Interesting quote from Democrat Harry Truman

[kage69]

We shouldn't let Abu Ghraib deter us from our goal of eradicating global terrorism.

We shouldn't allow President Cheney and his neocon cronies to do so either. It's a shame you can't see the subterfuge employed by those in office.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: kage69

We shouldn't let Abu Ghraib deter us from our goal of eradicating global terrorism.

We shouldn't allow President Cheney and his neocon cronies to do so either. It's a shame you can't see the subterfuge employed by those in office.

Can you explain?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why is it overly strong rhetoric? After all, as you point out we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs, the vast majority of whom we arrested wrongly.

What did Kennedy get wrong?

(learn how to quote)


I don't call it torture. It is abuse, yes, but, imo, is not torture. Kennedy's remark was only meant to inflame and did nothing to bring the culprits to justice nor make the administration accountable for its actions.

You said that we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs. Your description sounds worse than abuse to me.

Why are you backtracking and distancing yourself from another fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal?

"fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal"? First off, for Sen. Kennedy to be a fellow would mean I would have to be one, too. That is not the case.

You are now simply trolling.

Be gone.

 

[kage69]

Can you explain?

The neocon agenda replaced Afghanistan with Iraq in terms of the WoT (yeah, bin Laden, remember him?) The neocon agenda has pissed away our international standing and support (we had everyone with us after 9/11, now practically everyone resents us one way or another, even steadfast allies we;ve had since WWII). The neocon agenda is eroding our civil liberties in an unprecendented fashion (refer to AssCough and Patriot/Patriot II) The neocon agenda is moving our government towards a theocratic regime (Bush has slowly been trying to erase the barrier between church and state, thus undermining both).


This administration so far has a piss poor record of honesty and accountability, and has shown absolutely it has no problem whatsoever doing complete flip-flops converning international policy. To not see this is to be a blind partisan sheep. It's that simple.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The quote in my post referred to the Japanese, but I think that it aptly applies to Islamic extremists.

Here's what else Truman had to say:

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

Again, doesn't this seem relevant today?

Sorta like how we're abusing and killing prisoners of war, too?

In your warped and twisted view, the US is always the bad guy, eh?

Truman brought the Japanese to their knees, didn't he.

Too bad our hands are so tied that we can't do the same to the Islamic extremists.

Who do you want to nuke and fire bomb?

Bingo, that is the question. The firebombing campaign carried out over japan destroyed over 60 metropolitan cities. Is that you want to do in the middle east. it doesn't work in uncoventional warfare. Have you ever heard of Rolling Thunder. what was the result of that. We lost the war and millions of civilians lost their lives.You want to defeat the islamic extremist convince the general muslim populace of the superiority of Western Society as compared to theirs. Firebombs daisy chains and torture are not the way to due.Subverting their society through wsetern decadence and wealth is.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I visited the Truman Presidential Museum & Library on Friday. It's a fascinating place and well worth a trip.

Anyway, Truman wrote these words:

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but true".

Does not such a statement apply perfectly today to Islamic extremists?

Can you imagine if a president were to make such a quote today? What do you think the NYT would have to say, especially if these words were spoken by a Republican president?

Sure, it apply perfectly today to Islamic extremist. But how does Iraq=Islamic extremist, maybe you care to explain that.

I think 90% of the people would not have a problem if Bush only delt with Al-Qaeda and Taliban who harbors A-Qaeda strickly and harshly. But what's the deal with starting a war with a country that's hardly a "beast" to the American people.

Seems neocon can't tell Islamic extremist from your average Muslim. And because of their idiotic policies, this war is quickly turning into war aginst Muslim.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The quote in my post referred to the Japanese, but I think that it aptly applies to Islamic extremists.

Here's what else Truman had to say:

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

Again, doesn't this seem relevant today?

Sorta like how we're abusing and killing prisoners of war, too?

In your warped and twisted view, the US is always the bad guy, eh?

Truman brought the Japanese to their knees, didn't he.

Too bad our hands are so tied that we can't do the same to the Islamic extremists.

Ah, so you would support abusing, raping, beating, and killing POWs of whom 70-90% were wrongly arrested?

Who has the warped and twisted view???

To win a war, an incredible number of innocent people must die. It is unfortunate that a vast majority of the prisoners we hold are wrongly held, but to win this war we must do it. It beats putting them all back out in the desert, because those 10-30% will start working against a free Iraq again.

War sucks. People die. But putting out a statistic like that serves a moot point. What you should be arguing for or against is if the war itself is worth these types of atrocities, because they will inevitably happen.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, so you would support abusing, raping, beating, and killing POWs of whom 70-90% were wrongly arrested?

Who has the warped and twisted view???

To win a war, an incredible number of innocent people must die. It is unfortunate that a vast majority of the prisoners we hold are wrongly held, but to win this war we must do it.

I do not support that premise. We do NOT need to broadly wrongfully arrest people.

It beats putting them all back out in the desert, because those 10-30% will start working against a free Iraq again.

Those 10-30% could have been disarmed. We had the opportunity to do so but chose not to. How's that for a feckless leadership? We had the opportunity to arrest Moqtadr al-Sadr for murder but did not. How's that for incompetence?

War sucks. People die. But putting out a statistic like that serves a moot point. What you should be arguing for or against is if the war itself is worth these types of atrocities, because they will inevitably happen.

I don't have to argue that point. It's painfully obvious this war was not worth one American life.

 

[Bowmaster]

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: Bowmaster

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

My response to that would be:

Your country is ruled by a dictator who has killed 10's (100's?) of thousands of people over his reign. Your country has admitted to having WMD's, and invaded a neighboring country in 1991 where you raped and tortured innocent Kuwaiti people and looted their belongings. We agreed not to wipe you out in 1991 when we tossed your asses out of Kuwait under the assumption you would dismantle your weapons programs and comply with UN regulations. You failed to do that. We have warned you repeatedly to prove that you have disarmed and to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreements. You failed to do that. These same groups which now fight against the United States involvement in your country were capable of waging the same battle against Saddam and his evil Regime. They FAILED to do that.

You no longer have any rights as a country until you can prove yourself willing to govern yourself successfully without slaughtering yourselves, your neighbors, and without threatening the United States and its allies. Perhaps when you are capable of maintaining simple human rights in your own country, you can begin to criticize our abuses.

Since your country has already committed an unjustified war, and abused many times more innocent people in Kuwait and in your own country than the few dozen that we have, we reject that you have any right to be 'disturbed' over our abuses. Our abuses have been exposed and and those involved are being punished. Your abuses have been state sponsored and supported for DECADES. You have refused to do anything about it for DECADES. You fought a war against us and LOST. You have not held up to your agreements which ended that war. We have you 15 years to figure it out.. You haven't.

We are now doing what we should have done in 1991. You had your chance to prevent it, you failed.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why is it overly strong rhetoric? After all, as you point out we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs, the vast majority of whom we arrested wrongly.

What did Kennedy get wrong?

(learn how to quote)


I don't call it torture. It is abuse, yes, but, imo, is not torture. Kennedy's remark was only meant to inflame and did nothing to bring the culprits to justice nor make the administration accountable for its actions.

You said that we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs. Your description sounds worse than abuse to me.

Why are you backtracking and distancing yourself from another fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal?

"fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal"? First off, for Sen. Kennedy to be a fellow would mean I would have to be one, too. That is not the case.

You are now simply trolling.

Be gone.

You seem to always bring up that you are not a liberal, or are a "True Moderate". I challenge you to direct us to one single post of yours that has supported any action of the current administration or republican party.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: M0NEYSH0T

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I visited the Truman Presidential Museum & Library on Friday. It's a fascinating place and well worth a trip.

Anyway, Truman wrote these words:

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but true".

Does not such a statement apply perfectly today to Islamic extremists?

Can you imagine if a president were to make such a quote today? What do you think the NYT would have to say, especially if these words were spoken by a Republican president?

AMEN TO THAT... I think if Bush is re-elected he's gonna take off the gloves, and I think he can't right now, because the communists of this country would cry fowl.

AMEN BROTHER! Some of us can't wait until Term 2, Phase 2 of our Final Solution, when we really bring the fight to the untermenschen. Then we can turn our attention to the Communist untermenschen in our midst. Praise the Lord and pass the Zyklon B.

Zephyr

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The quote in my post referred to the Japanese, but I think that it aptly applies to Islamic extremists.

Here's what else Truman had to say:

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

Again, doesn't this seem relevant today?

Sorta like how we're abusing and killing prisoners of war, too?

In your warped and twisted view, the US is always the bad guy, eh?

Truman brought the Japanese to their knees, didn't he.

Too bad our hands are so tied that we can't do the same to the Islamic extremists.

But you know what? A lot of times we are responsible for the bad things that come our way.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowmaster

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

My response to that would be:

Your country is ruled by a dictator who has killed 10's (100's?) of thousands of people over his reign. Your country has admitted to having WMD's, and invaded a neighboring country in 1991 where you raped and tortured innocent Kuwaiti people and looted their belongings. We agreed not to wipe you out in 1991 when we tossed your asses out of Kuwait under the assumption you would dismantle your weapons programs and comply with UN regulations. You failed to do that. We have warned you repeatedly to prove that you have disarmed and to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreements. You failed to do that. These same groups which now fight against the United States involvement in your country were capable of waging the same battle against Saddam and his evil Regime. They FAILED to do that.

You no longer have any rights as a country until you can prove yourself willing to govern yourself successfully without slaughtering yourselves, your neighbors, and without threatening the United States and its allies. Perhaps when you are capable of maintaining simple human rights in your own country, you can begin to criticize our abuses.

Since your country has already committed an unjustified war, and abused many times more innocent people in Kuwait and in your own country than the few dozen that we have, we reject that you have any right to be 'disturbed' over our abuses. Our abuses have been exposed and and those involved are being punished. Your abuses have been state sponsored and supported for DECADES. You have refused to do anything about it for DECADES. You fought a war against us and LOST. You have not held up to your agreements which ended that war. We have you 15 years to figure it out.. You haven't.

We are now doing what we should have done in 1991. You had your chance to prevent it, you failed.

Wow, you've hit the nail on the head, Crimson. I think all of these innocent iraqi civilians that were tortured, abused, whatever you like to call it, should quit griping about it. I mean they no longer have any rights because each and everyone of them were over and commiting atrocities towards the Kurds.

:roll:

It's pretty sick that you think the civilians have given up their rights because an evil 'dictator' chose to comit atrocities. Why don't you just come out and say that you wouldn't care if every single one of them died? Oh wait, you wouldn't say that, based on the fact that we're there to be 'liberatiors', now that your wmd BS flew out the window.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why is it overly strong rhetoric? After all, as you point out we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs, the vast majority of whom we arrested wrongly.

What did Kennedy get wrong?

(learn how to quote)


I don't call it torture. It is abuse, yes, but, imo, is not torture. Kennedy's remark was only meant to inflame and did nothing to bring the culprits to justice nor make the administration accountable for its actions.

You said that we abused, raped, beat and killed POWs. Your description sounds worse than abuse to me.

Why are you backtracking and distancing yourself from another fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal?

"fellow mean-spirited, self-interested Liberal"? First off, for Sen. Kennedy to be a fellow would mean I would have to be one, too. That is not the case.

You are now simply trolling.

Be gone.

You seem to always bring up that you are not a liberal, or are a "True Moderate". I challenge you to direct us to one single post of yours that has supported any action of the current administration or republican party.

To be a moderate doesn't mean you have to support the current administration.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Bowmaster

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

Unwarranted attack? Iraq flouted 17 UN Resolutions. Get a clue.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowmaster

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

My response to that would be:

Your country is ruled by a dictator who has killed 10's (100's?) of thousands of people over his reign. Your country has admitted to having WMD's, and invaded a neighboring country in 1991 where you raped and tortured innocent Kuwaiti people and looted their belongings. We agreed not to wipe you out in 1991 when we tossed your asses out of Kuwait under the assumption you would dismantle your weapons programs and comply with UN regulations. You failed to do that. We have warned you repeatedly to prove that you have disarmed and to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreements. You failed to do that. These same groups which now fight against the United States involvement in your country were capable of waging the same battle against Saddam and his evil Regime. They FAILED to do that.

You no longer have any rights as a country until you can prove yourself willing to govern yourself successfully without slaughtering yourselves, your neighbors, and without threatening the United States and its allies. Perhaps when you are capable of maintaining simple human rights in your own country, you can begin to criticize our abuses.

Since your country has already committed an unjustified war, and abused many times more innocent people in Kuwait and in your own country than the few dozen that we have, we reject that you have any right to be 'disturbed' over our abuses. Our abuses have been exposed and and those involved are being punished. Your abuses have been state sponsored and supported for DECADES. You have refused to do anything about it for DECADES. You fought a war against us and LOST. You have not held up to your agreements which ended that war. We have you 15 years to figure it out.. You haven't.

We are now doing what we should have done in 1991. You had your chance to prevent it, you failed.

Wow, you've hit the nail on the head, Crimson. I think all of these innocent iraqi civilians that were tortured, abused, whatever you like to call it, should quit griping about it. I mean they no longer have any rights because each and everyone of them were over and commiting atrocities towards the Kurds.

:roll:

It's pretty sick that you think the civilians have given up their rights because an evil 'dictator' chose to comit atrocities. Why don't you just come out and say that you wouldn't care if every single one of them died? Oh wait, you wouldn't say that, based on the fact that we're there to be 'liberatiors', now that your wmd BS flew out the window.

Name a war where bad things didn't happen to civilians. It sad and unfortunate, but civilian casualities happen. Sometimes it's even planned. Truman dropped A-bombs on Japan, afterall.

I'll bet you were out on the forefront criticizing Clinton when he killed 2,200 innocent Serbs.

 

[chess9]

Rip:

You're trying to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear.

I've read more about Harry S. Truman than about my own family so I think I'm not going out on a limb if I told you that HST would have been very unlikely to have found the notion of pre-emption an attractive option.

But, good for you in going to his library, and if you take most of his principles to heart you might lead a productive and sane life.

-Robert

 

[Riprorin]

Robert, how do you think that Truman would handle global terrorism?

More specifically, how do you think he would have dealt with Iraq given that they didn't abide by the conditions set after 1991 war and they flouted 17 UN Resolutions?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Robert, how do you think that Truman would handle global terrorism?

More specifically, how do you think he would have dealt with Iraq given that they didn't abide by the conditions set after 1991 war and they flouted 17 UN Resolutions?

Hehe, you disgrace Harry Truman metioning his name together with the war today. Even when facing enemy like Japanese who have killed hundreds of thousand Americans, he thought long and hard about dropping A-Bomb that would have saved hundreds of thousands more American.

Today American started a pre-emptive war based on false intelligence, and a resolution that UN did not concluded that Iraq violated. Sure, that's a nice comparison.......

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Robert, how do you think that Truman would handle global terrorism?

More specifically, how do you think he would have dealt with Iraq given that they didn't abide by the conditions set after 1991 war and they flouted 17 UN Resolutions?

Hehe, you disgrace Harry Truman metioning his name together with the war today. Even when facing enemy like Japanese who have killed hundreds of thousand Americans, he thought long and hard about dropping A-Bomb that would have saved hundreds of thousands more American.

Many historians diagree that dropping A-bombs on Japanses cities save hundreds of thousands of Amercian lives.

However, I give Truman the benefit of the doubt and believe that he did what he thought was right, just as I think that George Bush did what he thought was right.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: IndieSnob

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowmaster

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

How about a slant from the Arabs side...

"Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Suicide bombers than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the US on Iraq and for the plight of the abuse of their prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.

My response to that would be:

Your country is ruled by a dictator who has killed 10's (100's?) of thousands of people over his reign. Your country has admitted to having WMD's, and invaded a neighboring country in 1991 where you raped and tortured innocent Kuwaiti people and looted their belongings. We agreed not to wipe you out in 1991 when we tossed your asses out of Kuwait under the assumption you would dismantle your weapons programs and comply with UN regulations. You failed to do that. We have warned you repeatedly to prove that you have disarmed and to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreements. You failed to do that. These same groups which now fight against the United States involvement in your country were capable of waging the same battle against Saddam and his evil Regime. They FAILED to do that.

You no longer have any rights as a country until you can prove yourself willing to govern yourself successfully without slaughtering yourselves, your neighbors, and without threatening the United States and its allies. Perhaps when you are capable of maintaining simple human rights in your own country, you can begin to criticize our abuses.

Since your country has already committed an unjustified war, and abused many times more innocent people in Kuwait and in your own country than the few dozen that we have, we reject that you have any right to be 'disturbed' over our abuses. Our abuses have been exposed and and those involved are being punished. Your abuses have been state sponsored and supported for DECADES. You have refused to do anything about it for DECADES. You fought a war against us and LOST. You have not held up to your agreements which ended that war. We have you 15 years to figure it out.. You haven't.

We are now doing what we should have done in 1991. You had your chance to prevent it, you failed.

Wow, you've hit the nail on the head, Crimson. I think all of these innocent iraqi civilians that were tortured, abused, whatever you like to call it, should quit griping about it. I mean they no longer have any rights because each and everyone of them were over and commiting atrocities towards the Kurds.

:roll:

It's pretty sick that you think the civilians have given up their rights because an evil 'dictator' chose to comit atrocities. Why don't you just come out and say that you wouldn't care if every single one of them died? Oh wait, you wouldn't say that, based on the fact that we're there to be 'liberatiors', now that your wmd BS flew out the window.

Name a war where bad things didn't happen to civilians. It sad and unfortunate, but civilian casualities happen. Sometimes it's even planned. Truman dropped A-bombs on Japan, afterall.

I'll bet you were out on the forefront criticizing Clinton when he killed 2,200 innocent Serbs.

Really, you mean civilians sometimes die in wars? Wow, I didn't know that. :roll:

I wasn't talking about the civilians that were killed, but instead the way we were treating innocent prisoners. How does something like that just 'happen in a war?" These were prisoners, in a controlled enviroment, who also happened to be innocent. So again, tell me how this is "a sad and unfortunate thing"? Or are you just trying to twist this into something else and not addressing what I actually said?

As to the Serbian thing, I'm glad you know what I thought. Don't be so absurd to think that just because I'm liberal I would defend anything Clinton did. Generelazations like that are a crock of BS, and you know it.

 

[Riprorin]

Really, you mean civilians sometimes die in wars? Wow, I didn't know that. :roll:

I wasn't talking about the civilians that were killed, but instead the way we were treating innocent prisoners. How does something like that just 'happen in a war?" These were prisoners, in a controlled enviroment, who also happened to be innocent. So again, tell me how this is "a sad and unfortunate thing"? Or are you just trying to twist this into something else and not addressing what I actually said?

As to the Serbian thing, I'm glad you know what I thought. Don't be so absurd to think that just because I'm liberal I would defend anything Clinton did. Generelazations like that are a crock of BS, and you know it.

You Libs really get your jollies out of blowing the Abu Ghraib situtation way out of proportion, don't you? You really need to start finding better retorts.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Really, you mean civilians sometimes die in wars? Wow, I didn't know that. :roll:

I wasn't talking about the civilians that were killed, but instead the way we were treating innocent prisoners. How does something like that just 'happen in a war?" These were prisoners, in a controlled enviroment, who also happened to be innocent. So again, tell me how this is "a sad and unfortunate thing"? Or are you just trying to twist this into something else and not addressing what I actually said?

As to the Serbian thing, I'm glad you know what I thought. Don't be so absurd to think that just because I'm liberal I would defend anything Clinton did. Generelazations like that are a crock of BS, and you know it.

You Libs really get your jollies out of blowing the Abu Ghraib situtation way out of proportion, don't you? You really need to start finding better retorts.

You really need to start finding better reasoning:

A letter about the handling of detainees sent in 2002 from the State Department's legal adviser to the Justice Department's deputy assistant attorney general made no attempt at bureaucratic pleasantries.

William H. Taft IV said that Justice's legal advice to President Bush about how to handle detainees in the war on terrorism was "seriously flawed" and its reasoning was "incorrect as well as incomplete." Justice's arguments were "contrary to the official position of the United States, the United Nations and all other states that have considered the issue," Taft said.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Really, you mean civilians sometimes die in wars? Wow, I didn't know that. :roll:

I wasn't talking about the civilians that were killed, but instead the way we were treating innocent prisoners. How does something like that just 'happen in a war?" These were prisoners, in a controlled enviroment, who also happened to be innocent. So again, tell me how this is "a sad and unfortunate thing"? Or are you just trying to twist this into something else and not addressing what I actually said?

As to the Serbian thing, I'm glad you know what I thought. Don't be so absurd to think that just because I'm liberal I would defend anything Clinton did. Generelazations like that are a crock of BS, and you know it.

You Libs really get your jollies out of blowing the Abu Ghraib situtation way out of proportion, don't you? You really need to start finding better retorts.

So it's perfectly fine to sodomize and beat to death innocent people in jails?

Zephyr