I was watching the news tonight and some congressman (don't know who) explicitly said he doesn't blame the soldiers, but the internet for this. :!!!: I wish I caught his name.
Naples, I generally stay out of political discussions here and I don't want to get into an inflamed argument with you about this. But, I'd like for you to reconcile couple things for me:
1) You preach "innocent until proven guilty" about the American soldiers allegedly engaging in this abuse yet you say "maybe he deserved it" regarding the dead Iraqi posted above.
and,
2) You favor "chilling" and waiting for "evidence to come out" yet you approved of a preemptive strike against Iraq rather than waiting for the weapons inspectors to do their job.
Could you help me out in understanding your beliefs regarding these inconsistencies? This is a direct question that I'd like for you to answer. Thank you very much.
Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.
1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.
2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:
13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.
I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.
Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.
Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.
This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong.
being the father of a three year old girl, this picture just makes me want to cry...
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks the Iraq abuse was just a few bad apples in some isolated incidents is just not thinking. This was just another example of the "ends-justifies-the-means" approach of the Bush administration. The same General Miller who ran Gitmo advised that Iraqi prison on how to "exploit detainees" (direct quote).
Bush says that the abuse is just "a few isolated cases"...but the Red Cross maintains that it is "widespread, routine" and up to 90% of the detainees had been arrested "by mistake".
There is a yawning chasm between the two stories: someone is lying.
I wonder who?
If someone were to ask you, it would be your president and any elected officials that happen to have a (R) behind their name.
Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.
1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.
In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.
So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.
I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.
By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.
I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.
Quote:
2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:
13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.
I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.
Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.
Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.
This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong. [/B]
I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.
I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.
And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.
Oh, hell - quick, someone lock this thread! I had no idea that we were helping terra-wrists by expressing our outrage at the behavior of American soldiers and their commanders (all the way up to the Chief one) that allowed (and in some cases encouraged) this behavior that even you, Naples, agree is very wrong.
Hey, do you think that maybe those soldiers and their commanders, are the ones helping the cause of the terra-wrists instead of us? Maybe it's their actions that are encouraging hatred and bad feelings for their country, instead of our reaction to them? NAAA - couldn't be!! The patriotic thing to do is to stick your head in the sand and ignore it!! I like your line of thinking Naples.
You continue to speak out against those who have a problem with the actions of these soldiers and commanders, and those of us not wearing partisan blinders will continue to disagree with you. Feel free to "parse" my response (also known as "replying directly to specific points").
Is english your first language?
The reason I ask is, you seem to be getting a totally different translation of what I am saying.
I specifically said I am not defending these actions. And yes these actions, helped those who want to harm us. I agree with you on that totally.
If any of these soldier's superiors were supporting these kinds of things, they should also be held to task, as far up as it goes. So, I think we can agree on that. Right?
I just don't see any benefit for anyone to presume the guilt of everyone all the way up the long chain of command, to the president. Which by the way, he has taken the responsibility that is his and apologized for these actions, to the world.
I also am pretty sure it does not help the morale of soldiers to know that a huge chunk of this country has fallen into the trap of partisan politics and thinks they are all of that kind of people, that would do these things.
i personally like to believe that people are good and make the right decisions.
In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.
So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.
I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.
By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.
I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.
I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.
I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.
And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.
Here is the funny thing about this whole conversation:
I will go along with just about everything you just posted.
The problem that i have is tied into what you proclaim to embrace, namely proof. Our justice system is based on provable facts. Not innuendoes and rumors and political conjecture.
You and many others have accepted things that are not proven, nor likely ever to be so, based on your political bias. You have already accepted that these practices are accepted and encouraged by all in the military.
Just like the whole death penalty for generals in command, I hear a lot of opinions based on opinions and political bias and stretched logic. Not solid facts.
I did not say, by the way, that those in prisons in Iraq were terrorists, only that you nor I know what or who they are.
I specifically said I am not defending these actions. And yes these actions, helped those who want to harm us. I agree with you on that totally.
You did say that you didn't defend those actions. But you also said about the dead Iraqi that "maybe he deserved it." That seems to be defending the actions, or at least leaving open the possibility that they could be defensible.
Quote:
I just don't see any benefit for anyone to presume the guilt of everyone all the way up the long chain of command, to the president. Which by the way, he has taken the responsibility that is his and apologized for these actions, to the world.
I blame the president and the civilian leaders in the administration because they have clearly set a tone in which the means is subordinate to the end. The Geneva Convention is optional. They put POWs in a legal no-man's-land in Cuba. They argue that they can imprison people, including American citizens, with no legal counsel and no charges. They believe their cause is more important than any faggy legal or procedural issues. As George Bush said in his 2003 state of the union, "America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result."
Quote:
I also am pretty sure it does not help the morale of soldiers to know that a huge chunk of this country has fallen into the trap of partisan politics and thinks they are all of that kind of people, that would do these things.
Has anyone said that all the soldiers are sadistic? I personally don't think any of them are bad, even the specific individuals involved. I even feel kind of bad for them in a way. To dehumanize others like that has to have a negative effect on them, too. I don't think they're necessarily bad, I just think the administration is bad. They've been bad all along. The difference is that we have pictures now.
The abandonment of the rule of law is exactly the underpinning of what we see now. It started as soon as the Bush administration decided that "a war on terrorism" was somehow a different conflict from any in the history of man and therefore mooted every notion we may have had about the restraints of a democratic society.
These pictures are the result, not the cause, of this line of thinking.
Nobody has said that all the soldiers are sadistic.
Does anyone remember how Bush and his cronies vetoed U.S. membership of the International Criminal Court a couple of years back? Now perhaps we know why.
How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't have any knowledge of this subject and aren't interested in actually looking into it at all.
Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years when the war is a distant memory and hundreds of books are written on this Naples will be sitting on his porch muttering to himself, "not until all the facts are in, not until all the facts are in..."
You did say that you didn't defend those actions. But you also said about the dead Iraqi that "maybe he deserved it." That seems to be defending the actions, or at least leaving open the possibility that they could be defensible.
I blame the president and the civilian leaders in the administration because they have clearly set a tone in which the means is subordinate to the end. The Geneva Convention is optional. They put POWs in a legal no-man's-land in Cuba. They argue that they can imprison people, including American citizens, with no legal counsel and no charges. They believe their cause is more important than any faggy legal or procedural issues. As George Bush said in his 2003 state of the union, "America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result."
Has anyone said that all the soldiers are sadistic? I personally don't think any of them are bad, even the specific individuals involved. I even feel kind of bad for them in a way. To dehumanize others like that has to have a negative effect on them, too. I don't think they're necessarily bad, I just think the administration is bad. They've been bad all along. The difference is that we have pictures now.
I think this is where you lose me. I cannot directly blame Bush for some idiot's actions.
The pictures seem to prove to me that people are numbskulls. I see no fact showing that Bush approved of this, actually just the opposite. If you want to give him credit, that is.
I think this is where you lose me. I cannot directly blame Bush for some idiot's actions.
The pictures seem to prove to me that people are numbskulls. I see no fact showing that Bush approved of this, actually just the opposite. If you want to give him credit, that is.
Do yourself a favor and read even a little bit about this so you can understand what the criticisms of each level are.
How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't have any knowledge of this subject and aren't interested in actually looking into it at all.
Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years when the war is a distant memory and hundreds of books are written on this Naples will be sitting on his porch muttering to himself, "not until all the facts are in, not until all the facts are in..."
Once again i will point out the obvious:
You need not post a reply to someone as unedumakated as me. I actually prefer it that way.
I also have readily acknowledged your vastly superior understanding of the world and every subject therein, particularly foreign affairs and intelligence knowledge.
Comments
Originally posted by torifile
Naples, I generally stay out of political discussions here and I don't want to get into an inflamed argument with you about this. But, I'd like for you to reconcile couple things for me:
1) You preach "innocent until proven guilty" about the American soldiers allegedly engaging in this abuse yet you say "maybe he deserved it" regarding the dead Iraqi posted above.
and,
2) You favor "chilling" and waiting for "evidence to come out" yet you approved of a preemptive strike against Iraq rather than waiting for the weapons inspectors to do their job.
Could you help me out in understanding your beliefs regarding these inconsistencies? This is a direct question that I'd like for you to answer. Thank you very much.
Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.
1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.
2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:
13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.
I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.
Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.
Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.
This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong.
Originally posted by New
being the father of a three year old girl, this picture just makes me want to cry...
I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks the Iraq abuse was just a few bad apples in some isolated incidents is just not thinking. This was just another example of the "ends-justifies-the-means" approach of the Bush administration. The same General Miller who ran Gitmo advised that Iraqi prison on how to "exploit detainees" (direct quote).
Originally posted by sammi jo
OK, its now been boiled down to this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...soner_abuse_19
Bush says that the abuse is just "a few isolated cases"...but the Red Cross maintains that it is "widespread, routine" and up to 90% of the detainees had been arrested "by mistake".
There is a yawning chasm between the two stories: someone is lying.
I wonder who?
If someone were to ask you, it would be your president and any elected officials that happen to have a (R) behind their name.
We will see right?
Try to wake up.
Just try....
big surprise there... actually, i wish it wasn't true but everything the bush administration has allowed with guantanamo bay etc...
Originally posted by piwozniak
Naples.
Try to wake up.
Just try....
What does that mean, exactly?
Wake up to what?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Thank you for being civil, there is a serious lack of it these days.
1) The statement was my way of pointing out that no-one here knows who it is they are defending. As a matter of fact, no-one knows the true story surrounding that picture. He may very well be a lowly baker, as just stated, but then again he just as easily could be a SH loyalist directly involved in the crimes of that regime, or even a terrorist from Pakistan. Or then again he could be both. Who knows. Maybe a better choice of words was in order.
In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.
So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.
I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.
By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.
I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.
2) I know that many will accuse me of repeating talking points, but this is how I feel about the Iraq war issue:
13 years of sanctions and resolutions, and now we know, corruption, not to mention the constant and unrelenting acts of war and noncompliance, did not give the US or the world much choice. I see that as being fairly patient.
I also feel that 9/11 changes the whole landscape with regard to diplomacy and war. Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. It also removed a possible WMD supplier to the outlaw groups all around there. It also gave the US a strategic stance in the ME, a long standing problem for the US.
Most people on both sides agree that SH an Co. had to be dealt with sooner or later. I am a person that tries to take care of problems asap, so I do not see a problem with the action.
Don't get me wrong, war sucks, but I don't see that the President had much of a choice. I feel that the success that AQ had on 9/11 mobilized, emboldened and motivated terrorist groups and rogue nations around the globe. Bush/US had to show some real strength, Iraq afforded them the opportunity to do so.
This is my thinking on those questions. I make no claim to know anything more than anyone else on these subjects, but this is the way I see things, and this is how it makes sense to me. I could be wrong. [/B]
I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.
I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.
And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Oh, hell - quick, someone lock this thread! I had no idea that we were helping terra-wrists by expressing our outrage at the behavior of American soldiers and their commanders (all the way up to the Chief one) that allowed (and in some cases encouraged) this behavior that even you, Naples, agree is very wrong.
Hey, do you think that maybe those soldiers and their commanders, are the ones helping the cause of the terra-wrists instead of us? Maybe it's their actions that are encouraging hatred and bad feelings for their country, instead of our reaction to them? NAAA - couldn't be!! The patriotic thing to do is to stick your head in the sand and ignore it!! I like your line of thinking Naples.
You continue to speak out against those who have a problem with the actions of these soldiers and commanders, and those of us not wearing partisan blinders will continue to disagree with you. Feel free to "parse" my response (also known as "replying directly to specific points").
Is english your first language?
The reason I ask is, you seem to be getting a totally different translation of what I am saying.
I specifically said I am not defending these actions. And yes these actions, helped those who want to harm us. I agree with you on that totally.
If any of these soldier's superiors were supporting these kinds of things, they should also be held to task, as far up as it goes. So, I think we can agree on that. Right?
I just don't see any benefit for anyone to presume the guilt of everyone all the way up the long chain of command, to the president. Which by the way, he has taken the responsibility that is his and apologized for these actions, to the world.
I also am pretty sure it does not help the morale of soldiers to know that a huge chunk of this country has fallen into the trap of partisan politics and thinks they are all of that kind of people, that would do these things.
i personally like to believe that people are good and make the right decisions.
You can believe what you want.
Originally posted by addabox
In our American system of justice, it doesn't matter at all what these people "might" have been. They are entitled to a certain level of treatment.
That's the whole point of the "rule of law"; it doesn't allow for "feelings" to be acted on, it requires process and evidence.
So IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO WE ARE DEFENDING because we are not "defending" individuals but the whole edifice of justice, as ostensibly adhered to by the US.
I'll remind you, again, that "that whole edifice of justice" is a lynch pin in the "American way of life" that we are holding up as the alternative to murderous despots.
By musing about the possible culpability of the abused prisoners, you are in effect at least allowing for the notion that foreign detainees are subject to torture if a local military authority judges them to be "bad guys". There is no other way to read this, it's pretty much an either/or concept. Either you think justice must applied every single time via the rule of law, without recourse to notions of proximate "badness", or you are implying that American justice means little to you, that it is a situational notion that can be discarded if you feel the accused are really really bad.
I think that is a horrible way to think, and I think it does real harm to very fabric of liberty and democracy.
I dunno, dude. If you can still say things like " Iraq and SH proved to be a threat to the US. Invading Iraq removed a known enemy state to the US and it's citizens, not to mention a relative oasis for terrorist types. " I suppose there is precious little point in debating it any further. It's not like the information is hard to come by.
I will say that there can be a real problem building a world view based on a foundation of lies, since it leads to false conclusions. Such as assuming that the people imprisoned in Iraq are likely "terrorists", since you start with the (false) assumption that Iraq was a haven for terrorists in the first place.
And I think it pretty much goes down hill from there, but we have your posts to look to to decide that.
Here is the funny thing about this whole conversation:
I will go along with just about everything you just posted.
The problem that i have is tied into what you proclaim to embrace, namely proof. Our justice system is based on provable facts. Not innuendoes and rumors and political conjecture.
You and many others have accepted things that are not proven, nor likely ever to be so, based on your political bias. You have already accepted that these practices are accepted and encouraged by all in the military.
Just like the whole death penalty for generals in command, I hear a lot of opinions based on opinions and political bias and stretched logic. Not solid facts.
I did not say, by the way, that those in prisons in Iraq were terrorists, only that you nor I know what or who they are.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I specifically said I am not defending these actions. And yes these actions, helped those who want to harm us. I agree with you on that totally.
You did say that you didn't defend those actions. But you also said about the dead Iraqi that "maybe he deserved it." That seems to be defending the actions, or at least leaving open the possibility that they could be defensible.
I just don't see any benefit for anyone to presume the guilt of everyone all the way up the long chain of command, to the president. Which by the way, he has taken the responsibility that is his and apologized for these actions, to the world.
I blame the president and the civilian leaders in the administration because they have clearly set a tone in which the means is subordinate to the end. The Geneva Convention is optional. They put POWs in a legal no-man's-land in Cuba. They argue that they can imprison people, including American citizens, with no legal counsel and no charges. They believe their cause is more important than any faggy legal or procedural issues. As George Bush said in his 2003 state of the union, "America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result."
I also am pretty sure it does not help the morale of soldiers to know that a huge chunk of this country has fallen into the trap of partisan politics and thinks they are all of that kind of people, that would do these things.
Has anyone said that all the soldiers are sadistic? I personally don't think any of them are bad, even the specific individuals involved. I even feel kind of bad for them in a way. To dehumanize others like that has to have a negative effect on them, too. I don't think they're necessarily bad, I just think the administration is bad. They've been bad all along. The difference is that we have pictures now.
The abandonment of the rule of law is exactly the underpinning of what we see now. It started as soon as the Bush administration decided that "a war on terrorism" was somehow a different conflict from any in the history of man and therefore mooted every notion we may have had about the restraints of a democratic society.
These pictures are the result, not the cause, of this line of thinking.
Nobody has said that all the soldiers are sadistic.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What does that mean, exactly?
Wake up to what?
The R E A L I T Y
Originally posted by NaplesX
Is english your first language?
The reason I ask is, you seem to be getting a totally different translation of what I am saying.
It's not a very good, insult when you try to explain it.
Originally posted by giant
It's not a very good, insult when you try to explain it.
It was not an insult.
A valid question. IMO.
Originally posted by NaplesX
proof.
How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't have any knowledge of this subject and aren't interested in actually looking into it at all.
Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years when the war is a distant memory and hundreds of books are written on this Naples will be sitting on his porch muttering to himself, "not until all the facts are in, not until all the facts are in..."
Originally posted by BRussell
You did say that you didn't defend those actions. But you also said about the dead Iraqi that "maybe he deserved it." That seems to be defending the actions, or at least leaving open the possibility that they could be defensible.
I blame the president and the civilian leaders in the administration because they have clearly set a tone in which the means is subordinate to the end. The Geneva Convention is optional. They put POWs in a legal no-man's-land in Cuba. They argue that they can imprison people, including American citizens, with no legal counsel and no charges. They believe their cause is more important than any faggy legal or procedural issues. As George Bush said in his 2003 state of the union, "America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result."
Has anyone said that all the soldiers are sadistic? I personally don't think any of them are bad, even the specific individuals involved. I even feel kind of bad for them in a way. To dehumanize others like that has to have a negative effect on them, too. I don't think they're necessarily bad, I just think the administration is bad. They've been bad all along. The difference is that we have pictures now.
I think this is where you lose me. I cannot directly blame Bush for some idiot's actions.
The pictures seem to prove to me that people are numbskulls. I see no fact showing that Bush approved of this, actually just the opposite. If you want to give him credit, that is.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I think this is where you lose me. I cannot directly blame Bush for some idiot's actions.
The pictures seem to prove to me that people are numbskulls. I see no fact showing that Bush approved of this, actually just the opposite. If you want to give him credit, that is.
Do yourself a favor and read even a little bit about this so you can understand what the criticisms of each level are.
Originally posted by giant
How would you know? You've already demonstrated that you don't have any knowledge of this subject and aren't interested in actually looking into it at all.
Anyone else get the feeling that in 50 years when the war is a distant memory and hundreds of books are written on this Naples will be sitting on his porch muttering to himself, "not until all the facts are in, not until all the facts are in..."
Once again i will point out the obvious:
You need not post a reply to someone as unedumakated as me. I actually prefer it that way.
I also have readily acknowledged your vastly superior understanding of the world and every subject therein, particularly foreign affairs and intelligence knowledge.
You are preaching to the choir on this one.
Thanks though.