Today America stands United in Shame

quote
"You obviously have no morals, or you're one of those sick types. I don't want people like that in our military or our gov't. In fact, I don't even want them in my country...or even in my world at all. See, to me, those are the types of people that cause all of the conflict in the world. Their best effort is only to pretend that they're not sick individuals, and that's not good enough. They're still sick, no matter how good they are at acting like they're normal. People like that are indeed dangerous, IMO.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by Satyr] "


Well I guess Im one of your "sick types".
youd be sick too. Did you see for yourself people on fire hurling themselves from the WTC?
Did anyone you know die in a terrorist attack?

We could pretend that never happened, and leave ourself open to really getting kicked.

If it was your world, we could just all sit around in a friendship circle and discuss our options about the vulnerabily of our freedoms and our nation.

We could go talk to terrorists and insist they stop what they are doing this instant or they wont get any more free food and we wont be their friend any more!

Well they still get free food, but we ARE gonna kick their sorry butts.

Eh, screw it lets just put a bullet in their head like they do to their POWs. Some treat prisoners good, some bad. Its war. HEllo.

If this is considered sick, what do you call draggin tortured dead bodies around behind pickup trucks.
Thats sick. THAT IS SICK.
......................................................................................

You dont want "people like that" in your military? If we had a bunch of guys only willing to "talk" about it,
this wouldnt be America. You wouldnt have 1/2 the freedoms you have because our beautiful land would have been pulled out from beneath us from a more aggressive nation.
What do you think is the answer? To just watch the infiltration of terrorism into every country in the world like a virus?

I am not going to watch the world get raped tortured killed and terrorized, and Im certainly not going to let it happen to my own family again.
Theres not too many ways to war without killing, but we try.
I would give my own life to save my and your family and any fellow American. If thats sick, then Im 1/2 dead.

kristine

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by xxKrisxx]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, after i read that SweetMonica (why a female name??) believes there is no good or evil, I have to somewhat agree with you TC. A person that doesn't see the line between good and evil is bound to commit evil acts.

SM, a gun has no concious, it cannot decide either, so its neither good, bad or evil, just like energy is just potential. But humans beings have a concious, and a human being can be either good, bad or evil.

In the U.S there is no reason why a person has to steal, so i do consider this as bad, it can also be considered evil, because there are many consequences for the person you steal from.

Regarding my name, don't worry about it. Not for you to question.

You seem to be under the assumption that those of us who believe in relativity do whatever they want. Wrong. Very wrong.

For example, let's say that I want to burn down someone's home because I THINK they did something bad to me. Will I do it? If I was insane enough, yes. But assuming I am sane, no. Why? Because I have no idea whether they did it or not, so if I took their lives, I would've just killed somebody in cold blood, someone who did not do anything wrong to me in the first place. At the same time, if they really had done whatever bad thing to me, would I still burn down the house? Honestly, I would not. Why? Because two wrongs don't make a right. If I kill him, that's it for him. How does he pay for what he did if he doesn't feel the pain? You can't feel pain if you're dead. So no, just because someone believes in relativity doesn't mean they'll do something bad.

To me, "good" and "evil" are just substitutes for the emotions we feel. If somebody killed a loved one because he was actually a terrorist planning to release a deadly virus, I would most likely call whoever killed the loved one evil. Why? BECAUSE THEY KILLED MY LOVED ONE! Just look at the family of the soldiers who abused the Iraqi prisoners! You see the soldiers as evil (hypothetically), but the family doesn't. So who's evil? You can't say, because it's the emotion that's causing them to say and believe what they say.

If you want to look at everyhting left and right, up down, good and evil, go ahead. Just try explaining every last bit of the world that way.

Best of luck to all.

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by sweatmonicaIdo]

So because somethings can be looked at from different perspectives and seen as "good/right" or "evil/wrong" then nothing can be seen as such? It seems that for a lot of people some actions are just evil. I think it is wrong to always try and see it from the other side for every action. From Hitler's perspective what he was doing was OK. I can see his perspective but I still think what happened was wrong. For the Son o Sam I don't think being told to kill people by a dog is justification for his actions.

The representitives of The United States, and other countries alike, represent each country regardless. I for one was not for this war, but yet Our Court-Appointed President had made his decision. This decision as we know now was under some severly false pretenses. This decision carries the back of the US population (as I am a US citizen, I can only speak in regards to the US.) since we appoint, or a court, the President.

The Middle East, as we know today, does not see what the Values of a Democracy are suppose to be.(I think the US government has forgot) I personally am ashamed of what has gone on in Iraq and other possible countries. This is a representation of terrorism, and human indecency. We are not doing what GW was set out to do. This has just blown up in his face, and as time goes on, its getting worse.

Since the big use of Digital Cameras and the internet, things can not be kept secret. Yes not everything is believable on the Net, but some credible stuff tends to slip through the BS. I can only imagine what we are not hearing, or seeing about.

This war should not have happened in the first place. Why did we stop going after OBL with a full force? I did not see, nor hear of Saddam threatening his neighbors or the rest of the world. Do I think he should have been removed from power? Yes I do. Based on his past actions, without a doubt. I'm sure if we had the world behind and into it diplomaticaly, he could have been removed without force. I did not hear any of the Middle Eastern countries, Kings, Presidents, or people for that matter; asking anybody for help.

To me, more of a threat lies with North Korea, and Iran. These should have been taken care of first. We had Saddam in the palm of our hands in 1991, if he was such a threat, why not have taken him out then?

To me, there are still to many unanswered questions to the events before and on 9-11. Not even as much as conspiracy related questions, just general questions.

Just my opinion

Trick

Originally posted by curme

I guess we'll never know since they didn't seek other bids. Couldn't we of found another company that didn't illegally make Saddam rich when our vice-president was in charge?

Gee! How many can you get wrong in one post!

Halliburton's contract was won on a bid. The one before that was won on a bid as well. Neither Cheney nor Bush was in office when the first contract was won on a bid - Clinton was. Maybe he's in with Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/NWO as well, huh?

Halliburton did NOT do business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.

Halliburton did NOT make Saddam rich. You'll have to look to the French, the Germans and the Russians to point fingers in the right direction on that one.

Originally posted by xxKrisxx
Well I guess Im one of your "sick types".
youd be sick too. Did you see for yourself people on fire hurling themselves from the WTC?
Did anyone you know die in a terrorist attack?

We could pretend that never happened, and leave ourself open to really getting kicked.

If it was your world, we could just all sit around in a friendship circle and discuss our options about the vulnerabily of our freedoms and our nation.

We could go talk to terrorists and insist they stop what they are doing this instant or they wont get any more free food and we wont be their friend any more!

Well they still get free food, but we ARE gonna kick their sorry butts.

Eh, screw it lets just put a bullet in their head like they do to their POWs. Some treat prisoners good, some bad. Its war. HEllo.

If this is considered sick, what do you call draggin tortured dead bodies around behind pickup trucks.
Thats sick. THAT IS SICK.
......................................................................................

You dont want "people like that" in your military? If we had a bunch of guys only willing to "talk" about it,
this wouldnt be America. You wouldnt have 1/2 the freedoms you have because our beautiful land would have been pulled out from beneath us from a more aggressive nation.
What do you think is the answer? To just watch the infiltration of terrorism into every country in the world like a virus?

I am not going to watch the world get raped tortured killed and terrorized, and Im certainly not going to let it happen to my own family again.
Theres not too many ways to war without killing, but we try.
I would give my own life to save my and your family and any fellow American. If thats sick, then Im 1/2 dead.

kristine

You have absolutely no idea what honor is, do you? Let me give you a clue. That ain't it. Even in war, there should be honor. We're not a bunch of dirty apes, or at least some of us aren't. There is no honor in being a sick #, no matter the reason. Those soldiers could've killed those Iraqis in battle, and they'd still have honor. But to abuse, humiliate, whatever, is mentally pathetic. I have less than pity for those people. They lack the emotions necessary to be human beings, apparently. Therefore, I consider them animals.

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by curme

I guess we'll never know since they didn't seek other bids. Couldn't we of found another company that didn't illegally make Saddam rich when our vice-president was in charge?

To add to Val's comments, lets not forget the corrupt UN 'Oil-for-Food' Program that Saddam siphoned out a few hundred million+/-......



seekerof

War is a terrible thing. I think the average American wanted revenge for 9/11 at whatever cost. Even if it was the wrong country, they wanted to believe it was the right one. They didn't think of the atrocities of war because most of them haven't seen war, certainly not on their own soil.

They don't want to see pictures of draped coffins, or limbless children, or the tortures going on by their own soldiers. They just want a nice news annoucer to tell them they're winning. And when it's all over, they don't want to deal with the consequences of what that war has done. The government won't want to deal with their mentally unstable or physically unhealthy ex soldiers, and the people won't want to admit that perhaps they need to look at their policies and admit that maybe, just maybe, their past actions will continue to catch up with them as a nation.

America is hardly the only country who is guilty of war crimes, but they are probably one of the very few who are much too ignorant to realize what war is REALLY like.



[Edited on 9-5-2004 by MessedUpAnnie]

Originally posted by Valhall
Gee! How many can you get wrong in one post!

Halliburton did NOT do business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.

Halliburton did NOT make Saddam rich. You'll have to look to the French, the Germans and the Russians to point fingers in the right direction on that one.

I guess he can be very wrong because as I'd like to add Haliburton is the ONLY company large enough and with enough resources, tech, and capital to do the job needed in Iraq.

Im sorry but who would you want us to hire in its place? Foreign contractors? Haliburton is the only American company capable of fufilling our needs and I think your too blinded by your bias to see that.

Halliburton's contract was won on a bid. The one before that was won on a bid as well. Neither Cheney nor Bush was in office when the first contract was won on a bid - Clinton was. Maybe he's in with Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/NWO as well, huh?

The Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton a no-bid contract worth billions to fight Iraqi oil fires. They said it was because of LOGCAP (in a nutshell, the civilians that does all of the military's contract work) that they didn't have to seek a contract, but some say one doesn't have to do with the other. In Bosnia in 1992, Halliburton was fired because of, um, inconsistencies, and the contract was adwarded to Dyncorp. But Halliburton was hired again, yah!

FOX News

Halliburton did NOT do business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Halliburton did NOT make Saddam rich. You'll have to look to the French, the Germans and the Russians to point fingers in the right direction on that one.
Cheney has said that he did buisiness (when he was with Halliburton) with Libya and Iran, but stopped at Iraq. Some say otherwise.
Washington Post

Oh, by the way. Cheney is still getting money from Halliburton.
CBS News

Originally posted by curme
the contract was adwarded to Dyncorp. But Halliburton was hired again, yah!

Once again, that was due to the fact Dynacorp could not perform the full array of services the Army needed in Bosnia.

Either that, or the Halliburton guy used to be the Secretary of Defense.

They don't want to see pictures of draped coffins, or limbless children, or the tortures going on by their own soldiers. They just want a nice news annoucer to tell them they're winning. And when it's all over, they don't want to deal with the consequences of what that war has done.



Your right I want to see pictures of 9/11 and the WTC every single day until the war on terror is won so that NOBODY in this country can go back to their nice comfortable existence and forget the reason we are fighting much less politicize every god damn thing this administration does to keep your happy ass in that oh so comfortable place sheesh!

Originally posted by curme
Either that, or the Halliburton guy used to be the Secretary of Defense.

Your point? Really, what is your point?

Can you draw a single line between a bank account and Iraq, can you draw something that without a doubt proves they are proffiting DIRECTLY from the contracts? Or are you just making ass umptions, note ass umptions, your reaching here. Really who do you want to do a job that only one company can adequately do? Would want Dynacorp doing a crappy job and costing more lives? What is your angle here?

My point is that our Vice President is using and has used his politcal connections to make money, sometimes illegally. I have provided links, as to why I think this way.
You keep saying Halliburton is best to do the job, and Cheney's connection is not an issue. Why do you think this way? Where do you get your information? What is the basis of this opinion? Is it because you don't think Cheney is crooked? I'll acccept that, a gut feeling. Just tell me why you think Dynacorp is no longer used (either facts/links or your opinion) and why Cheney is not a war profiteer. Even if you just say, hey, I don't have any facts or figures, but I think that.... I'll accept that. I just hate it when people say, "No, it's this!" End of story.

Fair enough I dont have facts and figures right now but I promise to try and dig some up tommorow.

Why do I feel this way? Well it is a gut feeling and the thought that the VP is enough money as it is? Maybe Im wrong. Its not black and white and its not the way Im saying it is.

Wow...it would seem we've digressed a bit on this thread. I'm going to hit a couple of points here...

Please put me in the 'not shamed' column. I'm tired of hearing about how we should be 'treating our prisoners better than this'. These are people who would gladly kill any and all of those who are speaking up for them if given the chance. You're Americans, after all, and merely infidels if not, which isn't much higher up the ladder as far as they're concerned.

I don't think that people realize that is why the war on terror is being fought--to kill the people who want to kill us. Period. Personally, I'm for that. The moral spin on this is irrelevant--this is about survival. If there is someone who wants to kill you, and you kill them first, they cannot do so. Good, bad, whatever you want to call it, that's the reality. If given the opportunity, there are a whole lot of people out there who would dearly love to see a 9-11 scale, if not larger, event happening to America (and yes, other countries too!) on a daily basis. Luckily, they do not currently have this capability thanks to our, and our allies', efforts.

If it takes dragging some fedayeen around by a dog collar, so be it. There is no room on the battlefield for political correctness. America tries to show even-handedness in every possible way to the rest of the world, and 90% of the time we just get spit on for it. We give food to North Korea, for Christ's sake! We can't solve everyone's problems, or make the world a perfect place. Yet we are criticized for being controlling imperialists if we do, and wickedly unconcerned if we don't. There is no winning everybody over, no placation that will satisfy everyone. (Not that Kerry wouldn't be willing to try! ) Make all the talk you wish about standing on higher moral ground, but our enemies have no such dilemas. They'd just as soon shoot us in the back as in the front...if you ingore your enemy's ruthlessness in favor of your moral superiority, you're placing yourself at a sizable tactical disadvantage. That is why so many of our servicemen and women are paying with their lives--so that we can look morally superior to the eyes of those who'll still hate us anyway.

I'm just tired of the US being criticized by those who would do nothing to protect even their own lives. The events at Abu Gharib aren't good, but we do not deserve to be villified as a nation to this extent because of it. Why are so many so complacent at being judged by a double standard? I agree that we need to get the people who are sodomizing people with broomhandles out of there--that's a no-brainer. As for the rest--humiliation is not torture. I'll take having my penis ridiculed over being pushed off a building anyday. The Geneva conventions apply to those willing to abide by it's rules--and many of our enemies clearly do not.

Even though the Taliban were a bunch of evil, sadistic individuals, they were extended Geneva protections because they were a legitimate political force holding power in their country. Al-Qaeda was not. Iraqi military were extended GC protections, as they met the criteria. Fedayeen and other 'resistance' groups are not, as they do not. That's how it is.

I'm with you, xxKrisxx.

My apologies for this extended rant. I do feel better now, though...

Anyway...what's with the surprise at politicians using their clout to make money? That's why people become politicians! They're not just in it for the title. Like it or not, Halliburton and other private-sector companies are providing us with the best services money can buy. Personally, I wouldn't want to entrust our supply lines, etc., to anyone else. Sure, we may pay through the nose, but the job gets done, and that is what's of crucial importance.

"You have absolutely no idea what honor is, do you? Let me give you a clue. That ain't it. Even in war, there should be honor. We're not a bunch of dirty apes, or at least some of us aren't. There is no honor in being a sick [V], no matter the reason. Those soldiers could've killed those Iraqis in battle, and they'd still have honor. But to abuse, humiliate, whatever, is mentally pathetic. I have less than pity for those people. They lack the emotions necessary to be human beings, apparently. Therefore, I consider them animals".

[Edited on 5-9-2004 by Satyr]
end quote


I was going to ignore this personal attack but

I know exactly what honor is and you dont know what those soldiers saw or endured during their wartime.
You dont have a clue what it means to take orders from a superior or NOT take orders from a superior.

Some of these mental tactics are actually taught by the military, as to keep physical abuse down.

Our own military mentally abuses their trainees, because its a part of war you better learn about.

Believe me, I dont need a class on war or the military.


You said, "Those soldiers could've killed those Iraqis in battle, and they'd still have honor"

I agree, they should have killed them instead. That way, we wouldnt be talking about it.
We wouldnt have to feed them.
or house them.
or make sure they werent a threat.

Like this piece of garbarge that mamed a guard with a knife made from a comb. This guy is mentally retarded from having a comb embedded in his brain.
This isnt a game. This is what these guys have to deal with. Part of war is fighting on the level of your enemy, otherwise youll never make it.
Unless ofcourse we screw the ground war and drop a mess of bombs, but that would be sick.

usembassy.state.gov...

By the way, to say I "know no honor" is saying I have no honor, and is a direct insult. I think that was a weak move in a debate forum.

Semper Fi

Kristine

[Edited on 10-5-2004 by xxKrisxx]

It's even more obvious now that you don't understand honor. You're condoning unnecessary abuse and/or torture. It doesn't matter what they were ordered to do. Illegal orders do not have to be followed, and those would definitely be illegal, since it defies the Geneva Convention. FYI, we're supposed to follow our own rules...and the ones we've agreed to. That's honor. Even Rumsfeld will tell you that. Are you still going to condone this type of treatment? You are indeed mentally ill, if so. Judging from your comments, I don't think you've ever had honor, or understood what it means. You can stay in the "dirty ape" category, as far as I'm concerned.