about attrocities perpetrated by a close friend or ally.

Hah - I believe he is saying U.S.A. (You Ass Eh) because Uhmurrica can include Canada and Mexico.

"Ummurrika" gestated, like a wasp larva, in the body of the United States of America. Now that it has consumed its' host, it has emerged. No-one will ever mistake Ummurrikaners for Mexicans or Canadians.

Trust me on this one.

"Ummurrika" gestated, like a wasp larva, in the body of the United States of America. Now that it has consumed its' host, it has emerged. No-one will ever mistake Ummurrikaners for Mexicans or Canadians.

Trust me on this one.


:) Oh I know I was just explaining what I thought he meant by the You Ass Eh comment. One day I will go to Canada and enjoy the company of people who respect pacifist, vegetarian, environment-loving, non-christians.

If this is true then wouldn't you at least expect the US Govt. to call the new Iraqi govt. on it? Shouldn't the US make sure that it isn't being seen as complicit in this? Silence on something doesn't mean complicity but it sure does look like it if you are silent about attrocities perpetrated by a close friend or ally.

Is Iraq a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment? If so, the Un and its members can file complaints. It doesn't do any good, nations do as they will:

"The majority of the reported 132 countries that practice torture and ill-treatment are states that have ratified the Convention. They have failed in their obligation to eradicate torture without exception. (Amnesty International Report 2000)


The perpetrators of torture often go unpunished by the relevant authorities, even when the victim has filed a report or complaint. The lack of a deterrent due to this culture of impunity ensures that perpetrators will be more likely to engage in acts of torture in the future. In 2001, the Committee Against Torture found that in Brazil, there was a "consistent failure to punish acts of torture committed by police and prison guards." "(Amnesty International)

Regarding the US: yes, we should express displeasure over the use of physical torture. So should many countries. But it's time to realize that Iraq belongs to Iraqi's, and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

:) Oh I know I was just explaining what I thought he meant by the You Ass Eh comment. One day I will go to Canada and enjoy the company of people who respect pacifist, vegetarian, environment-loving, non-christians.
Soon enough we'll form the majority here (I'm with you on everything except the vegetables - well, room for improvement, anyway). My old auntie from Montreal predicts we'll be having to absorb quite a few of the better Americans before too long anyway. If you make it to central Canada, look me up...

Regarding the US: yes, we should express displeasure over the use of physical torture. So should many countries. But it's time to realize that Iraq belongs to Iraqi's, and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

Oh no you don't! You bombed a sovereing country without a valid reason, your actions then send that country into chaos, and then you say "They have the responsability"?? Bullshit. The is the ultimate responsable for everything that has happened in the last years in Iraq, whatever it likes or not. After all, it was the USA that destroyed the infrastructure of the country, disbanded the army and the civil administration, then played countrybuilder (Paul bremer actually wrote a constitution for iraq, wasnt it funny?), and now is desperatly trying to get an excuse, a way to blame others for its reckeless actions.

ohhhhhhhhhhh no. Its the responsability of the USA. All of it. Either fix the problem, or take the brunt of the responsability. History puts losers in a foot note, and the USA is losing in Iraq.

Is Iraq a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment? If so, the Un and its members can file complaints. It doesn't do any good, nations do as they will:

"The majority of the reported 132 countries that practice torture and ill-treatment are states that have ratified the Convention. They have failed in their obligation to eradicate torture without exception. (Amnesty International Report 2000)


The perpetrators of torture often go unpunished by the relevant authorities, even when the victim has filed a report or complaint. The lack of a deterrent due to this culture of impunity ensures that perpetrators will be more likely to engage in acts of torture in the future. In 2001, the Committee Against Torture found that in Brazil, there was a "consistent failure to punish acts of torture committed by police and prison guards." "(Amnesty International)

Regarding the US: yes, we should express displeasure over the use of physical torture. So should many countries. But it's time to realize that Iraq belongs to Iraqi's, and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

Why are you going on an on about what Amnesty International is saying about countries who perform human rights abuses? Do you think that what Amnesty International is a credible organization? And The UN, Do you care what they say about anything? I thought in the eyes of conservatives neither of these organizations are worth a hill of beans.

I asked a simple question and finally after those quotes, you answered correctly IMHO. Except for the part about a lot of other countries should express displeasure over this issue. Whose war was this exactly? Those directly involved in the war should express displeasure ESPECAILLY the US Govt. - I shouldn't have to point out why - it should be obvious.

Your first post basically said that if the US had a hand in this then go after them, so I just wanted to see if you thought they should at least condemn it. The US does have a hand in what is going on with the New Iraqi govt. right? Aren't we still in there to make sure another Saddam doesn't arise? Aren't we trying to push them to respect human rights?

If they came up with a Constitution that restricted human rights for everyone but Muslim males what would you want the US to do? Turn a blind eye? What action should the US then take? Would the US be held responsible by the rest of the world for helping to overthrow one govt. and install a new one that also tortures people? Wouldn’t that seem just a bit hypocritical to you?

Oh no you don't! You bombed a sovereing country without a valid reason, your actions then send that country into chaos, and then you say "They have the responsability"?? Bullshit. The is the ultimate responsable for everything that has happened in the last years in Iraq, whatever it likes or not. After all, it was the USA that destroyed the infrastructure of the country, disbanded the army and the civil administration, then played countrybuilder (Paul bremer actually wrote a constitution for iraq, wasnt it funny?), and now is desperatly trying to get an excuse, a way to blame others for its reckeless actions.

ohhhhhhhhhhh no. Its the responsability of the USA. All of it. Either fix the problem, or take the brunt of the responsability. History puts losers in a foot note, and the USA is losing in Iraq.

Iraq has held elections. Iraq will very soon be capable of running its own affairs, discussion of significant US troop withdrawals is under way right now. Iraq is a sovereign nation, it is responsible for its own affairs.

Let's see, the US shouldn't be involved in Iraq and then it should be involved, you get to decide which depending on circumstances? I say we should withdraw and let them run their own affairs, giving minimal assistance to help them on the way.

I say we should tell them we dissaprove of torture, it's wrong and makes us look bad. I also think we shouldn't be surprised if they don't listen. How about some other countries complain too? Might help.

Soon enough we'll form the majority here (I'm with you on everything except the vegetables - well, room for improvement, anyway). My old auntie from Montreal predicts we'll be having to absorb quite a few of the better Americans before too long anyway. If you make it to central Canada, look me up...


Yes but I'm guessing I wouldn't come under as much fire for being vegetarian in Canada as I would here in the States. And you eat all the meat you want (not that you need my permission :p ), I don't think you or anyone else should be vegetarian unless they want to be. I'll definitely come party with you when I get to Canada!!!

Why are you going on an on about what Amnesty International is saying about countries who perform human rights abuses? Do you think that what Amnesty International is a credible organization? And The UN, Do you care what they say about anything? I thought in the eyes of conservatives neither of these organizations are worth a hill of beans.

I asked a simple question and finally after those quotes, you answered correctly IMHO. Except for the part about a lot of other countries should express displeasure over this issue. Whose war was this exactly? Those directly involved in the war should express displeasure ESPECAILLY the US Govt. - I shouldn't have to point out why - it should be obvious.

Your first post basically said that if the US had a hand in this then go after them, so I just wanted to see if you thought they should at least condemn it. The US does have a hand in what is going on with the New Iraqi govt. right? Aren't we still in there to make sure another Saddam doesn't arise? Aren't we trying to push them to respect human rights?

If they came up with a Constitution that restricted human rights for everyone but Muslim males what would you want the US to do? Turn a blind eye? What action should the US then take? Would the US be held responsible by the rest of the world for helping to overthrow one govt. and install a new one that also tortures people? Wouldn’t that seem just a bit hypocritical to you?

The UN/Amnesty information is to point out that 132 nations about the world routinely practice torture and that sanctions, if they even occur, are meaningless. Iraq is responsible for itself, and complaining about torture is not likely to end the practice.

I think it would be inconsistent for the US not too complain, but do not expect the Iraqi's to change their behavior.

I will reiterate what I said in an earlier post, the Iraqi people have been given the right to self-rule. That right should be respected. While I supported the war, I do not want US troops there any longer than necessary, and I do not want my country running a puppet government.

Regarding your label of 'conservative', I would point out that my Political Compass score is -1.00, -0.56, not that it matters much.

Oh I thought you were Conservative since you believe the war was right and that Iraqis should clean up the rest of the mess the US made, and the US isn't to blame for anything happening in Iraq. My mistake and sorry for the insult.

Why did you support the war? Did you believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? Did you not believe the UN Inspectors when they said that Saddam had no WMD's to threaten anyone with and that their military was 1/10th (or somethign liek that) what it was during Gulf War I? Did you think that Iraq was a threat to the US? Or was it because of the human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam? This isn't off topic because I have a reason for asking it.

btw: Amnesty International has also condemned the US for it's human rights abuses and there have been complaints filed. Noones listening or cares. Now what?

While I supported the war, I do not want US troops there any longer than necessary, and I do not want my country running a puppet government.
Well, supporting the war has got you exactly what you don't want. Congrats on that one. I have the impression that a lot of Americans are getting exactly what they didn't want, either.

How do you reconcile that?

Oh I thought you were Conservative since you believe the war was right and that Iraqis should clean up the rest of the mess the US made, and the US isn't to blame for anything happening in Iraq. My mistake and sorry for the insult.

Why did you support the war? Did you believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11? Did you not believe the UN Inspectors when they said that Saddam had no WMD's to threaten anyone with and that their military was 1/10th (or somethign liek that) what it was during Gulf War I? Did you think that Iraq was a threat to the US? Or was it because of the human rights abuses perpetrated by Saddam? This isn't off topic because I have a reason for asking it.

btw: Amnesty International has also condemned the US for it's human rights abuses and there have been complaints filed. Noones listening or cares. Now what?

Ok, if we can stay on topic and avoid flaming:

Not directly responsible for 9/11. Enough evidence at the time to believe that Saddam was, or could be in the near future, a threat to the safety of the US and others. The genocide of Saddam was additional impetus to get involved. Had the UN been more effective we could have avoided this.

That's the very short version to answer your questions, offered as courtesy. I do not now want to defend the long version, so please don't start picking. Can always start a thread.

Well, supporting the war has got you exactly what you don't want. Congrats on that one. I have the impression that a lot of Americans are getting exactly what they didn't want, either.

How do you reconcile that?

Let's sit back and see how it plays out, in the final analysis it may be a good thing the Iraqi's were freed. People are taking years off their lives worrying about this. Let's enjoy our gardens.

WHere did I flame? I said sorry for calling you a conservative, if thats what you meant.

If you are talking about my question on US human rights abuses as being off topic, I was merely asking because you said people could file complaints against Iraq. Complaints have been filed against the US and nothing is being done about it. How is filing a complaint going to solve anything?

My whole point is the US made a mess and just like when you rub a dogs nose in his mess, the same should be done to the US. Hopefully the US can actually do something about it's mess (aside from making another mess on another part of the worlds carpet) instead of hoping someone else will clean it up.

WHere did I flame? I said sorry for calling you a conservative, if thats what you meant.

If you are talking about my question on US human rights abuses as being off topic, I was merely asking because you said people could file complaints against Iraq. Complaints have been filed against the US and nothing is being done about it. How is filing a complaint going to solve anything?

My whole point is the US made a mess and just like when you rub a dogs nose in his mess, the same should be done to the US. Hopefully the US can actually do something about it's mess (aside from making another mess on another part of the worlds carpet) instead of hoping someone else will clean it up.

No, no... your apology accepted. You asked me to answer some OT questions, the sort that will start a real fight on NS, i.e. "did you support the war, etc". Not wanting that, I answered your questions conditionally. No problem.

To the complaints: being a realist, I recognize that they won't make any difference. Past experience with the UN proves that. Many countries torture, for some such as Iraq it may even be a cultural phenomenon. The US can't make Iraq stop torture without the very meddling that everyone accuses it of. Iraq has the right to make its own rules and draft its own Consitution - neither the US or any nation or body should tell it how to do so.

I recognize that there are varying levels of torture. I am not personally opposed to modest sleep and temperature deprivation, and this is what the US is accused of. I have seen no evidence of anything more violent than that in use, though all manner of allegations fly.

Other countries use meathooks, beatings, electroshock - genuinely brutal and physical methods that do permanent physical and mental harm. These I am unequivocally opposed to, and many of these are thoroughly documented in use worldwide.

In my view the way to fix what you call a "mess" is to give Iraq its own government. They now have the right to self-govern, something they didn't have before we deposed Saddam. That's more of a gift than a "mess", but yes, there are issues for the new government. The primary one being to kill those who attempt to overthrow the government for their own purposes, and the fact that the Iraqi police use torture, while wrong in my view, shows their intention of beating the terrorists.

Hah - I believe he is saying U.S.A. (You Ass Eh) because Uhmurrica can include Canada and Mexico.

And Argentina, Venezuela, Costa Rica, El Salvador, etc...

"Ummurrika" gestated, like a wasp larva, in the body of the United States of America. Now that it has consumed its' host, it has emerged. No-one will ever mistake Ummurrikaners for Mexicans or Canadians.

Trust me on this one.

Yet Canadians are always being mistaken for "Ummurrikaners". Even when they travel with a maple leaf on their back pack, people from around the world see little difference.

Yet Canadians are always being mistaken for "Ummurrikaners". Even when they travel with a maple leaf on their back pack, people from around the world see little difference.
Not in my experiences.

Not in my experiences.

You mentioned that you are from central Canada. Are you familiar with the incident of the oil pipeline workers from Alberta who were kidnapped while fixing a pipeline in Ecuador?

You mentioned that you are from central Canada. Are you familiar with the incident of the oil pipeline workers from Alberta who were kidnapped while fixing a pipeline in Ecuador?
I'm from Ontario. No, I'm not familiar with Albertan oil workers in Ecuador. Lemme guess: they were kidnapped.

I'm from Ontario. No, I'm not familiar with Albertan oil workers in Ecuador. Lemme guess: they were kidnapped.

Good guess. They were kidnapped while working for a Canadian company that was repairing a US pipeline and while the ransom was negotiated by a Canadian, I believe his name is Gordon Black, the money used to bail them out was provided by the "Ummurikkan" pipeline.

I recognize that there are varying levels of torture. I am not personally opposed to modest sleep and temperature deprivation, and this is what the US is accused of. I have seen no evidence of anything more violent than that in use, though all manner of allegations fly.I disagree, personally. Torture is torture, is torture. It serves no honest purpose whatsoever. You also lose any ethical high ground, and can no longer claim 'human rights abuses' as justification for action against another nation or group.

The physical injuries sustained from acts of torture are almost incidental, compared to the psychological damage it does to its victims. You can destroy someone's mind, without ever laying a finger on them, and that's what makes it such a horrible thing.

Anyone who truly advocates torture in any form should be personally subjected to it, for real, then asked to reconsider their opinions.

Of course their being put back to work, who else is going to do the job.
This isnt an easy profession to learn, it takes years of experience.

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!
He hasn’t sworn fealty to an enemy of the US. It’s really the only way you can be charged for treason these days. It’s why Jane Fonda wasn’t charged with it.

Anyway, anybody that thought you could create a humanist democracy amongst those people, is a fool.

But it's time to realize that Iraq belongs to Iraqi's, and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

That will be a true statement when the US removes all "advisors" from key ministries (Oil ETC) and troops leave. To believe otherwise before then is, well naive I think. ;)

Of course their being put back to work, who else is going to do the job.
This isnt an easy profession to learn, it takes years of experience.

I guess you'r not familiar with the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia.

http://www.soaw.org/new/

There was another thread that discussed this. Unfortunately it didn't get much attention either.

Yep. Less than a month ago. Funny thing is, you'd think the OP of both threads would know each other or some such.... ;) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431010)

And it's notable that the above news report relies heavily on the article posted earlier. And furthermore, this one still suffers
from the same problems and flawed analysis as pointed out here (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200552912142.asp).

furthermore, this one still suffers from the same problems and flawed analysis as pointed out here (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200552912142.asp).

Are there any govt. or REAL news reports that corroborate that right wing blogs statements?

Yep. Less than a month ago. Funny thing is, you'd think the OP of both threads would know each other or some such.... ;) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=431010)

And it's notable that the above news report relies heavily on the article posted earlier. And furthermore, this one still suffers
from the same problems and flawed analysis as pointed out here (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200552912142.asp).


Richard Nixon didn't break into the Watergate hotel, so why was he impeached?

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned. Besides, the original poster of the comment suggested that Bush be accused of treason, not impeached, which is a completely different matter. One can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". A charge of treason requires that the accused had taken an oath of loyalty to another country or somehow willingly helped another country in a way that was meant to injure his or her parent-nation. And although Nixon didn't personally break into the hotel, members of his reelection committee ordered the break-in. Furthermore, Nixon subsequently tried to cover it up and would reveal no information to authorities.

So, there you go, a history lesson. ;)

Back to the original topic, I think its kind of hard to impose democracy on people who don't want it or who have no history of democracy. Democracy usually shows some development over time. It's not like all of a sudden, the United States had the government system we have today. So, it makes sense that the people aren't easily being pulled away from their old tendencies.

Nixon wasn't impeached. He resigned. Besides, the original poster of the comment suggested that Bush be accused of treason, not impeached, which is a completely different matter. One can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". A charge of treason requires that the accused had taken an oath of loyalty to another country or somehow willingly helped another country in a way that was meant to injure his or her parent-nation. And although Nixon didn't personally break into the hotel, members of his reelection committee ordered the break-in. Furthermore, Nixon subsequently tried to cover it up and would reveal no information to authorities.

And what information has GB revealed regarding the findings of weapons of mass destruction or the location of Osama Bin Laden?

So, there you go, a history lesson. ;)

Back to the original topic, I think its kind of hard to impose democracy on people who don't want it or who have no history of democracy.

It's also difficult to impose a belief in your brand of democracy on people you've bombed and shot at.

Democracy usually shows some development over time. It's not like all of a sudden, the United States had the government system we have today. So, it makes sense that the people aren't easily being pulled away from their old tendencies.

Especially when the U.S. advocates these tendencies.

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!

Its primarily that innocent people are no longer the ones being tortured. All nations have seen it once they formed. America sure did, and well when Britain was formed barbaric acted were widely accepted. I hate to bust people's bubbles, but we couldn't expect American businessmen and British gentlemen to immediately spring from the 25 years of carnage.

Its primarily that innocent people are no longer the ones being tortured. All nations have seen it once they formed. America sure did, and well when Britain was formed barbaric acted were widely accepted. I hate to bust people's bubbles, but we couldn't expect American businessmen and British gentlemen to immediately spring from the 25 years of carnage.

If you are talking about the emrgence of the United States it goes way beyond 25 years of carnage.

Yep. Less than a month ago. Funny thing is, you'd think the OP of both threads would know each other or some such....

And it's notable that the above news report relies heavily on the article posted earlier. And furthermore, this one still suffers
from the same problems and flawed analysis as pointed out here.
Richard Nixon didn't break into the Watergate hotel, so why was he impeached?

Huh??? What does Nixon have to do with this at all?
:confused:

Are there any govt. or REAL news reports that corroborate that right wing blogs statements?

Again? You clearly aren't familiar with the site. It's hardly a "right wing blog". It is a site for reportage and commentary on military affairs, largely authored by Jim Dunnigan, a rather highly respected author and commentator.

This is what they have to say about their sources:
NOTE ON SOURCES: StrategyPage makes use of a wide variety of news and information sources. Even in this age of the internet wire services remain the frontline of reporting. Reuters, AP, and UPI are key sources for breaking news. Agence France Press (AFP) does a particularly fine job covering Africa (and given France's deep involvement in west and central Africa, that focus should follow). StrategyPage also draws on several web-based sources. For example, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR)does a bang up job on the Balkans. Radio Free Europe's (RFE) various web updates (which cover stories RFE broadcasts) do the same for eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The Economist definitely leads the news magazines on quality of international coverage. StrategyPage mines the "defense and military" press, Janes, Army, Parameters, Armed Forces Journal - that list goes on to include several nation-specific publications from non-NATO states. When it comes to air and missile tech, Aviation Week is still Aviation Leak. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Sunday London Times, and other major international newspapers occasionally provide good leads on military issues. The Washington Times military reporting is very useful, as is the Stars and Stripes. The Miami Herald's beat is the Caribbean and South America. The South China Morning Post is a window on China. The "information net" can draw even finer. For example, The San Antonio-Express News is a regional U.S. newspaper particularly valuable for coverage of Mexico and Central America. The proliferation of websites -from terrorist groups to NGOs to news networks- offers the analyst a wealth of information. Even when the info is contradictory it can still be a useful guide to evaluating aims and strategies of participants in conflicts. Finally, there's "our gang." Over the years we have assembled an interesting cadre of friends and acquaintances. A number of them have military or foreign service experience. Many of these people started out as wargamers- an excellent background for getting a handle on a developing crisis. These sources are quick with advice and quick with critique. They've also proven to be reliable. When they miss, they don't miss by much. And with the proliferation of internet access and cell phones, we often get reports from our gang while the bullets are still flying.

http://www.strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp
A further explanation of the site can be found here:
"The News as History" (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054122324.asp)

Which statements would you like evidence for?

The next big thing in news headlines denouncing the American military will be horror stories about how Iraqi soldiers and police treat terrorism suspects.

Have a look at the OP's article, as well as the article in his earlier post. Here we have two news stories that exactly what Dunnigan said in May would be the next attrocity story.

While the Iraqi security forces have been given training, by Americans, on how to be kind and gentle with the suspects they pick up, old habits die hard. In the Middle East, actually, in most of the world, brutal treatment of prisoners is pretty routine.

Accurate according to HRW, Amnesty, the US, the UN, etc. Do you really want sources for that.

But because American troops are working with the Iraqis, the Americans will be blamed for any bad treatment (by Western standards) terrorist suspects get.

This is exactly what the articles are doing, no?

Journalists love stories like this, because if the Americans did try and control the way Iraqi police dealt with suspects, the Americans could be accused of “interfering with Iraqi sovereignty.”

As has happened. (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6EA5FDA5-05B1-4AE0-86F5-6FFD8C8C256C.htm)

I'd go on, but I think you get the picture. That wasn't just some opinion a blogger just pulled out of his ass. If you have some reall commentary on it, please. Otherwise. :rolleyes:

I guess you'r not familiar with the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia.

http://www.soaw.org/new/

Ah good.

Again? You clearly aren't familiar with the site. It's hardly a "right wing blog". It is a site for reportage and commentary on military affairs, largely authored by Jim Dunnigan, a rather highly respected (by conservatives?) author and commentator.

This is what they have to say about their sources:

Which statements would you like evidence for?

I'd go on, but I think you get the picture. That wasn't just some opinion a blogger just pulled out of his ass. If you have some reall commentary on it, please. Otherwise. :rolleyes:

Great he predicted that the US would be blamed for helping to install another Govt. whose security forces use torture. I didn't see that coming at all. :rolleyes: No, the US govt. has nothing to do with whos currently in power in Iraq. Nothing. This guy puts Ms Cleo to shame.

I am certainly not familiar with that right-wing blog (that's all it is if it's nothing but commentary from some right-wing pundit railing against what he seems to think is anti-Republican left-wing media), Anyway - I was looking for a source to back up this paragraph:


U.S. troops have been told to get out of the way when Iraqi cops or soldiers “interrogate” prisoners. American officers and NCOs serving as advisors in Iraqi police and army units are told to, well, advise the Iraqis that there are better, and less brutal, ways to get information from prisoners.

The US put these guys in power and trained them... who do you think shoudl be blamed for this.

If you are talking about the emrgence of the United States it goes way beyond 25 years of carnage.

No, I referring to the what the majority of people in this thread refers to. The actions which we deemed wrong with the Hussein government. So his reign is what I referred to. In other words, it took the US 230 years to get where we are. How can we expect a country to do it in one, unless true intervention occurs. (Which is something the US is primarily criticized for.)

No, I referring to the what the majority of people in this thread refers to. The actions which we deemed wrong with the Hussein government. So his reign is what I referred to. In other words, it took the US 230 years to get where we are. How can we expect a country to do it in one, unless true intervention occurs. (Which is something the US is primarily criticized for.)

So would the U.S. have been better off if an Imperial power intervened in it's early developement?

by conservatives?

Well, seeing as he fairly frequently appears in the news media as a commentator, I'd say he's respected by CNN, ABC, C-SPAN, etc.

He has also lectured and worked as a consultant for: Georgia Tech, the US Army War College, STRICOM (the Army's wargame development operation) Technical Advisory Board, the CIA, and various Department of Defense and State Department agencies.

His books on military affairs are also highly respected, and commonly used as textbooks. How to Make War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009012X/qid=1123129513/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7914514-9458542?v=glance&s=books) is a particularly good example.

Again, he's not just some random nut case blogger pulling this out of his ass.

Great he predicted that the US would be blamed for helping to install another Govt. whose security forces use torture. I didn't see that coming at all. :rolleyes: No, the US govt. has nothing to do with whos currently in power in Iraq. Nothing. This guy puts Ms Cleo to shame.

No. He predicted that the media would be surprised when the new Iraqi security forces started doing things the old fashioned way, and would blaim that on the Americans.

I am certainly not familiar with that right-wing blog (that's all it is if it's nothing but commentary from some right-wing pundit railing against what he seems to think is anti-Republican left-wing media),

You certainly seem to have read an entierly different article. He does say that journalists love these stories. But can you please point out where he rails "against what he seems to think is anti-Republican left-wing media"?

And, again, I suggest you read "The News as History " (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054122324.asp), where he explains the approach taken. "No Pundit Survives Contact With a Historian" (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004111823.asp) also explains further.

Some people come across StrategyPage and assume that the editorial policy favors one political persuasion or another. Not so. We call them as we see them. The current war in Iraq is a good example of this. In early 2003 we pointed out, using many historical examples, that the upcoming invasion of Iraq would be over quickly. We also pointed out, long before the war was even fought, that the Sunni Arab minority that had been running the country for centuries, would not give up easily. We pointed out why, and explained what the troops you don’t hear much about (civil affairs and Special Forces) were doing to deal with preventing the ongoing civil war in Iraq from spreading beyond the Sunni Arab areas.

Contrast this with how the mass media covered the initial invasion. All you heard were predictions of hard fighting, heavy casualties and stalemate. Our prediction wasn’t rocket science. We simply noted that the Iraqis had a dismal track record against well trained armies and would be able to stand up to a well trained and equipped force. And this should not be a new development for anyone who carefully covered the 1991 Gulf War. Back then the favorite media fright phrase was the “million man, battle hardened Iraqi desert army.” As I explained on CNN once, in late 1990, it was a matter of public record that the Iraqis had, at most, about 700,000 troops. The Iraqis had just recently fought an eight year war with Iran, but most Iraqi veterans of that desperate fight were battle scarred, not battle hardened. This was widely reported at the time. Lastly, the Iraqis had not fought that war in the desert, but in marshlands and mountains. You only needed a map to confirm that. Thus the phrase, “million man, battle hardened Iraqi desert army,” was an excellent example of scary, but misleading, reporting. Three misleading bits of information in one sound bite. And that example was but one of many. But since few people took a close look at that misleading phrase, or much of the other misleading reporting, everyone was ready to accept a new blizzard of sensationalism just thirteen years later.

Anyway - I was looking for a source to back up this paragraph:

See the sources listed.

The US put these guys in power and trained them... who do you think shoudl be blamed for this.

Ah, now there we have the assumption that the US trained these guys in these techniques. Do you really think that the Iraqi security forces didn't know how to torture people?
You also imply an assumption that they shouldn't be in power. Who would you like to see in power - the Iraqis or the US?

As the answer to your question depends on your assumptions, I'll wait for you to reply.

Well, seeing as he fairly frequently appears in the news media as a commentator, I'd say he's respected by CNN, ABC, C-SPAN, etc.

He has also lectured and worked as a consultant for: Georgia Tech, the US Army War College, STRICOM (the Army's wargame development operation) Technical Advisory Board, the CIA, and various Department of Defense and State Department agencies.

His books on military affairs are also highly respected, and commonly used as textbooks. How to Make War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009012X/qid=1123129513/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7914514-9458542?v=glance&s=books) is a particularly good example.

Again, he's not just some random nut case blogger pulling this out of his ass.



No. He predicted that the media would be surprised when the new Iraqi security forces started doing things the old fashioned way, and would blaim that on the Americans.



You certainly seem to have read an entierly different article. He does say that journalists love these stories. But can you please point out where he rails "against what he seems to think is anti-Republican left-wing media"?

And, again, I suggest you read "The News as History " (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20054122324.asp), where he explains the approach taken. "No Pundit Survives Contact With a Historian" (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004111823.asp) also explains further.





See the sources listed.



Ah, now there we have the assumption that the US trained these guys in these techniques. Do you really think that the Iraqi security forces didn't know how to torture people?
You also imply an assumption that they shouldn't be in power. Who would you like to see in power - the Iraqis or the US?
As the answer to your question depends on your assumptions, I'll wait for you to reply.

If the greatest threat to democracy in Iraq was the dictatorship is Saddam Hussein then the U.S. should have left once they had their man. If the Iraqi people truly want a democracy that ressembles the U.S. then let them sort it out on their own.

With regards to the highlighted part of your post, I would prefer a legitimate Iraqi government emerge in Iraq, one that represents the best interests of the Iraqi people, not one that is imposed by the U.S. and is designed to represent the best interests of the U.S.

If the greatest threat to democracy in Iraq was the dictatorship is Saddam Hussein then the U.S. should have left once they had their man.

Which would still have resulted in an international clamouring of "you broke it, you bought it, now fix it".

If the Iraqi people truly want a democracy that ressembles the U.S. then let them sort it out on their own.

With regards to the highlighted part of your post, I would prefer a legitimate Iraqi government emerge in Iraq, one that represents the best interests of the Iraqi people, not one that is imposed by the U.S. and is designed to represent the best interests of the U.S.

I agree. However, that is the least likely of outcomes if left to their own devices, is it not?

Which would still have resulted in an international clamouring of "you broke it, you bought it, now fix it".

I've never agreed with the method used to get at Saddam in the first place. But what the U.S. is doing is not fixing anything. All they are doing it tearing down one facade and replacing it with another, the interior remains the same. As we can see since the new government is using the same tactics Saddam used. Does it make a difference if it is an American backed government that is the one carrying out acts of torture?

I agree. However, that is the least likely of outcomes if left to their own devices, is it not?

If left to their own devices perhaps the Iraqi people will find solutions that they can stand behind. I realise there are many people from the U.S. who view other people in the world as a bunch of savages that need to be disciplined and regulated, but surprisingly I have met many intelligent, compassionate people from Iraq.

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!

Bush will not be tried for treason because this would discredit the office of the Presidency and the "democratic" systems of the U.S.

Probably the same reason why Nixon was pardoned.

*reads thread and sees exactly what he expected to see*

*sigh*

All I have to interject and say is that I don't take the word "torture" seriously anymore. Torture seems to mean putting panties on someone's head, giving the prisoners a dirty copy of their holy book, and turning the air conditioners off. Granted this probobly isn't the case with this specific incident. However, am I the only one who feels this way at this point?

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!

Because he has never endangered America herself directly, or announced his wish for harm on her, or challenged her values, or....

The point is, he's done nothing that comes close to treason. Using power granted to him by Congress (aka: the people), he legally declared war on the Iragi Old Regime. Until Congress calls for a withdrawl, he is doing nothing wrong keeping us over there. (Let it be known that by "wrong" I mean the legal aspects, not the relative term that questions his actions)

yeah but halliburton got lots of lovely contracts, so who cares?

I like your way of thinking :D . Besides, why would the U.S. put a friendly democracy in there when a friendly dictatorship would be SO much easier to work with? The entire reason the U.S. (i mean bush by this, not the american public) wanted Saddam out wasn't because he was a grewsome dictator, but because he wasn't going along with U.S. plans. Lets hope this government is better at "helping the free world". :D

*reads thread and sees exactly what he expected to see*

*sigh*

All I have to interject and say is that I don't take the word "torture" seriously anymore. Torture seems to mean putting panties on someone's head, giving the prisoners a dirty copy of their holy book, and turning the air conditioners off. Granted this probobly isn't the case with this specific incident. However, am I the only one who feels this way at this point?

*reads quote and sees a response that defines the kind of dismissive apathy that defines a superficial, self-indulgent product of an egocentric culture*

*reads quote and sees a response that defines the kind of dismissive apathy that defines a superficial, self-indulgent product of an egocentric culture*

*reads reply and, apart from seeing grammar redundency, sees the same America hating socialist nonsense that will destroy western civilization.*

*reads reply and, apart from seeing grammar redundency, sees the same America hating socialist nonsense that will destroy western civilization.*

*reads reply to reply and sees that the author has no concept of what it means to be an American.* :D

*reads reply to reply and sees that the author has no concept of what it means to be an American.* :D

*Reads response and wonders how Oye Oye could judge him on being an ideal American. Aknowledges that being an American means that you respect her borders, language, and culture, which Oye Oye does not seem to be doing. Wonders who knows more about being and American.*

I can keep going forever. :p

*Reads response and wonders how Oye Oye could judge him on being an ideal American. Aknowledges that being an American means that you respect her borders, language, and culture, which Oye Oye does not seem to be doing. Wonders who knows more about being and American.*

I can keep going forever. :p

*reads spam and wonders if Gronde's concept of America goes beyond the borders of the 50 states.*

*reads spam and wonders if Gronde's concept of America goes beyond the borders of the 50 states.*

*Reads counter-spam and tries to figure out if the US has anexed any extra states lately, being that it would be the only thing that would make the counter spam make any sense at all. Wonders how the concept of America could be anything but its 50 states, as that is America.*

*Also wonders how long it will take for a mod to show up and silence both parties involved for going majorly off-topic.*

Lol.

]*Reads counter-spam and tries to figure out if the US has anexed any extra states lately, being that it would be the only thing that would make the counter spam make any sense at all. Wonders how the concept of America could be anything but its 50 states, as that is America.*

Obviously you just don't get it.

*Also wonders how long it will take for a mod to show up and silence both parties involved for going majorly off-topic.*

Lol.

I'm wondering how long it will be before you post something intelligent. My money is on the mods shutting us up first thought.

Obviously you just don't get it.



No, I get it. I'm not actually trying to be serious, there, chief. I was simply attempting to ignore your rather blatent flame-bait that you made in response to my first post.


I'm wondering how long it will be before you post something intelligent. My money is on the mods shutting us up first thought.

And again with the flame-baiting. Your simply hoping that I will get pissed off or offended and fly off the handle so you can try to make me look stupid. The first post I made here was intelligent. You simply decided that it didn't fit with you America hating views so decided to deliberately mis-interperate what I said and take a stab at my country. So I suppose that's the end of it. I will leave you to your hatred of America, lack of a sense of humor, and whatever "must-get-last-word" response that you will most likely make.

Cheers.

[QUOTE]No, I get it. I'm not actually trying to be serious, there, chief. I was simply attempting to ignore your rather blatent flame-bait that you made in response to my first post.

So the way you ignore flame bait is by responding to it?


And again with the flame-baiting. Your simply hoping that I will get pissed off or offended and fly off the handle so you can try to make me look stupid. The first post I made here was intelligent. You simply decided that it didn't fit with you America hating views so decided to deliberately mis-interperate what I said and take a stab at my country. So I suppose that's the end of it. I will leave you to your hatred of America, lack of a sense of humor, and whatever "must-get-last-word" response that you will most likely make.

Cheers.

Intelligent? Not yet, especially when you consider that I am an American (although I am not from, nor have I ever resided in the U.S.) and that there are many things about the U.S. that I like, including my friends and family who live in California, Texas, Atlanta, Washington, Boston, Conneticut and Florida. There are also many things about U.S. culture that I like. ie. Music and movies.

On the otherhand, your attempt to label me as someone who hates "America" is the equivalent of an ethnic minority's use of the race card to win an argument when they are not intelligent enough to use logic.

P.S. I like the Simpsons ;)

[QUOTE=Gronde]

So the way you ignore flame bait is by responding to it?



No, I just played along.




P.S. I like the Simpsons ;)

Me too. See, where not so different after all.

No, I just played along.

Likely story, say one thing one day then put a spin on it so you don't look foolish. You should be writing press releases for the Bush administration. Tell me, what spin would you put on the subject of this thread?

I recognize that there are varying levels of torture. I am not personally opposed to modest sleep and temperature deprivation, and this is what the US is accused of. I have seen no evidence of anything more violent than that in use, though all manner of allegations fly.

I don't suppose you'd count this (http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm) or this (http://www.aztlan.net/torture_iraqi_pows.htm) as evidence. No, of course not, how could it be?

So, after we supported the Contras, Sandistas, Saddam, the Taliban, and trained the Savaki, does this really suprise you at all?

*slams head off desk* Tell me why Bush is not tried for treason? Please someone who isn't an obsessed fan tell me why!

Because it's not treason, plain and simple.

And I honestly do not care what happens to Abdullah the towel-headed IED layer, if he gets his scrotum burned off by car batteries it's of no concern to me. He's responsible for hundreds of deaths (Iraqi Civvies and Coalition) and the more of him put in 'the chair' by the so-called "torturers", the better.

Guess Jihad doesn't pay off after all..

Likely story, say one thing one day then put a spin on it so you don't look foolish. You should be writing press releases for the Bush administration. Tell me, what spin would you put on the subject of this thread?

Who says I put a spin on what I said? I stand by my post. I don't think people are going to take this seriously because of all the other "torture" issues that have turned out to be a load of bull. It's like the boy who cried torture. Lol.

Who says I put a spin on what I said? I stand by my post. I don't think people are going to take this seriously because of all the other "torture" issues that have turned out to be a load of bull. It's like the boy who cried torture. Lol.

When you talk about "torture" issues does this include the same kind of "torture" issues Bush used to justify the occupation of Iraq?

When you talk about "torture" issues does this include the same kind of "torture" issues Bush used to justify the occupation of Iraq?

No, I meen the Guantanamo and the Abu ghraib "torture" issues. (torture meening not handling their korans properly or putting panties on their heads) Am I saying that actuall torture is acceptable? Of course not. Could this very well be an actuall issue? Of course is can. I was just saying that you shouldn't expect too many people to take it seriously. I am personally being skeptical as well.



And remember, the war was about technically about WMD's, though no-bid contracts were likely the real reason, while liberation was secondary to them. Lol. This country needs some candidates that don't suck. [/off-topic diet-rant]

An in depth analysis of the Gronde Spin by Oye Oye

No, I meen the Guantanamo and the Abu ghraib "torture" issues.

Here we can see the flustered Gronde starting to back pedal. * Note the poor spelling reflects a hasty retreat.

(torture meening not handling their korans properly or putting panties on their heads)

The retreat is followed by an attempt to regain a perspective on the debate by "redefining" the issue.

Am I saying that actuall torture is acceptable? Of course not.

A rhetorical question is used in an attempt to redirect the issue.

Could this very well be an actuall issue? Of course is can.

Again, further redirection. * Again, more mispelled words.

I was just saying that you shouldn't expect too many people to take it seriously.

Attempting to downplay what was previously stated. (A common Republican tactic)

I am personally being skeptical as well.

And an attempt to reconcile the argument without appearing to be in error completes the spin.

And remember, the war was about technically about WMD's, though no-bid contracts were likely the real reason, while liberation was secondary to them. Lol. This country needs some candidates that don't suck. [/off-topic diet-rant]

The war was technically about WMDs, then someone said someone saw someone hanging out with Osama Bin Someone somewhere near somewhere, then it was Saddam was a threat to the liberty and security of the United States then it was...

As far as the U.S. needing candidates that don't suck I think you do have good leaders, unfortunately they are not invited to participate in televised debates. ie. Ralph Nader

Oye Oye: Wow, you are really trying. Your are an experienced flame-baiter for sure. You can't carry on an inteligent debate, so you try to devolve any debate in which you do not agree into a total flame-war as soon as possible. Although, as you have seen, it doesn't work on me. Seeing that, you just began playing with my words (a traditional democrat tactic) and scraping for spelling errors to point out. (which were a result of the post being made late at night, BTW) You combine this with a tactic used by both dems. and reps., you try to make it look like I am changing my position, to further discredit me and make your own pathetic arguments look better. So what I would next expect from you is another try at flame-baiting. You must be a masochist or something, wanting to get flamed. That's just strange. Lol.

So with that, I will be leaving. There is no sense in carrying on an inteligent debate that is not inteligent. I will just leave you to your last post where you say that I am only leaving because I know that I will lose the debate or some other BS last words. I should at least get a laugh out of it. Have fun. :D

Oye Oye: Wow, you are really trying. Your are an experienced flame-baiter for sure. You can't carry on an inteligent debate, so you try to devolve any debate in which you do not agree into a total flame-war as soon as possible. Although, as you have seen, it doesn't work on me. Seeing that, you just began playing with my words (a traditional democrat tactic) and scraping for spelling errors to point out. (which were a result of the post being made late at night, BTW) You combine this with a tactic used by both dems. and reps., you try to make it look like I am changing my position, to further discredit me and make your own pathetic arguments look better. So what I would next expect from you is another try at flame-baiting. You must be a masochist or something, wanting to get flamed. That's just strange. Lol.

So with that, I will be leaving. There is no sense in carrying on an inteligent debate that is not inteligent. I will just leave you to your last post where you say that I am only leaving because I know that I will lose the debate or some other BS last words. I should at least get a laugh out of it. Have fun. :D

Pot calling the Kettle black... :rolleyes:

I think it's up to the government of Iraq to decide its own policies - the perogative of all nations. It's up to the the rest of the world whether it wants to file protests. If there is compelling evidence to indicate that the US is involved then it's fair game, but I seriously doubt we set them up in the torture business.
Are you Condoleezza Rice?

Oye Oye: Wow, you are really trying. Your are an experienced flame-baiter for sure. You can't carry on an inteligent debate, so you try to devolve any debate in which you do not agree into a total flame-war as soon as possible. Although, as you have seen, it doesn't work on me. Seeing that, you just began playing with my words (a traditional democrat tactic) and scraping for spelling errors to point out. (which were a result of the post being made late at night, BTW) You combine this with a tactic used by both dems. and reps., you try to make it look like I am changing my position, to further discredit me and make your own pathetic arguments look better. So what I would next expect from you is another try at flame-baiting. You must be a masochist or something, wanting to get flamed. That's just strange. Lol.

So with that, I will be leaving. There is no sense in carrying on an inteligent debate that is not inteligent. I will just leave you to your last post where you say that I am only leaving because I know that I will lose the debate or some other BS last words. I should at least get a laugh out of it. Have fun. :D

I've been slamming the door on your face for some time now and still you keep ringing the bell.

Smithers! Release the hounds.