We (The US) are destined to take over the world

whether the brits like it or not






i'm just kidding


but I beleive that we're in Iraq for a reason, i may not know the reason, but in the end we'll see.


I still support our troops and think that we should murk every damn Taliban and Terrorist over there.

watcher: I don't disagree that those descriptions aren't alarming. But, based on what we've seen so far, is the outrage, over a few bad apples, going over board?There's 100K+ servicemen over there, a large, large majority are decent people who are really helping others out. I think the disproportionate outrage is putting the overwhelming majority of good soldiers at a major disadvantage. Again, I think some perspective is needed here.

well this outrage thing is purely subjective anyways.

IMO the torture/abuse whatever you want to call it runs far deeper and wider than what is currently being told. Sure things will get cleaner now in a hurry and probably has been since the investigation began, but I do not discount the widespread reports of Iraqis that was being made prior and during this scandal.

Originally posted by Bob88
watcher: I don't disagree that those descriptions aren't alarming. But, based on what we've seen so far, is the outrage, over a few bad apples, going over board?There's 100K+ servicemen over there, a large, large majority are decent people who are really helping others out. I think the disproportionate outrage is putting the overwhelming majority of good soldiers at a major disadvantage. Again, I think some perspective is needed here.

You have a good point here, and in some respects you are right. Not much attention is given towards the actual reconstruction event, at least the positive aspects of it.

What makes this so outrageous, however, is that the mass media usually only reports of this kind of torture going on in 'rogue states' and other countries that do not fall in line with the US Bandwagon. The US advertises itself as a model nation for other nations to follow in her footsteps, and as such, such a self-righteous position cannot afford to be tarnished by activities related to torture. This is supposed to be a free country with civilized rules and regulations, after all, is it not? The idea that this kind of thing is happening under American control is what makes it so preposterous.

This sort of thing is reported to only happen in places like North Korea and concentration camps, past and present, and does not follow into what is generally considered by the general american public to be morally justifiable. That makes all the difference in the world.



[Edited on 5/12/2004 by AlnilamOmega]

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega

Originally posted by CSRules
From what I've seen, there was no "TORTURE" involved. There was HUMILIATION!!!

Saddam= Torture!!

These are people who think death is martyrdom(sp). They would rather die and get their 72 virgins in heaven. But humiliation, thay can't live with that.

If these peole were tortured, I say throw the book at those responsible. If all it was is humiliation....then I say JOB WELL DONE!!! If we can get information by humiliating these bastards, then I'm all for it!!!! But I can't condone out and out torture...(Even though, in certain situations I can rationalize it), because it makes us no better than them.

Firstly, it's not always about getting information from these guys. A lot of this torture is happening to people who were arrested for mediocre things like selling beer without a Coalition license.

Secondly, it's not all about humiliation. The kind of emotional damage that is done when a heterosexual man is forced to commit homosexual acts with other heterosexual men is irreparable. Also in support of this is how there is physical damage being done as there have been reports of some of the captured people have had acid dripped unto them, via broken chemical lamps and damaged batteries (and not the small AA kind, either)

Let me ask this (although I know I'm going to be flamed!!)
If they won't play by the rules why should we????
As far as I'm concerned, nothing happened....short of Humiliation. We did not kill or maim them, but they seem allright with burning our civilians bodies and hanging them...decapitating civilians....AS LONG AS WE DON'T KILL OR MAIM THEM, I THINK ANYTHING IS FAIR PLAY....(Of course after the be-heading...I think we should just blow them off the face of the EARTH...but that is emotion speaking)

Originally posted by CSRules

Let me ask this (although I know I'm going to be flamed!!)
If they won't play by the rules why should we????
As far as I'm concerned, nothing happened....short of Humiliation. We did not kill or maim them, but they seem allright with burning our civilians bodies and hanging them...decapitating civilians....AS LONG AS WE DON'T KILL OR MAIM THEM, I THINK ANYTHING IS FAIR PLAY....(Of course after the be-heading...I think we should just blow them off the face of the EARTH...but that is emotion speaking)

Youre not going to get flamed. Not by me, at least, as I am not into that sort of thing. You will get a slap on the wrist because of your violation of the overquoting rule. Not from me, but by a mod who has every right to do so.

Insignificant stuff aside, you should really look at the video of the beheading and ask yourself three questions, please. You will be doing yourself a favor, trust me.

1. This video was released pretty shortly after the publicity of the torturing in Iraq. Why is that?
2. Where's the blood? Don't things get messy if an appendage or a limb gets cut off? Much less a head?
3. If I wanted to hide the fact that I had my troops torturing prisoners under orders from above, how would I go about burying such an idea without totally denying it?

These latest allegations are serious. Especially since our own officials are making them. Now, I'd expect them to sugar coat, etc. But, there's a lot of junk going around too. However, I am going on what we've seen. Hence the subject of prisoner photos.

My point is: we see a handful of pictures going around that clearly show inappropriate actions.

- A guy with underwear on his head, to me, isn’t being tortured. It's silly and the sort of stuff one does in there youth after they've drank too much alcohol.

- A girl pointing to a guy’s genitals isn’t torture.

- A dog next to a prisoner isn’t torture. (Police often use dogs to go after perps)

- A guy sitting on a prisoner is mistreatment. If I sit on someone in the US, I doubt I'd be even charged with assault, or even a felony.

- naked prisoners being stacked is also stupid and abuse. But, is it really torture? and really that serious?

AlnilamOmega: You raise a very good point about N. korea, concetration camps, and civilized rules and regulations. However, there is a huge difference between the US and N. Korea. We're holding congressional hearing over this in the US. Does the N. Korean politburo gather to investigate prisoner abuses over there? Do they self-police and investigate like the US, or most other civilized nations would? Does the world get outraged over abuse in NK, or let's say a common honor killing in S. Arabia or a stoning in Iran?

when in war, why is it okay to riddle someone's body with numerous bullets, but slicing his head off is termed barbaric. War is War people

*sigh*

Agreed.

AND!

If slicing off a man's head is okay, where the hell do you people get off saying that the Secretary of Defense should resign because some soldiers made some prisoners get naked?

WAR IS WAR, people. It doesn't give two #s if you're a bleeding-heart pansy. You can justify the actions of the enemy all day long, but you just start to look stupid when you condemn our own men for things that are no worse.

Originally posted by Bob88
AlnilamOmega: You raise a very good point about N. korea, concetration camps, and civilized rules and regulations. However, there is a huge difference between the US and N. Korea. We're holding congressional hearing over this in the US. Does the N. Korean politburo gather to investigate prisoner abuses over there? Do they self-police and investigate like the US, or most other civilized nations would? Does the world get outraged over abuse in NK, or let's say a common honor killing in S. Arabia or a stoning in Iran?

Thanks for the recognition, Bob88. I am aware of our senators reviewing these very same implications. I am also aware that this session is to be behind closed doors, and I do not appreciate this kind of absence of transparency in a so-called democracy. It was bad enough with the 911 inquiries, and it looks even worse with something like this. That negativity aside, I still think that it's wonderful and sets an example of a way to handle such things to other nations. A governing body with checks and balances is absolutely crucial to a functional democracy. But what is more important is the efficacy of these checks and balances. I don't need to talk about how those checks and balances have failed with events related to Enron... or the voting machines... or the JFK inquiry... or how Bush and Cheney testified, not under oath, behind closed doors in regards to what happened on 9/11/01, do I?

As for N Korea's Politburo or Russia's Duma or Israel's Knesset (just trying to include a broader range of different governing bodies for comparison), I cannot say for sure if they would react in the same manner as the US's Senate in this case because I do not know it for a fact. The world probably doesn't become peeved when these sorts of things happen in... say North Korea or Jordan. What they probably do feel, however, is remorse. People in the US also are likely to feel remorse for human suffering (despite some of the... rather... understandably vigilant posts I have seen), but the reason this becomes a source of anger is probably because our government has volunteered itself as the righteous police force to the world. Furthermore, we engaged into this war without the approval of both the domestic population and the international populous. What I mean by this is that if we never sent anyone into Iraq, never started this 'war on terrorism', is that none of this would have happened or become publically known in the first place. Torture does happen, sadly; much of it unbeknownst to the public. Just because it does happen doesn't make it right in any shape or form. Torture is still torture, regardless of whomever is wearing the sandbag and whomever is wearing the badge of office. Sorry for my rather long rambling, however.

Also keep in mind there are court martials already scheduled over this. One for the Iraqi with wires hanging from him.

I’m with your on transparency, all the way. However, I think often – especially with the 9/11 hearings – partisanship replaced some transparency. Keep in mind; Bush and Cheney weren’t the only ones that were behind closed doors. And when they were being questioned certain members walked out, citing other commitments (what else can be that important??) despite previously asking the president to commit to more time for the hearings, which he did.

I noticed the same kind of "I got your back" partisanship in those hearings, as well. I was so frustrated that I stopped watching, which is something I really try not to do. I don't care for ignoring things, even if I don't agree with them or get frustrated. Sorry, I didn't mean to point a finger at the dynamic duo; those are just the two names I could remember from the top of my head. I also don't think those members had other commitments (duh, right?).

Personally, and this is just even more speculation, I have the following explanation on such a response. Based on how many members of the Bush Administration have been disgusted on how the top guys run things, by reacting with statements and resignations, I think that this is why they walked out. They may have become frustrated like I did and didn't want to hear the lies shooting out of Cheney's mouth anymore. Alternatively, they probably were getting upset at the questions being asked, as it seems that a lot of people have the problem of not wanting to hear things they don't necessarily like.

The question i am about to ask was raised in ATSNN the question is, Why were the pprisoners heads covered? O.K i think they were covered to conceal true identities meaning i reckon they were prisoners after all.

good point drunk. Who knows. Hooding, as it's called, is against the rules, when used in some ways. Like, if you 'hood' someone for 'long periods of time' (to quote the geneva conventions, or some UN body). However, it's probably more/less to protect the US Soldiers.

So Bob your saying the "prisoners" under the hoods actually arent prisoners? cos this is my thinking. cos Nick Berg(R.I.P) wasnt hooded.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by drunk]

oh, no drunk. I'm just telling you what I know about hooding.

Originally posted by Bob88
oh, no drunk. I'm just telling you what I know about hooding.

Shoot i thought i wasnt the only one who thinks the "prisoners" arent prisoners