I support wars to defend our country too. I don't support Bush's invasion of Iraq because Iraq did nothing for us to defend against. We attacked them outright without provocation. How is that defending our country?
It's unfortunate that the reputations of thousands of good, moral soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen have been tarnished by the stupid actions of a few. However, I stand firm in my belief that some less-than-cuddly methods should be utilized in interrogation techniques in times of war. I stand firm in my beliefs that some less-than-cuddly methods should be utilized in response to enemy persons that have attempted to (or succeeded in) harming or killing U.S. servicemembers.
Do you really think the people in those photos were "average" Iraqi citizens? Nice guys? Picked up for jaywalking? Maybe their crime was spitting gum on the street or something, right? Yeah, sure. That's it.
I didn't enter this discussion to argue, or even participate much. I just wanted to share my viewpoint because I'm seriously sick of the media not portraying the truth and the way the liberal media spins everything to make the war sound like we are over there just killing people unnecessarily.
I'll tell you what - why don't you go over on a peacekeeping mission of some sort. There are volunteer services that allow that. You can help rebuild/build communities with other volunteers. Go on over. It's noble and I certainly respect those volunteers. However, there's just one funny thing about those volunteers. They are pretty sick of coming under fire by radicals and fundamentalists themselves when they are not even a part of the military, wear large red crosses, and carry no more weapons than the equipment they use for construction. Wonder why you never hear of those volunteer services? The media doesnt harp on the good points.
Some people are so deluded and blinded it's really more of a sociology lesson than something to get mad about.
OMG the Rush Patrol has invaded AT!
If my thread on the Abu Ghraib scandal hadn't been deleted in the y2k6 glitch/hack/whatever, I'd show you, Mr. Right-Wing Talking Points, how incredibly misguided and inaccurate your post is. You may believe what Rush tells you but the facts prove the exact opposite.
Go do some research on your own for a change.
Look into the histories of the four men picked to setup and train people initially (hint: they didn't have very good human rights records running their respective prisons).
Also, look at who picked those people (hint: John Ashcroft).
Then, research the people involved in the crafting of the Torture Memo (hint: current AG and current Sec'y of Homeland Security along with John Yoo who, btw, says it's ok for the children of detainees to have their testicles crushed if the detainee doesn't tell the interrogator what he wants to hear).
Also, when you research that Torture Memo, you'll also see how the current AG termed the Geneva Conventions "quaint". How cute of him to think so, don't you think?
Also in your research, you'll come across documents and testimony from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Sanchez acknowledging and orchestrating various practices that were knowingly in violation of the Geneva Conventions and US Federal Law and the UCMJ.
You'll also learn that the first group put in charge at Abu Ghraib had zero experience in managing a prison. They were traffic detail and maintenance personnel. They were used as pawns by higher ups and CIA and other intel groups who did use and demand harsh treatments of prisoners.
Also, and this is the kicker, you'll come across a Red Cross report (in which they interviewed US military officials) which shows that 70-90% of the detainees were 100% innocent.
Now, what was that you were saying?
Oh, btw, liberal media? What liberal media? That's another Rushism.
If my thread on the Abu Ghraib scandal hadn't been deleted in the y2k6 glitch/hack/whatever, I'd show you, Mr. Right-Wing Talking Points, how incredibly misguided and inaccurate your post is. You may believe what Rush tells you but the facts prove the exact opposite.
Go do some research on your own for a change.
Look into the histories of the four men picked to setup and train people initially (hint: they didn't have very good human rights records running their respective prisons).
Also, look at who picked those people (hint: John Ashcroft).
Then, research the people involved in the crafting of the Torture Memo (hint: current AG and current Sec'y of Homeland Security along with John Yoo who, btw, says it's ok for the children of detainees to have their testicles crushed if the detainee doesn't tell the interrogator what he wants to hear).
Also, when you research that Torture Memo, you'll also see how the current AG termed the Geneva Conventions "quaint". How cute of him to think so, don't you think?
Also in your research, you'll come across documents and testimony from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Sanchez acknowledging and orchestrating various practices that were knowingly in violation of the Geneva Conventions and US Federal Law and the UCMJ.
You'll also learn that the first group put in charge at Abu Ghraib had zero experience in managing a prison. They were traffic detail and maintenance personnel. They were used as pawns by higher ups and CIA and other intel groups who did use and demand harsh treatments of prisoners.
Also, and this is the kicker, you'll come across a Red Cross report (in which they interviewed US military officials) which shows that 70-90% of the detainees were 100% innocent.
Now, what was that you were saying?
Oh, btw, liberal media? What liberal media? That's another Rushism.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I post this I hope you understand it.
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.
"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights.
"It negates man's fundamental right?the right to life?and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
-- AYN RAND
Hmm...
Sounds like someone needs to go back and do a little reading on each of those points. Maybe in time he/she will look at the information objectively and not with an obvious left-wing agenda.
Which brings me to my next point: since you refuse to keep your posts at an adult and civil manner and learn to debate without name-calling, rash generalizations, and general childishness I'm not going to dignify any more of your drivel with a response. You may be able to incite some kind of venom and heated argument or bring others down to your level but I just dont have the time. When you are able to discuss an issue like an adult, I may reconsider. May I point out the rule posted at the entry to this forum:
"PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED."
With your 55,000+ posts, I would kind of expect you to have seen that by now.
Oh, and not that it's any of your business but I don't listen to Rush, I don't consider myself "right-wing" and I didn't even vote for Bush in the 2004 election.
Have a nice evening you angry little person.
Sounds like someone needs to go back and do a little reading on each of those points. Maybe in time he/she will look at the information objectively and not with an obvious left-wing agenda.
Which brings me to my next point: since you refuse to keep your posts at an adult and civil manner and learn to debate without name-calling, rash generalizations, and general childishness I'm not going to dignify any more of your drivel with a response. You may be able to incite some kind of venom and heated argument or bring others down to your level but I just dont have the time. When you are able to discuss an issue like an adult, I may reconsider. May I point out the rule posted at the entry to this forum:
"PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED."
With your 55,000+ posts, I would kind of expect you to have seen that by now.
Oh, and not that it's any of your business but I don't listen to Rush, I don't consider myself "right-wing" and I didn't even vote for Bush in the 2004 election.
Have a nice evening you angry little person.
WTF? name-calling? rash generalizations? childishness? venom? WTF?
I posted a clear and concise summary of a very, very long thread that I'd been keeping up-to-date that, if it were still around, you could have read and see that everything you posted in your previous message had been debunked, several times over.
As it is, I see you finally found someone calling you on your parroting of talking points and instead of owning up to the fact that you know nothing on the topic, you're going to run and hide and accuse me of name calling? What name calling? :roll:
And your little dismissal of Rush and voting for Bush in '04 just doesn't ring true. Not after the talking points you posted above.
Generator
Senior member
- Mar 4, 2005
- 793
- 0
- 0
Man do we seriously need to stop occupying Iraq. When soldier start thinking they are capable of helping countries you know we have some deluded people in this world. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A SOLDIER TO BUILD A COUNTRY!!! A soldier sole purpose is to kill. Its all a soldier is good at. Buidling schools should be left to people who don't carry guns into foreign countries and accidently bomb whole Iraqi families out of existence.
I've heard stats from the Red Cross, supposedly obtained from our military, suggesting that a rather large number of our prisoners are in fact fairly innocent people. And I'd believe it. Not because our soldiers are evil, but because they are human. If soldiers were able to perfectly pick out the bad guys and only arrest them, totally bypassing the innocent or semi-innocent people that we DON'T want to torture, that would be great. Hell, I'd say ditch the courts and get some of these guys enforcing the law over here.
But of course they are not perfect, no one would be. That's a big reason we HAVE courts in the first place. Even if you agree that torturing terrorists is ok, it seems like it would be a wise move to actually make sure they are terrorists first. Because as bad as torturing ANYONE is, torturing people who aren't terrorists is really bad stuff. Maybe our armed forces are able to only detain the bad guys without needing pesky things like courts and trials, but if so, they'd be the first organization in the history of the world able to do that. Call me a pessimist, but I just don't buy it. If for no other reason than extremely professional law enforcement organizations get it wrong, and the military, as good as they are at their job, are NOT the best at law enforcement.
I'm not sure that's entirely correct. As a matter of fact, I know that it isn't.
See:
Army Corps of Engineers and the Navy Seabees, just to name a couple.
First is was WMD, then links to Al Qaeda, then it was to liberate the Iraqi people, now we find out what the real reason we invaded Iraq was: "the playgrounds we built."
We had to invade and bomb all of the old bad schools-so we could rebuild good schools.
I am sure all of the taxpayers and the families of the dead soldiers will be glad to hear it.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
ahh, I see you have moved on to Phase 2: Question the posters' integrity.
atleast you're consistent Conjur... I'll give you that much. The Master Brain has taught you well!
Since the debate has turned from reinstituting the draft to America's "accomplishments" as the latest justification for unprovoked aggression I will offer the following assessment of U.S. counterinsurgency operations in Iraq. Several of the points already brought up in this thread are discussed.
The writer is experienced in counterinsurgency operations. His assessment varies widely from the hugs and kisses interpretation of Iraqi civilian reaction to military occupation that has been expressed here. I believe the writer's assessment is far more broadly based than one soldier's perceptions, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. military has been instructing GI's on their way home to write glowing accounts of the fiasco we're witnessing every day in the news that has been, thanks to the lies and criminally negligent planning of the Bush administration, playing out for close to three years now.
Changing the Armhy for Counterinsurgency Operations
The writer is experienced in counterinsurgency operations. His assessment varies widely from the hugs and kisses interpretation of Iraqi civilian reaction to military occupation that has been expressed here. I believe the writer's assessment is far more broadly based than one soldier's perceptions, particularly in light of the fact that the U.S. military has been instructing GI's on their way home to write glowing accounts of the fiasco we're witnessing every day in the news that has been, thanks to the lies and criminally negligent planning of the Bush administration, playing out for close to three years now.
Changing the Armhy for Counterinsurgency Operations
You still have yet to respond to any of the other part of my thread. So it is arrogance. So just out of curiosity, how many of your friends have you seen come home injured or killed? What's your justification? I'm sorry, you had to go overseas to die so we could protect people that have no relation to you whatsoever. Oh, you're family is starving? You're friends families are starving? Meh, just another statistic in the US. If you're going to be proud of yourself, try helping out your FELLOW people instead of calling others cowards for not wanting to be like you. Because while you are over there helping them out, some of us over here are helping our own out. So try looking at both sides of view.
How about this guy who walked into a detention center looking for one of his sons. He was arrested and beat to death. And then the Army lied and said he was picked up in a raid, though they later had to admit the truth.
Then, after they beat him to death, they filled the sleeping bag he was in with ice stuck an IV in him to make it look like they were trying to save his life.
And amazingly, they have not now nor will they ever charge the CIA operatives who were involved in his death. State sponsored murder, plain and simple. Just like what Saddam did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
hmmm... the following tells me that the soldiers who allegedly committed murder are on trial, so your "state sponsorship" theory is bunk.
But since you wish to buy into WashPost's CIA/SF conspiracy version instead, and then use it to justify your belief that we are murdering everyone in Iraq, I guess I can't help ya...
1. You haven't addressed the assertion I quoted regarding how none of those abused in Iraq were innocent.
2. Isn't it telling that only because if the significant attention from the evil left-wing media to this case that these men were even charged?
3. Why did the Army lie about how he came to be in custody? Why was the dead man's name redacted on his own autopsy? Why is the CIA asking to redact transcripts in a simple, isolated murder case for national security reasons if it didn't involve more then just a couple of low level soldiers going over the top? If it were truly a simple, isolated murder case there would be no risk of national security.
And nowhere did I say we were murdering everyone in Iraq. I gave an example of where someone who didn't even jaywalk or spit gum in the street (using the examples in the post I replied to) was severely abused to the point of death. And then the government is trying to cover up the details surrounding that death while assuring us that it was a simple, isolated incident.
It will never happen, the weekend flag waivers will never stand for it. It is much easier for them to pick and choose when and where they wish to support their country.
If it were to get past them then you will have the Mothers of America start inot it, like they know what is best.
If it were to get past them then you will have the Mothers of America start inot it, like they know what is best.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
was it the same guys who shot JFK? ya think? no, seriously, i think i read that somewhere... something about PNAC.. and the Special Forces...the CIA...and JFK... ya, that's right! Damn George Bush for assasinating JFK and for making "fun" a crime! damn himmmm!
Typical. Can't actually argue the points presented so you go off and post a bunch of inane crap that has nothing to do with the subject. What, is that beyond your IQ or something? And you actually called out conjur for going off topic. Whatever!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter