this is appalling, abuse of Iraqi prisoners

1232425262729»

Comments

  • Reply 561 of 578
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Good, then I will expect to see instances where you place the blame where it lies, no?



    Blame for what? Our soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners? That's what this thread is about. See, this is what I was talking about. You can't just invent claims and then not tell us what they are. You seem, I think, to want to turn this thread from that into some kind of vilification of the people who were tortured for not being nice to us. Is that it? If that's the case, then you didn't ask the question in a direct manner. You asked what kind of people would respond to "mistreatment" with a desire to kill their mistreaters. I very clearly responded that some of them weren't just mistreated. They were tortured. And if you think you could be tortured and then say "Ah well, it was just a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget!" you're a fool.



    Quote:

    Most wars take far longer, and then rebuilding takes even longer. So yeah, yay for the Iraqi people they can start to move forward.



    This war has been OVER for a year. Don't you remember Bush standing on that carrier and declaring that major combat operations are over? But yes. The rebuilding and shepherding of Iraq into the warm glow of democracy will no doubt take a long time.



    Quote:

    You have been watching too many "Pinky and the Brain" cartoons.



    And you haven't been paying attention to history. At all. What do you think, that we conquer some country, rebuild it and then say "see ya later, sorry for all that death and destruction"? Seriously. I'm asking. Do you not understand why we rebuild a conquered country?



    Quote:

    I didn't say you were trying to do anything, I was trying to point out the choice one has to make to lay sole blame at US' doorstep, MATE. You seem to have made that choice, and you are allowed to. Don't get mad when I point out the flaw in that logic. OK, mate?



    I love it when you try to be condescending. It's so cute. But watch the logic of your sentence:



    Step 1: "I didn't say you were trying to do anything."

    Step 2: Make some crazy-assed claim about what other people are arguing that bears no resemblance to reality. In this case, that ANYONE here is laying blame for something "at the US's doorstep." The only thing I'm putting on the US doorstep is that OUR BOYS TORTURED PEOPLE. But you need to keep in mind that the moment we invaded Iraq, it became OUR PROBLEM. We own it now.

    Step 3: "You seem to have made that choice."



    So in other words, "I didn't say you were trying to do anything other than make some dumb-assed claim that I'm just pretending you tried to make."



    Nevertheless, you didn't point out a flaw in any logic that I remember.



    Quote:

    I guess we got to keep Germany, Russia, and France?



    This makes no sense at all. NONE. Not one bit. Germany: we're still there, and it was ours, as Greg points out, until the 50s. Russia? When did we invade Russia aside from 1919? France? We conquered France? STOP THE PRESSES! REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS! We ran the Germans out of France and then kept Germany.



    Quote:

    I am not sure what you mean by that, but according to the "conquer the world" and then this, I can only guess you feel that this is imperialistic war.



    As opposed to some other kind of war? What do you think wars ARE, anyway? Seriously. I'm asking.



    Quote:

    I say history proves that notion wrong.



    I say rubbish. I say utterly insane rubbish that indicates no knowledge of history whatsoever.



    Quote:

    The countries I mentioned have free will and are not tied to the US, as made obvious by their decision to protest the US decision.



    You do know that France and Germany existed prior to their opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, right?
  • Reply 562 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Blame for what? Our soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners? That's what this thread is about. See, this is what I was talking about. You can't just invent claims and then not tell us what they are. You seem, I think, to want to turn this thread from that into some kind of vilification of the people who were tortured for not being nice to us. Is that it? If that's the case, then you didn't ask the question in a direct manner. You asked what kind of people would respond to "mistreatment" with a desire to kill their mistreaters. I very clearly responded that some of them weren't just mistreated. They were tortured. And if you think you could be tortured and then say "Ah well, it was just a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget!" you're a fool.



    Ah but that is exactly what many vets of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and others did and are doing. They moved on and are still doing so. Where is your outcry for their torturers? This whole thread is just political garbage. I am slow and even I can see that.



    I would like to see everyone put blame where it belongs, as opposed to where the collective democrat/liberal finger is firmly locked in place, now.



    Bush had nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with any prisoner being mistreated. In fact this war was started by a small group of people long ago, and Bush was not in that group. Of course I mean SH and crew. Ultimate responsibility and blame lies on SH for a lot of this. Don't forget recent history even though we are talking WWII and such.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    This war has been OVER for a year. Don't you remember Bush standing on that carrier and declaring that major combat operations are over? But yes. The rebuilding and shepherding of Iraq into the warm glow of democracy will no doubt take a long time.



    "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." Do you forget those words from that speech? Over? Maybe among liberal pundits wish that he said that.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    And you haven't been paying attention to history. At all. What do you think, that we conquer some country, rebuild it and then say "see ya later, sorry for all that death and destruction"? Seriously. I'm asking. Do you not understand why we rebuild a conquered country?



    I love it when you try to be condescending. It's so cute. But watch the logic of your sentence:



    Step 1: "I didn't say you were trying to do anything."

    Step 2: Make some crazy-assed claim about what other people are arguing that bears no resemblance to reality. In this case, that ANYONE here is laying blame for something "at the US's doorstep." The only thing I'm putting on the US doorstep is that OUR BOYS TORTURED PEOPLE. But you need to keep in mind that the moment we invaded Iraq, it became OUR PROBLEM. We own it now.

    Step 3: "You seem to have made that choice."



    So in other words, "I didn't say you were trying to do anything other than make some dumb-assed claim that I'm just pretending you tried to make."



    Nevertheless, you didn't point out a flaw in any logic that I remember.




    You may want to look back at the conversation. The flaw is that every thing is a result of some US action. That logic is for the weak minded. To say that the problem is systematic is one thing. But to then try to connect it all the way to Bush' office is more political mud slinging. All this assuming that any of us know anything about the actual issue and the full facts.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    This makes no sense at all. NONE. Not one bit. Germany: we're still there, and it was ours, as Greg points out, until the 50s. Russia? When did we invade Russia aside from 1919? France? We conquered France? STOP THE PRESSES! REWRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS! We ran the Germans out of France and then kept Germany.



    For someone that tries to put himself across as so smart you sure don't know how to read and comprehend to well, do you? The US has fought and put their young men's blood on the line and spent trillions to help those countries. Does the US own them? Does the US even have any influence over them when you would think it would? I suppose in your book, they didn't really need the help? I suppose the contribution was insignificant? If the US did not get involved the French would be saying Sig Heil for breakfast every day along with the Germans. The Russians owe the US a lot also. Give me a break. The US rebuilds it's conquered enemy's countries to promote the global economy, which in turn helps the US economy. Look at Japan.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    As opposed to some other kind of war? What do you think wars ARE, anyway? Seriously. I'm asking.



    I say rubbish. I say utterly insane rubbish that indicates no knowledge of history whatsoever.



    You do know that France and Germany existed prior to their opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, right?




    I love the way you call names and condescend and marginalize. Seriously, keep it coming.
  • Reply 563 of 578
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    A few? I know Bush has said words to that effect, but honest and reliable sources have indicated "systematic and widespread" abuse and torture.







    It is unheard of for a nation under an oppressive occupation not to resist with guerilla style methods. Turn the tables, and imagine the US people under the thumb of a foreign invader that loots, rapes, plunders and pillages. The patriotic action is to resist, in whatever way you can.



    If our own Defense Dept is investigating cases of thefts from Iraqi civilians whose homes have been searched, then the real situation is undoubtedly far, far worse. The tip of a very large and ugly iceberg.

    Operation Iraqi Freedom. A big steaming, stinking heap of BS



    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/in...b4f6f62633affe




    What sources? Names.



    What noble a good reason would anyone invade the US?



    Your whole premise is flawed. Of course the US people would fight, and win, mind you.



    Oppressive? Compared to what? SH and company?



    Those that commit war crimes will be punished as in any war, regardless of which side they are on. Look into it, I think you will find that to be true. Wringing your hands and beating your chest in shame will do nothing but make your hands and chest pink.
  • Reply 564 of 578
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Ah but that is exactly what many vets of WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and others did and are doing. They moved on and are still doing so. Where is your outcry for their torturers? This whole thread is just political garbage. I am slow and even I can see that.



    All torture is an abomination. The difference, when it comes to WWI, WWII and Korea is that many of the torturers are either dead or have been tried and imprisoned for their crimes.



    Vietnam is a different matter, of course, since many, many of those guys are still alive. Should their torturers be made to stand for their crimes? You betcha. But they won't. You know why? Because we retreated and effectively lost that war. You don't get to bring people to trial unless you actually win the war and then occupy the country. The problem with your statement, however, is that many of those who were tortured in Vietnam have not given it up even 30 years later.



    Quote:

    I would like to see everyone put blame where it belongs, as opposed to where the collective democrat/liberal finger is firmly locked in place, now.



    What do you think we're trying to do? Our guys tortured someone and apparently had fun doing so. They also apparently killed somewhere around 35 people (at last count...the story was in the Times yesterday). All anyone wants to know is how and why this happened, what went wrong, and whether the soldiers' claims that MI ordered them to do this are true. If that is the case, then we want to know where those orders from MI originated.



    Quote:

    Bush had nothing (zero, zip, nada) to do with any prisoner being mistreated.



    That is most likely true. Even if it does go to that level (WH and cabinet), he would most likely have been kept out of the loop for purposes of deniability. But then again, you do not know this and, apparently, if you had your way would never even bother to ask the question.



    Quote:

    In fact this war was started by a small group of people long ago, and Bush was not in that group.



    You are correct.



    Quote:

    Of course I mean SH and crew.



    For over 10 years now people have been looking for evidence to support this belief, and as I have pointed out to you again and again and again, it stems from the mistaken and old-school belief that large-scale terrorism requires state sponsorship. This, as AQ has proved again and again, is simply not true.



    Quote:

    Ultimate responsibility and blame lies on SH for a lot of this.



    You are claiming that SH made our soldiers torture people. Please explain how that happened. Did he use mind control from prison?



    Quote:

    Don't forget recent history even though we are talking WWII and such.



    Indeed.



    Quote:

    "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous." Do you forget those words from that speech? Over? Maybe among liberal pundits wish that he said that.



    You're right. He didn't say "Well! We're done!" The speech was carefully crafted to avoid such a declaration. But he did, nonetheless, stand under a gigantic "mission accomplished" banner (which he later tried to blame on the military) and say "major combat hostilities are over." And now more men have died in Iraq since then than before.



    Quote:

    You may want to look back at the conversation. The flaw is that every thing is a result of some US action. That logic is for the weak minded.



    You may want to look back to the conversation. No one is saying that everything is a result of some US action. Nevertheless, our boys and girls tortured and killed. And you want to blame it on SH? Which is the weak-minded logic, again?



    Quote:

    To say that the problem is systematic is one thing. But to then try to connect it all the way to Bush' office is more political mud slinging. All this assuming that any of us know anything about the actual issue and the full facts.



    The fact are actually quite public. The Taguba report is public and describe a systematic abuse of prisoners and abuse of human rights. War crimes. By our boys and girls. Your argument seems to be that we ought not investigate this or ask any questions about it. This is little more than wanting to stick your head in the sand, and no doubt stems for your need (as you admitted elsewhere) to see this in binary terms: We're all good; they're all bad. Well, some of us, clearly, are not good. Some of us tortured people. And because it's "easier" (your word) to see the world in binarisms, you are forced to make the utterly bizarre claim that SH is somehow responsible for our soldiers torturing people.



    Quote:

    For someone that tries to put himself across as so smart you sure don't know how to read and comprehend to well, do you?



    I'm not going to respond to this, since I'd just insult you and I'm trying to remain civil, even though you, apparently, cannot. Regardless, insults such as this are signs of desperation.



    And "to" is spelled "too."



    Quote:

    The US has fought and put their young men's blood on the line and spent trillions to help those countries. Does the US own them? Does the US even have any influence over them when you would think it would?



    Go get you a history book and find out for yourself. Others here have listed off the countries we have invaded and owned, and yet you seem to have completely ignored them. At any rate, I suggest that you pick up Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." That'll get you started.



    Quote:

    I suppose in your book, they didn't really need the help? I suppose the contribution was insignificant?



    You're talking about every US military operation in history? That's a big question.



    Quote:

    If the US did not get involved the French would be saying Sig Heil for breakfast every day along with the Germans.



    We actually don't know this. Did the French get the absolute shit beaten out of them by the Germans? Yup. Did we liberate them? Yup. But whether or not Germany would've been able to hang on to what they'd conquered is another matter. At any rate, we sure jumped right in there as soon as we saw an injustice, didn't we? We were in the moment Germany invaded Poland and began rampaging all over Europe and killing Jews by the millions, right? No. We weren't. My point here is not that America is bad. My point is that you cannot make the claim that in WWII we did this great thing (we did, indeed) and helped defeated this horrible evil (we did, and it was) without acknowledging that we sat back for 3 years and watched it all happen and did nothing, nationally, at all, until we were dragged kicking and screaming into it by the bombing at Pearl Harbor. BTW, go dig up a copy of FDR's Pearl Harbor Address and take a look at that long list of countries Japan had bombed that same night. Looks bad, huh? Go find out how many of them were US holdings. The CIA World fact book is a good place to start.



    Quote:

    The Russians owe the US a lot also.



    The Russians (those pinko commie bastards) destroyed the Germans on the Eastern front. They were waiting on us in Berlin when we got there. They do owe us for McDonald's, though. But they're paying up.



    Quote:

    Give me a break. The US rebuilds it's conquered enemy's countries to promote the global economy, which in turn helps the US economy. Look at Japan.



    Hrm. Japan. China. Russia. All pretty close together over there. And oh look! They let us keep a few military bases! To protect them, of course, since they were forbidden from having their own army. And Germany, of course, allowed us to keep a few bases--pretty handy for keeping an eye on the Soviet Bloc. And the UAE! And those no-fly zones in Iraq. And Afghanistan! And Cuba! And...



    I can't speak to the notion of a "global economy" prior to the 80s. I'm sure the idea existed, but I don't know to what degree we thought about it in the same terms we do today.



    Quote:

    I love the way you call names and condescend and marginalize. Seriously, keep it coming. [/B]



    I say again that you really ought not post on US foreign policy--or even history. Post a thread on some ethical dilemma or on some injustice or something. History and foreign policy aren't your strong areas.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 565 of 578
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Last that I saw it was 37 killed while in US custody.
  • Reply 566 of 578
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Last that I saw it was 37 killed while in US custody.



    That's fucking sick.
  • Reply 568 of 578
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member


    i've always thought bush should be impeached for lying about why we should go to war. if clinton got impeached for the monica thing..bush should for this
  • Reply 569 of 578
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    If he wins--and this is a big if at the moment--and congress goes back to the Dems (which I suspect it will), I'd wager he will be impeached.
  • Reply 570 of 578
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Also, look at this:



    Rumsfeldt gave teh order to HIDE a prisoner from the Red Cross!!!



    let me see . . . does that mean that he was doing something MORALLY BANKRUPT!!!!!!?



    (Hiding from the Red Cross . . . that's like hiding porn from your parents when you are a little teena-ager)



    Here's an article:
    Quote:

    Rumsfeld gave order

    In violation of international law, Donald Rumsfeld ordered military officials to hold a man suspected of being a senior Iraqi terrorist at a high-level detention center but not list him on the prison's rolls to hide him from the Red Cross, New York Times reports.



    "Pentagon and intelligence officials said the decision to hold the detainee without registering him -- at least initially -- was in keeping with the administration's legal opinion about the status of those viewed as an active threat in wartime. Seven months later, however, the detainee -- a reputed senior officer of Ansar al-Islam, a group the United States has linked to Al Qaeda and blames for some attacks in Iraq -- is still languishing at the prison but has only been questioned once while in detention, in what government officials acknowledged was an extraordinary lapse."



    "'Once he was placed in military custody, people lost track of him,' a senior intelligence official conceded Wednesday night. 'The normal review processes that would keep track of him didn't.'"



  • Reply 571 of 578
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    [B]What sources? Names.



    International Red Cross for one.



    Quote:

    What noble a good reason would anyone invade the US?



    None. Not even the possession of weapons of mass destruction.



    Quote:

    Your whole premise is flawed. Of course the US people would fight, and win, mind you.



    And I would help out in any way I could: I think we all would.



    Quote:

    Oppressive? Compared to what? SH and company?



    Any occupation is oppressive: you name me one that isn't.



    Quote:

    those that commit war crimes will be punished as in any war, regardless of which side they are on.



    Just tell me when we'll see the entire Bush administration in the dock at the Hague, alongside Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic. That is where they belong, but it ain't going to happen. There's even less chance of that happening than Kenny Lay being brought to justice for ripping off $billions.



  • Reply 572 of 578
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Look what Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski's saying here....



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3863235.stm



    The Israelis are denying it involvement. Who's lying?
  • Reply 573 of 578
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    "clearly she's anti-semitic"

    --scott



  • Reply 574 of 578
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    My aunt's new op-ed in the Post demolishing the Bybee memo:



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun19.html
Sign In or Register to comment.