U S abuse of Afghan prisoners "widespread"

[stuartj]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge.

Thats the best post you have ever made here. All your own work?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stuartj
You make an interesting, if tenous point. Military action is only another form of dilplomacy, on that we can agree.

The other is a seperate,although related, argument. Its odd to see someone with proliclivities trotting it out. Its your right is it not, to spend your money as you see fit? To keep what you earn? To not be held to ransom by rampant unions trying to enforce labor rates? To drive a 10mpg SUV and buy gas at $1 a gallon? To consume a massively disporportionate % of the worlds resources because you have the economic ability to so? To shop at Walmart? To view the world as either a market, an enemy, a mine or a labor pool?

Again, why do you think those planes hit the towers in the first place?

I don't necessarily believe what I typed, it was simply to show the absurdity of your statements. You seem to believe that there IS indeed a level of inhumanity toward others that is allowed, it just happens to be the level required for you to go unhindered living your life of privilege

There are countless times in history where numbers of innocent payed the ultimate price along the road to saving hordes more innocent, that's just reality, it's an imperfect world.

As to why they attacked us:

I think it's fairly obvious. They are religious nutballs that believe our way of life is THEE greatest threat to their religion. If western culture were to spread their religion will crumble. Just like any other cult environment the rhetoric and venom snowball. Then you get....9/11.

If it is your belief that the uber-wealthy OBL was emotionally crushed by our profiteering, well I have to laugh. Are you aware of his investments? Not exactly a principled beacon for human rights.

[air-cool-me]

Try Al Jazeera.

they only show what YOU want to hear...

no new network is ever 50-50

[gavinlit]

"There are countless times in history where numbers of innocent payed the ultimate price along the road to saving hordes more innocent, that's just reality, it's an imperfect world. "
In some cases this is undoubtably true. That the current situation in Iraq has any relationship to your statement is dubious.

Which hordes of the more innocent are we saving by being in Iraq again? What exactly is the link between Iraq and 9/11? Should we invade every state that suffers from a type of dictatorship or just those that do not serve our interests? Should we support or endorse forms of dictatorship that support our interests? Does the use of torture save more innocents or less? Does the detention of suspects without charge or legal representation save more or less? Does the creation of a police state save more or less? Do we have more or less freedom now than before 9/11?

I pose these questions as our country, while not having suffered the consequences of terrorism, distances itself further and further from any form of compassion or acknowledgement of previous signed conventions, while passing legislation that would be appropriate for a police state, all justified by waving the real/imagined flag of terrorism/border security. Sound familiar? Sadly, if you scare people enough, common sense and real liberty and freedom seem to be easily given up.

As an aside - do you feel military action can be/has ever been effective in preventing terrorism? Or is it possible that the current strategy is likely to create more fundamentalist zealots ready to attack the US?

I for one, thank the members of the serving military for being ready to die for the country and feel ashamed that our leaders are ready to use these people and see them killed in a war that did not need to be. If not one innocent Iraqi citizen was killed I would still think it morally and legally wrong. Once the innocents are added to the body count I don't see how the action can possibly be justified.

[gavinlit]

A little something from fifty seven years ago. Given the current figures regarding proportion of worlds resources consumed I'd say it's been a fairly succesfull half century. I have to point out that for the most part, our country has behaved no differently - just that it's harder to find good quotes from our side of the pond.

"We have 50 per cent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation."
George Kennan, US Cold War planner, 1948

[rcecale]

Originally posted by CRH911S
CC, never mind Randy. He's a fine example of a thorough brain washing gone bad. I thought for once Randy would show a spark of intelligence and debate this in a manner acceptable to the civilized world. Then I remembered, he was probably standing in line to get his tax payer subsidized retirement check cashed.

Ahhh, yes....they do come out in droves, don't they? Goodness, gracious, where do I begin. Okay, I think I got it...

"...a throughough brainwashing gone bad...." Wow! Let's examine that one. First, I was brainwashed, thoroughly. To the point I was just a "yes man" to the neo-con establishment. Just point me in the chosen direction and shoult, "KILL!" and I'm all over it. Is that correct so far?

Okay, now, about the "gone bad" part. Is this to mean I'm no longer like that? I question my orders now? I run like a coward when danger threatens? (sounds more like stuartj or creaturecat, doesn't it?) Oh wait...I got it. I'm like one of those Van Damme movies. I've been programmed to kill, and now they can't shut me off. YIKES! run everyone, RUN!!! Clinton, you never cease to amuse me with your nonsense. Thanks man, I was in need of a good laugh!

Oh, a couple more things. It's not a "retirement" check, it's actually called a "retainer." It's, in affect, a way for the Marine Corps to keep me on their roles, should they ever decide they were in need of my services again. Look it up, use the internet, it's out there!

And lastly, please, do you really think I "stand in line" for my check? Absolutely not! It's deposited right into my war fund, automatically, each month.

Randy

[lendaddy]

Gavin,

First, I'm no marathon poster, so I'll surely miss a few of your points.

In the immediate sense it is the Iraqis themselves that are being spared. You seems to forget that they were dying at a pretty decent clip before we ever got there. In the long term sense it is certainly the region, and possibly the world as a whole. If true democracy were indeed to spread through this ME the world will be changed for the better forever (forget your opinion on it working or not, I'm just telling you the goal). Nearly all the current inter-country conflicts are in the ME.

Now I am not naive enough to believe this was our main motive in the outset. I believe W and pretty much everyone else, fully believed that Saddam had WMD's and that he was emboldened by 9/11. W never said he had anything to do with 9/11, but he did imply that he had a seat at the table of terrorist kingpins. I would have to say that is/was true. When I think of how we could have gotten it so wrong I just remember that the CIA IS just another government agency but now that the main cost (both in humanity and dollars) has been spent, we owe it to the world to do right by the country and the region.


I do believe terrorism must be stamped out, as I cannot imagine waiting it out. The idea that we can "make nice" is silly. These are not rational people.

You asked if we should go around cleaning up all dictatorships. The idea is that we won't have to. We make an example of one and the rest fall of their own weight. Now, it doesn't help that the peanut gallery of the leftist nations find time only to criticize us, rather than these dictators, but I digress.

Now, these are the theories we're working with. Time will tell how well it plays out.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by stuartj
Stop watching Fox, it only tells wh you want to hear. Try Al Jazeera.

Hmm, that's a useful data point. When Al Jazeera reported on the Israeli defense wall (the most successful anti-terrorist measure in my recollection), Al Jazeera had nothing but hatred to spew. There was no rational argument, no logic, no balance, nothing but hatred against those evil Israelis who have stopped us from murdering them in their sleep. How dare they! We used to be able to lob mortars at will into apartment complexes, used to be able to send 10 year old children wandering randomly across the border carrying as much explosives as they could handle, and now we can't! How frustrating! Evil Israel!

And this is your news source? That explains a lot...

[gavinlit]

I agree that the ME is and has been a huge mess for many years with many Iraqis dying at a very decent clip, as you put it. Guess I just don't see that the current situation, aside from the strategic benefits, have really improved much. Certainly democracy is a nice idea and if everyone could live happy lives under a democratic govt, the world would be a better place. You couldn't have picked a more difficult place to try and 'plant' the idea than the middle east. If this had been put forward as the motivation for moving armed forces into Iraq I believe most would not have agreed. However waving the WMD flag certainly overcomes that obstacle.

There's been a fairly well documented history of governments selecting advice that suit their policy over a long period of time in both Australia and America. Many qualified people were presenting evidence of a lack of WMD's (or perhaps a lack of evidence of WMD's), however this was ignored or 'missed' and in we went.

Given we are now in there and the goal posts have shifted to installing a democracy for the good of the people I agree that it has to be done right. It dosn't help the cause when it's perceived that huge profits are being made by companies (which I know is normal) and understandably gives reason to question the initial motives of going in.

In any case, time will certainly tell. I hope it works out but can't help but thinking that there are more Australian and American flags being looked at as targets due to our actions. If one invasion results in a democracy (of some type and for some duration) and causes new generations of extremists and terrorists then I think we've dropped the ball. Should it all work out well (as I hope it will) then myself and many others will have plenty of humble pie to chew our way through

[stuartj]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Hmm, that's a useful data point. When Al Jazeera reported on the Israeli defense wall (the most successful anti-terrorist measure in my recollection), Al Jazeera had nothing but hatred to spew. There was no rational argument, no logic, no balance, nothing but hatred against those evil Israelis who have stopped us from murdering them in their sleep. How dare they! We used to be able to lob mortars at will into apartment complexes, used to be able to send 10 year old children wandering randomly across the border carrying as much explosives as they could handle, and now we can't! How frustrating! Evil Israel!

And this is your news source? That explains a lot...

Basing your opinion on one report? Thats fair and balanced.

Al Jazeera has been banned in number of the more fundamental theocracies and despotic countries in the ME. Is that worth anything to you? It represents the best hope there is for a free media in the ME. I suppose if its on AlJazeera its propoganda, but if its on Fox, its news.

We report, you believe.

[gavinlit]

One of the best things about down under...... uncle Rupert dosn't call it home any longer

[stuartj]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I don't necessarily believe what I typed, it was simply to show the absurdity of your statements. You seem to believe that there IS indeed a level of inhumanity toward others that is allowed, it just happens to be the level required for you to go unhindered living your life of privilege

What bollocks.

Use of military force in Iraq is justifed -because, you argue, its only an extension of the capaitalist process defined by Nike sweatshops that allow you to buy cheap sneakers in the US?

While I agree that you can draw the link- directly in fact, between US interests in accessing cheap goods, labor markets and, dare I say, oil- via rampant capitalism or, by extension -diplomatic, economic and military force- where we disagree is over the basic presumption that your intersts (the American way of life is not open to negotiation, after all said GB1) may be obatined at the expense of Iraqis. Or Indonesians or Bolivians or Mexicans.

And while you maintain that they are, nothing will change.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stuartj
What bollocks.

Use of military force in Iraq is justifed -because, you argue, its only an extension of the capaitalist process defined by Nike sweatshops that allow you to buy cheap sneakers in the US?

While I agree that you can draw the link- directly in fact, between US interests in accessing cheap goods, labor markets and, dare I say, oil- via rampant capitalism or, by extension -diplomatic, economic and military force- where we disagree is over the basic presumption that your intersts (the American way of life is not open to negotiation, after all said GB1) may be obatined at the expense of Iraqis. Or Indonesians or Bolivians or Mexicans.

And while you maintain that they are, nothing will change.

I argued nothing of the sort.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by stuartj
Utter non sense. If you fire a missile at building in a city, you accept the consequences that civilians might or will be killed and injured.

Utter nonsense! If you attempt to conduct a war while hiding behind defenseless women and children, using them as shields, you can expect that they will be injurd and/or even killed. Don't worry though, the nutbags will casually blame this on the americans, so hide behind them all you want.

While you're at it, maybe you should try shooting from school houses or mosques. Any damage caused to those structures will also be heaped upon the shoulders of the American forces by the nutbags as well.

And if you capture ANY westerners, who just happen to be there with humanitarian intents, execute them. Take their heads right off. This will give fodder to those who are against this war and make them feel justified in their protestations.

Pure genius, I tell ya, pure genius!

Randy

[gavinlit]

I'm sure these types of tactics come as no great surprise. If you invade a country and you have superior technology, firepower, communications and numbers the opposition will generally not line themselves up in neat ranks on an open field ready to be decimated. It makes much more sense to retreat back into 'regular' society and engage the enemy in a long running guerrilla type method. Not particularly pretty, and not particularly good for the local people but then, neither is bombing or long range artillery, which is somehow seen as more honourable.

Capturing of civillians and execution is not very nice and yet it's difficult for the western forces to really complain too much. Pot calling the kettle black really and thats the difficulty when you throw the rule book out the window. You lose all rights to point the finger and complain. So to be blunt, if you invade a sovereign nation and simultaneously ignore all previous conventions regarding detention/detainment you can't really expect people to be too sympathetic when some of your own civilians suffer casualties that are 'against the rules'.

[Mule]

A couple of points: Last night on The History Channel I caught a civil war peice & in it 3 women were protesting to Gen. Sherman about him burning Charlotte for no particular reason as the was was basicly over. He arrogantly told them "I didn't burn your town & neither did my soldiers. This fire was lit by the men who attacked Fort Sumter. It just now got to your door." Now most of you reading this probably consider Sherman a great man. The truth is that he allowed his troops to wage war on the citizens of Ga, South Carolina & North Carolina in a manner reminiscent of Atilla the Hun, to quote John Kerry. They raped, pillaged, stole & burned the citizens of those states into submission. We have done no such thing to these murderous b*st*rds.

Next, if these poor peace loving muslims had been captured by their brethren instead of the blue eyed devil, while their korans might fare better, they would have electrodes on their genitals or be buried up to their necks for stone throwing practice or loose their heads at the hands of their peace loving brothers.

The real truth is that the fire they started is now at thier door and as my Dad was fond of saying, 'I feel for them, but I can't reach 'em."

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Mule
The real truth is that the fire they started is now at thier door

"They" who? The Iraqis?

You're not parading the "Iraq was responsible for 9/11" ***** again, are you?

[lendaddy]

Oh, Thom you think we are at war WITH Iraq? You're just confused then, we are at war IN Iraq. We fight along side the Iraqi people. That should clear alot of this up for you.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Oh, Thom you think we are at war WITH Iraq? You're just confused then, we are at war IN Iraq. We fight along side the Iraqi people. That should clear alot of this up for you.

Thanks! I guess there's one less confused liberal running around now...

[lendaddy]

Today IS a good day then