Land of the free, home of the Tourturers |
| Posted by: Wolf_eyes | | News, videotapes and accounts, indicate that American and coalition forces are using tourture on Iraqi POW's.
When will we wake up and smell our own stink? The lines between 'good guy' and 'bad guy' have been blurred....does anyone still doubt that? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | War itself blurs the line. No one has ever left a war smelling like roses.
We're torturing them, they're torturing us. It happened in the Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, WW2, etc., etc. I'm not saying it's right, but I am not surprised.
The difference is the media is showcasing it. Can you imagine a Vietnam with four 24-hour news channels and the internet?
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Can you imagine 4 channels covering Hitler or Saddam? How about Hamas? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Seriously. Unless it's on the newspaper stand at a Starbucks, most yuppie crybabies don't know/care about world events.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: chelktty | | Wolf I don't think you understand that the media and commentary here in the U.S. has shown more outrage over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, than it did over the torture, murder and hanging of Americans in Iraq just, what....a few months ago?
The abuse of the Iraqi prisoners was in no way right or justified, but at least you can say that despite what they went through, they're still alive. It's a shame you can't say the same for those Americans whose charred bodies were hung from a bridge above a celebrating mob. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: MrJukoVette | | The same people protest against US going into Iraq and dont give a damn when Iraq invades Kuwait, for example. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | Why the sympathy for this enemy? Watch the Daniel Pearle and Nick Berg videos and you tell me who deserves what. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: wrong_ | | you dont know if ANY of those people were involved with al qaeda, alot of people in abu gharib were criminals and some were innocent of any crimes at all
there are many insurgents which arent affiliated with al qaeda
why would these people "deserve" abuse? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Wolf_eyes | |
| quote: |
chelktty said this in post #7 :
Wolf I don't think you understand that the media and commentary here in the U.S. has shown more outrage over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, than it did over the torture, murder and hanging of Americans in Iraq just, what....a few months ago?
The abuse of the Iraqi prisoners was in no way right or justified, but at least you can say that despite what they went through, they're still alive. It's a shame you can't say the same for those Americans whose charred bodies were hung from a bridge above a celebrating mob. |
I disagree, with both your premise and your conclusion. I remember the coverage of American deaths....it was extensive and outrageous. I remember further back, watching American bodies dragged through the streets. There was coverage, plenty of it. What was missing, and this is where you made your mistake, was CONTROVERSY. Everyone can agree that what was done to the Americans was horrible. Not everyone agrees that what was done to the Iraqis was bad or wrong, or undeserved. Therein lies your contradiction. Further, lets view the abstract here. The US claims a moral superiority, a high ground. Our government feeds us the 'axis of evil', and 'good guys, bad guys' talk. As a result, evidence proving tourture or POW's held by our troops destroys our moral righteousness.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: USA1 | | I haven't heard anything about WHO these prisoners were. If it was OBL or Zarqawi we wouldn't be having this dicussion. Those two deserve much worse than humiliation. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Crazie | |
| quote: |
USA1 said this in post #9 :
Why the sympathy for this enemy? Watch the Daniel Pearle and Nick Berg videos and you tell me who deserves what. |
Exactly but it's just a ploy to try and get Bush out of office which won't work of course. 
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
Crazie said this in post #14 :
Exactly but it's just a ploy to try and get Bush out of office which won't work of course. |
I think Bush is doing an admirable job of getting himself out of office without help from anyone. I'm waiting with bated breath for the next embarrassing instalment of what is fast becoming the most embarrassing US administration I can remember.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #15 :
I think Bush is doing an admirable job of getting himself out of office without help from anyone. I'm waiting with bated breath for the next embarrassing instalment of what is fast becoming the most embarrassing US administration I can remember. |
....and its sad how you seem to relish this embarassment of our country, and openly hope it gets much worse.
At least we can see how your priorities are lined out. 
BTW....not sure if you noticed....GWB tortured no one.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #16 :
....and its sad how you seem to relish this embarassment of our country, and openly hope it gets much worse.
At least we can see how your priorities are lined out.
BTW....not sure if you noticed....GWB tortured no one. |
I relish the fact that Bush may get kicked out - if embarrassment does it, so be it. And the embarrassment may well stop when Bush goes. I really don't know how bad it has to get for some of you guys to think Bush should take the blame for dragging his country into this mess (and for some unknown reason, Blair has followed him every step of the way, without having any of the supposed influence he thought he'd have).
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #18 :
I relish the fact that Bush may get kicked out - if embarrassment does it, so be it. And the embarrassment may well stop when Bush goes. I really don't know how bad it has to get for some of you guys to think Bush should take the blame for dragging his country into this mess (and for some unknown reason, Blair has followed him every step of the way, without having any of the supposed influence he thought he'd have). |
I think Bush would gladly admit, he LED this country into the current situation. You can use "drag" as your verb of choice, because this puts the spin you'd like to see.
Im sure it also delights you to focus so rabidly on the Iraqi prisoner torture/ US casualties/ mounting costs, without ever mentioning the removal of an oppressive tyrant, providing schools, hospitals and freedom of choice that most Iraqis have never known. It comforts you to label it "mess", as this obfuscates the many worthy examples of success.
Just because you regurgitate this liberal rhetoric ad nauseum, will never give your argument any more validity.
Spin only works for so long before reality trounces it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #19 :
I think Bush would gladly admit, he LED this country into the current situation. You can use "drag" as your verb of choice, because this puts the spin you'd like to see.
Im sure it also delights you to focus so rabidly on the Iraqi prisoner torture/ US casualties/ mounting costs, without ever mentioning the removal of an oppressive tyrant, providing schools, hospitals and freedom of choice that most Iraqis have never known. It comforts you to label it "mess", as this obfuscates the many worthy examples of success.
Just because you regurgitate this liberal rhetoric ad nauseum, will never give your argument any more validity.
Spin only works for so long before reality trounces it. |
I think I use the word drag accurately. There was little to no truth in the statements Bush or anyone in the administration made about Saddam being a threat to America or the world.
And don't make me laugh about the hospitals and schools in Iraq that are now better. America does not got to war and does not spend a billion dollars a month in a Middle Eastern coutry to improve their hospitals and schools. That's just laugable.
As for Saddam gone - good. Can't argue with that. If Bush wants a good legacy then that's it. But he should go now before he does anymore damage.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #20 :
[QUOTE][B]I think I use the word drag accurately. |
No one accused you of inaccuracy in the use of a word.
I only stated its use was to spin the reality to fit your view.
| quote: |
| There was little to no truth in the statements Bush or anyone in the administration made about Saddam being a threat to America or the world. |
Well thats certainly an opinion you're free to express.
Although, roughly half the population of the country would choose to disagree with you. As would I.
| quote: |
| And don't make me laugh about the hospitals and schools in Iraq that are now better. America does not got to war and does not spend a billion dollars a month in a Middle Eastern coutry to improve their hospitals and schools. That's just laugable. |
I never meant to entertain you with humour. I've never read a single word about how superior the education and medical services were under Saddam's regime..........have you?
Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life?
Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or poor?
Id be interested in your insights.
| quote: |
| As for Saddam gone - good. Can't argue with that. If Bush wants a good legacy then that's it. But he should go now before he does anymore damage. |
We can agree on the Saddam issue. I choose to believe Bush has greater goals than the building of his legacy. Doing the right thing in the face of doubt and controversy tends to cement your legacy without really paying attention to it.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #22 :
Well thats certainly an opinion you're free to express.
Although, roughly half the population of the country would choose to disagree with you. As would I.
I never meant to entertain you with humour. I've never read a single word about how superior the education and medical services were under Saddam's regime..........have you?
Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life?
Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or poor?
Id be interested in your insights.
|
Both Rice and Powel stated before 9/11 that sanctions had worked, Saddam had been contained and he was no threat to any of his neighbours. Either because Saddam's forces were unwilling to fight or his military was so weak or US military was so overwhelmingly superior that the second Iraq war took only three weeks. After it nothing has been found of any significance to show that he was a threat to anyone etc etc etc.
These are all facts - not opinions.
1969 to 1979 - "Aside from land ownership, the Saddam Hussein era oversaw other examples of a social revolution. Saddam, to the consternation of Islamic fundamentalists and the Islamic Republic of Iran, gave women added freedoms and offered them high level government and industry jobs. Saddam provided both Arab and Western style banking systems to give the people a choice between these interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing accounts, created a western style legal system (Iraq is the only country in the Persian Gulf region which is not ruled according to Islamic law), and abolished the old Mosaic law courts except for personal injury, small court claims."
"He [Saddam]advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award."
This does not of couse detract from any of his attrocities but it does blow away the myth that some people have that the hospitals and schools are now better than they have ever been.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #23 :
Both Rice and Powel stated before 9/11 that sanctions had worked, Saddam had been contained and he was no threat to any of his neighbours. Either because Saddam's forces were unwilling to fight or his military was so weak or US military was so overwhelmingly superior that the second Iraq war took only three weeks. After it nothing has been found of any significance to show that he was a threat to anyone etc etc etc.
These are all facts - not opinions.
1969 to 1979 - "Aside from land ownership, the Saddam Hussein era oversaw other examples of a social revolution. Saddam, to the consternation of Islamic fundamentalists and the Islamic Republic of Iran, gave women added freedoms and offered them high level government and industry jobs. Saddam provided both Arab and Western style banking systems to give the people a choice between these interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing accounts, created a western style legal system (Iraq is the only country in the Persian Gulf region which is not ruled according to Islamic law), and abolished the old Mosaic law courts except for personal injury, small court claims."
"He [Saddam]advocated the building of schools, roads, public housing and hospitals. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East. UNESCO gave him an award."
This does not of couse detract from any of his attrocities but it does blow away the myth that some people have that the hospitals and schools are now better than they have ever been. |
Nice try skirting the issue h@ts. Lets try again:
Pay close attention to this:
"Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life?
Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or Poor?
Why was it documented that poor cancer patients were given no chemotherapy drugs during the time of the sanctions? Although more than enough was donated, most was sold on the black market and profits funneled back to Saddam. Is this the stellar medical system you speak of?
Unesco, United Nations awarded Iraq this dubious honor (almost 25 years ago  ) ........and they also made Syria head of Human rights issues. This endorsement is pretty thin. But Im sure you picture the UN as the agency which will save us all.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #24 :
Nice try skirting the issue h@ts. Lets try again:
Pay close attention to this:
"Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life?
Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or Poor?
Why was it documented that poor cancer patients were given no chemotherapy drugs during the time of the sanctions? Although more than enough was donated, most was sold on the black market and profits funneled back to Saddam. Is this the stellar medical system you speak of?
Unesco, United Nations awarded Iraq this dubious honor (almost 25 years ago ) ........and they also made Syria head of Human rights issues. This endorsement is pretty thin. But Im sure you picture the UN as the agency which will save us all. |
I'm not trying to skirt any issue. My comment was that the US does not go to war to make Iraq schools and hospitals better and you asked me "Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life? Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or poor?" What relevance is the question anyway? Saddam built up the best medical health service in the ME. I've no idea whether the poor got as good a treatment as the rich. Do they in any country?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #25 :
I'm not trying to skirt any issue. My comment was that the US does not go to war to make Iraq schools and hospitals better and you asked me "Were these services available to Iraqis from all walks of life? Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, as well as Baathists? Rich or poor?" What relevance is the question anyway? Saddam built up the best medical health service in the ME. I've no idea whether the poor got as good a treatment as the rich. Do they in any country? |
So its an award winning medical system......for the ruling Baathist party.
The priveledged get the health care......Kurds get the poison gas.
Yeah...thats WAY better than what were establishing. I can see how you'd miss the subtle difference between these two systems.
You enjoy painting the US as motivated solely by power and greed, failing to acknowledge ANY good we do for Iraq. In your eyes, we can only play the role of bad guy. Do we hide weapons in schools and hospitals? Do we attack troops while sheltered in historic mosques? Do we car bomb civilian populations in the hope of killing or injuring a minority of soldiers? Just what would we need to do to have you acknowledge that maybe, amongst all our evils, that we are capable of any charity or goodwill towards the people of Iraq?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #26 :
So its an award winning medical system......for the ruling Baathist party.
The priveledged get the health care......Kurds get the poison gas.
Yeah...thats WAY better than what were establishing. I can see how you'd miss the subtle difference between these two systems.
You enjoy painting the US as motivated solely by power and greed, failing to acknowledge ANY good we do for Iraq. In your eyes, we can only play the role of bad guy. Do we hide weapons in schools and hospitals? Do we attack troops while sheltered in historic mosques? Do we car bomb civilian populations in the hope of killing or injuring a minority of soldiers? Just what would we need to do to have you acknowledge that maybe, amongst all our evils, that we are capable of any charity or goodwill towards the people of Iraq? |
Why use the gassing of the Kurds in your argument? You know full well that America tried to play down the attack and was forging friendships with Saddam a full year after the gas attack (one of the most telling things I've heard about that time was Murdoch's support for Saddam after the attack, saying they were self-defense).
America is motivated by power and greed. China's motivation is power and greed, Russia, Europe same. So what? What country is ever happy becoming less powerful and less important? Non I've ever hear of. Iraq is important strategically and of course there's the oil. Bush doesn't want Iraq to control it's own oil because who knows what they might do with it - god forbid they start dictating the price the US has to pay, or who they might want to sell it to - this very important as the oil starts to run out. Control of oil is power and the US isn't going to be dictated to by either Saddam, or any other Arab rulers. Or that was the plan.
Thing is it's gone and is going SO badly in Iraq that just getting out without losing any more face is fast becoming priority number one.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | | Im sure that somehow, that rant had ANYTHING to do with the question posed.
(Try actually reading the last paragraph) | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #28 :
Im sure that somehow, that rant had ANYTHING to do with the question posed.
(Try actually reading the last paragraph) |
The war was not motivated by charity or goodwill. I think I stated that pretty clearly in the post.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: gdog | |
| quote: |
h@ts said this in post #29 :
The war was not motivated by charity or goodwill. I think I stated that pretty clearly in the post. |
Where do you read anything about motivation?
Are you completely unable to decipher a simple question without jumping on your soapbox and delivering the same tired diatribe?
Take a deep breath........and READ the question.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #30 :
Where do you read anything about motivation?
Are you completely unable to decipher a simple question without jumping on your soapbox and delivering the same tired diatribe?
Take a deep breath........and READ the question. |
| quote: |
gdog said this in post #25 :
You enjoy painting the US as motivated solely by power and greed, failing to acknowledge ANY good we do for Iraq. In your eyes, we can only play the role of bad guy. |
| | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Land of the free, home of the Tourturers
|
