Iraqis Burn and Dismember Bodies

[idkew]

Link- but be warned, it is VERY GRAPHIC (http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Fallujah&ei=UTF-8&=&c=news_photos)

I do not understand how someone could feel good about what they are doing. Even if you hate the person, this have gone over the line. Civilized people do not act in this way. Civilized people bury their dead enemies like the man/woman they were. Sad, sad day for Iraq.

[idkew]

And the text:

Iraqis Drag Bodies Through Streets After Attack

Mar 31, 8:41 AM (ET)

By Michael Georgy

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - A crowd of cheering Iraqis dragged charred and mutilated bodies through the streets of the town of Falluja Wednesday after an ambush on two vehicles that witnesses said killed at least three foreigners.

In a separate attack five American soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb was detonated beside their convoy west of Baghdad, the U.S. army said.

The Falluja violence began when two four-wheel-drive vehicles were attacked by guerrillas on a main road in the town, 32 miles west of Baghdad. A crowd then set the vehicles ablaze and hurled stones into the burning wreckage.

Television pictures showed one incinerated body being kicked and stamped on by a member of the jubilant crowd, while others dragged a blackened body down the road by its feet.

The footage showed at least three people lying dead, while some witnesses said that four were killed.

It was not clear who had been in the vehicles, both four-wheel drives of the type used by foreign contractors, journalists, civilian members of the U.S.-led coalition and some military personnel.

As one body lay burning on the ground, an Iraqi came and doused it with petrol, sending flames soaring.

At least two bodies were tied to cars and pulled through the streets, witnesses said.

"This is the fate of all Americans who come to Falluja," said Mohammad Nafik, one of the crowd surrounding the bodies.

Some body parts were pulled off and left hanging from a telephone cable, while two incinerated bodies were later strung from a bridge and left dangling there.

A young boy beat one of the incinerated bodies after it was pulled down with his shoe as a crowd cheered.

"I am happy to see this. The Americans are occupying us so this is what will happen," said Mohammad, 12, looking on.

No U.S. soldiers or Iraqi police were seen in the area after the attack, but a U.S. fighter plane screamed overhead, prompting the crowd around one of the burned corpses to scatter.

Witnesses said they saw anywhere between four and eight people in the cars before they were attacked.

Some of the victims were wearing civilian clothes, flak jackets and were armed, witnesses said, but that was not clear from the television footage. One of those killed had fair hair and was wearing khaki trousers and a white T-shirt.

As the victims lay burning, a crowd of around 150 men chanted "Long live Islam" and "Allahu Akbar" ("God is Greatest") while flashing victory signs.

Falluja has been one of the most violent, restive towns in Iraq since the U.S.-led occupation began. There are almost daily attacks on U.S. military convoys in the area.

FOREIGNERS TARGETED

More than 400 U.S. soldiers have been killed in action since the start of the war, many of them in attacks using improvised explosive devices in which an explosive charge is hidden in a plastic bag, soft drink can or dead animal and wired to a simple detonator.

As well as attacks on U.S. and coalition troops, there has been a sharp increase in insurgent strikes against foreign civilians in recent weeks.

In March alone, 12 foreign civilians have been killed in drive-by shootings or similar attacks. In the most recent incident, a Briton and a Canadian, both working as security guards, were shot and killed Sunday in the city of Mosul.

Earlier in March, two Finns were killed in Baghdad, and four U.S. missionaries were shot dead in Mosul. In Hilla, south of Baghdad, two Americans working for the U.S. civilian authority were shot in a drive-by shooting.

With less than 100 days to go before U.S. authorities hand over sovereignty to an Iraqi government, the U.S. military, Iraqi police and other local security forces are still battling to bring security to the country.

Attacks occur almost every day with rockets, grenades, assault rifles, small arms or suicide bombs somewhere in Iraq. Wednesday, a car bomb blew up in Baquba, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, wounding around a dozen people, while Tuesday a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle outside the house of the chief of police in Hilla, but killed only himself.

[JesseJames]

Sigh.
They do resent us. I see it all as a sick form of pride. Remember Somalia?
This strengthens my belief that people are truly beasts - at least the majority - with a veneer of civility.
I try not to be cynical about mankind...but it's hard. Very hard.

[Backtothemac]

Well, the response of the terrorists is for us to say, screw it, lets get out.

So,


Screw it, lets get out....

[jsw]

You know, it really makes me wonder what, if anything, we accomplished that was positive in this war. I just don't see anything at all. Yeah, Saddam tortured his citizens. Will that occur any less frequently when we leave?

[rainman::|:|]

if someone invaded your country, invalidated your religion, overthrew your government, and demanded that your entire society be completely different, all the while killing thousands of citizens, i'll bet you'd do some sick **** too.

paul

[MongoTheGeek]

Sigh.
They do resent us. I see it all as a sick form of pride. Remember Somalia?
This strengthens my belief that people are truly beasts - at least the majority - with a veneer of civility.
I try not to be cynical about mankind...but it's hard. Very hard.

Its like the Lord of the Flies.

Its astonishing in a way how short sighted these Iraqi's are being. Yes I'm sure its great fun to kill the foreigners and drag there bodies through the street. I can't think of anyone who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, but if the people would realize the US troops won't be there forever, and that the more they fight the more we will stay. If the insurgency stopped today and everyone put down their guns and it got quiet (and the interim government requested it) the US troops would be out of the country by Halloween and all that would be left would be several billion dollars of infrastructure built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Part of me thinks the solution would be to take all the people from Fallujah and deport them to other parts of the country. Spread them out so they are disorganized put them into parts of the country where people are of the mind to say "don't rock the boat"

[rainman::|:|]

Its like the Lord of the Flies.

Its astonishing in a way how short sighted these Iraqi's are being. Yes I'm sure its great fun to kill the foreigners and drag there bodies through the street. I can't think of anyone who doesn't enjoy a good bonfire, but if the people would realize the US troops won't be there forever, and that the more they fight the more we will stay. If the insurgency stopped today and everyone put down their guns and it got quiet (and the interim government requested it) the US troops would be out of the country by Halloween and all that would be left would be several billion dollars of infrastructure built by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Part of me thinks the solution would be to take all the people from Fallujah and deport them to other parts of the country. Spread them out so they are disorganized put them into parts of the country where people are of the mind to say "don't rock the boat"


Yeah, treat 'em like cattle, good way to get the middle east to stop hating america.

you people's attitudes are the exact reason terrorists exist in the first place. the idea that america has ANY business at all doing this kind of thing. if it were any other country, it would be an "invasion" and a "massacre" and "atrocity". To Iraqis, it still is. Their very lives are on the line, the lives of their children and grandchildren. You can't make people lay down and have naptime when they've been pushed this far.

Laying down arms and accepting whatever rule is put in place, that's how saddam got started in the first place. we're a lot worse to them than saddam was, and i don't blame them at all for defending themselves from us.

paul

[jxyama]

...
Its astonishing in a way how short sighted these Iraqi's are being.
...
but if the people would realize the US troops won't be there forever, and that the more they fight the more we will stay.
...
Part of me thinks the solution would be to take all the people from Fallujah and deport them to other parts of the country. Spread them out so they are disorganized put them into parts of the country where people are of the mind to say "don't rock the boat"

and how will that kind of self-centered, self-serving "american" attitude, regarding iraqi people as some sort of chess pieces, help them hate americans less?

[ThomasJefferson]

This is a slow motion foreign policy train wreck. Sad that so many people sit there with a stupid look on their face while quoting fox newspeak about a democracy in Iraq. Well, I guess Harry Truman was right. The C students rule the world.

[idkew]

if someone invaded your country, invalidated your religion, overthrew your government, and demanded that your entire society be completely different, all the while killing thousands of citizens, i'll bet you'd do some sick **** too.

paul

you're right. maybe we could eat them after we barbecued them. and where was the stick to beat the piñata? what does the winner get?

hating is one thing, this is another.

[MongoTheGeek]

if someone invaded your country, invalidated your religion, overthrew your government, and demanded that your entire society be completely different, all the while killing thousands of citizens, i'll bet you'd do some sick **** too.

paul

We are demanding very few changes in their society. The changes we are making are pretty much only for good. We are arranging for a democracy that was nominally in place when Saddam was in power (but this time people won't be shot for not voting and there will be more than one name on the ballot) We have ousted a lot of the petty thugs that were powers unto themselves.

As for religious changes we are more working on preserving the system that was in place before we invaded than changing anything. The national religion of Iraq will be Islam but it won't be "Shi'ite Islam" like in Iran and a lot of people were pushing for.

Up until the first Gulf War Iraq was a very western country.

[jxyama]

We are demanding very few changes in their society. The changes we are making are pretty much only for good. We are arranging for a democracy that was nominally in place when Saddam was in power (but this time people won't be shot for not voting and there will be more than one name on the ballot) We have ousted a lot of the petty thugs that were powers unto themselves.

oh, ok, only if the entire world did as the americans tell them to, everything would be fine, because america knows best. :rolleyes:

[jxyama]

hating is one thing, this is another.

yes, you are right. but i'm not arguing that this is not sick. (i think paul will agree with me too.)

the point is, we are a part of the reasons these people do sick stuff. it's not like we are not part of the problem. and these news do nothing but instill the notion in the "C-students" in america that iraqi people are nuts. and just that "fact." these news are stupid without putting things into some kind of responsible context - so that people who see this news will ask why iraqis would do this AND why/how we might be part of the reasons.

[idkew]

Laying down arms and accepting whatever rule is put in place, that's how saddam got started in the first place. we're a lot worse to them than saddam was, and i don't blame them at all for defending themselves from us.

paul

paul, please go read some news. the majority of iraqis are actually happy this change of power has happened. i don't feel like finding the link, but this is not the will of the many, it is the will of the few. notice the pictures show mostly young men; impressionable kids.

and the us occupation worse than Saddam. you made me laugh on that one. What grounds do you have for this? Were is the "gestapo" stopping protesters, killing them for thinking differently? Were is the gas that is killing entire villages? Where is the coalition building great palaces for themselves at the expense of the impoverished many? Where is the official state support of suicide bombings of families?

Well, at least i have had my laugh for the day.

[miloblithe]

Man am I glad my brother in law isn't there any more. I feel terribly sorry for all the Americans who are there and for their families and friends.

As for the Iraqis who did this, of course this is terrible and inhumane, but it relates to a lot of expectable sentiment that our government should have realized would be the result of an invasion. Cheaney saying that the Iraqi people would great us with open arms and support our occupation was so condescending and unrealistic. Our administration lives in a fantasy world that creates a hell for the rest of us. Let's get rid of 'em (by voting, of course).

Out government needs to realize that we have a positive message to bring in changing the world for the better, but that takes generational effort, not quick-fix invasions and drastic financial policies.

[ExoticFish]

i just don't understand this crap at all. the problem is not that we're "invading" their country as there are lots of civilians that do understand that they have the oportunity to be free and are happy about it. the problem is that there are these religious finatics and people who are for some odd reason loyal to Sadam and his horid reign. if everyone hated us then we would be there because everyone would be trying to kill us, but they're not.

this reminds me a lot of racism in the south that still goes in today. that 12 year old boy is beating dead bodies with sticks because his daddy says that's what right and that's what he was raised with.

[rainman::|:|]

Look, you wanted an answer as to why this happened. I'm not saying every iraqi hates us. many do. many are glad only that saddam is out, but still hate us for staying around, meddling with their new government (by and for the people? no, by and for the USA). But obviously, these people are not happy that we're there, and if you think they are, you're tripping.

This is nothing compared to the mob mentality that could be happening. I'm not going to defend their actions, because i don't believe in violence like this. But i will say i can understand them. It's better than being so out of touch that i send "god bless our soldiers and their Holy work" chain letters on...

paul

[jxyama]

this reminds me a lot of racism in the south that still goes in today. that 12 year old boy is beating dead bodies with sticks because his daddy says that's what right and that's what he was raised with.

perhaps because his "daddy" has a brother who was killed during the invasion? perhaps he sees americans trampling over other islamic countries and using them for cheap oil?

there are reasons.

using words like "fanatic" and "for some odd reason" shows that we are not understanding the whole picture. i certainly don't. but i know enough that these things don't just happen because these people are "fanatic" - we have had a part in turning those people "fanatic" to begin with.

[rainman::|:|]

i just don't understand this crap at all. the problem is not that we're "invading" their country as there are lots of civilians that do understand that they have the oportunity to be free and are happy about it.

Right, right, and hitler wasn't "invading" europe, he was just freeing all of the citizens of the continent from jew oppression. They should have thanked himm, rather than resisting.

I'm not making a direct comparison, but it's all in the ideals and values of the opposing sides. You're assuming the Iraqi's views and values will be the same as ours. That could not be further from the truth... Maybe they don't value freedom like we do? Do we have the right to demand that they do? I don't think so. The will of the people will continue to be done, just as it has been since before saddam took power.

paul

[billyboy]

Between the powers that be and religious zealots on both sides of the globe, Iraq is an unholy mess that wont make good tea time viewing for years.

Saddam had control of Iraq, but in the process was killing tens of thousands of his own people with little press coverage. To make things better, coalition forces sanctioned and bombed thousands of innocent Iraqis to death on global TV. Now Saddam has gone, it looks like the media can regularly send footage of coalition soldiers shooting up who knows who in the name of democracy trying to civilise an "obviously" uncivilised nation where people hack burnt bodies to pieces. We can watch tens of Western civilians being picked off as they go about tieing up the country's resources for Western consumers. We can also feel marginally sorry for hundreds of Iraqi police who, as virtual conscripts are trying to replace the most likely stabilising influence in Iraq - the disbanded Iraqi army. For following the wishes of th eoccupting forces, they are being blown to bits by fanatical hate-filled Iraqis with no respect for stand-in puppets of the Western invaders. And then you have pictures of the innocent Iraqi passers by caught up in insurgents plots bought on by the invasion by the coalition forces. Also, due to huge oversights on how to really occupy a country, the young fit and restless Iraqi people have been left nothing constructive to do now that chaos has been unleashed big time by the occupation and worthwhile jobs arent being created.

The blind leaders with no idea of history are leading the bewildered and angry and frustrated to years of future hassle and violence all for media consumption.

[miloblithe]

the problem is that there are these religious finatics and people who are for some odd reason loyal to Sadam and his horid reign.

There's nothing odd about people being loyal to Sadam. Many people, albeit a minority of the overall population, benefited from Sadam's regime, which placed them in superior positions to the peoples that Sadam's government exploited or killed. That the people who did well under the old system would resent it being torn down _should have been expected_.

Sadam's regime was also secular, meaning that it persecuted or sidelined elements of Islam. That his departure would result in an explosion of radical Islam _should have been expected_.

[MorganX]

if someone invaded your country, invalidated your religion, overthrew your government, and demanded that your entire society be completely different, all the while killing thousands of citizens, i'll bet you'd do some sick **** too.

paul

The only problem is no one has invalidated their religion, and they were doing sick ***** already. They're doing a whole lot less of it now. And more Iraquis are happy and live torture free.

However, there history shows they will not be able to live together as one. Hasn't anyone read their History? Lawrence of Arabia?

[Sedulous]

I would also imagine most people in those pictures are not the most well educated and informed individuals. There is probably a great deal of propaganda telling them that all foreigners are there for nefarious reasons. Fear is a powerful motivator. The Bush administration has used it to great effect as have many others before it.

[jxyama]

...they were doing sick ***** already. They're doing a whole lot less of it now. And more Iraquis are happy and live torture free.

and we know all that how..? american news feed? :rolleyes:

[rainman::|:|]

The only problem is no one has invalidated their religion, and they were doing sick ***** already. They're doing a whole lot less of it now. And more Iraquis are happy and live torture free.

However, there history shows they will not be able to live together as one. Hasn't anyone read their History? Lawrence of Arabia?

We invalidated their religion simply by wiping out the governing body and replacing it with a western, liberal, nonsecular government, which is against these people's religious beliefs. Bush seemed surprised when he was told that there was no way to introduce a completely islam-free government, because to these people, religion and government are one and the same. So, yes, we did.

And i agree with jxyama, you're just spouting stuff you heard on CNN. If you think Iraqis are torture free, you're blind. If you think they will be, thanks to our new government, you're ignorant. The only thing that's really changed in a daily life of an iraqi, is that before, they had to sit and suffer in silence, but had stable lives, and now they can protest things, but have no jobs, money, or food. Suffer, suffer, suffer, they will ALWAYS suffer until they have their own people's revolution. Which they won't have, as long as we keep interfering before it can happen. We perpetuate things by not letting the natural order of society take place.

paul

[MongoTheGeek]

Yeah, treat 'em like cattle, good way to get the middle east to stop hating america.


I didn't say I would do that, I said I was tempted to do it. Its a strategy that has worked for the past 3000 years in putting down regional dissents. Its a technique that ironically was pioneered in Iraq. It works and works well, but I agree a short step above lining people up against the wall and shooting them.

you people's attitudes are the exact reason terrorists exist in the first place. the idea that america has ANY business at all doing this kind of thing. if it were any other country, it would be an "invasion" and a "massacre" and "atrocity". To Iraqis, it still is. Their very lives are on the line, the lives of their children and grandchildren. You can't make people lay down and have naptime when they've been pushed this far.


Terrorism is like a kid taking the ball and bat and going home because of a called strike. He isn't happy with the rules and would rather wreck everyone else's game than not have things their way. The Iraqis have a right to be upset about the invasion and occupation. I can't imagine using the words atrocity and massacre since they imply things outside of wartime norms. My point is and was that if they were to look at what we are doing and what our stated goals are they will realize that 1) it ain't that bad and 2) once we get them we'll leave and they can put things how they want.

Laying down arms and accepting whatever rule is put in place, that's how saddam got started in the first place. we're a lot worse to them than saddam was, and i don't blame them at all for defending themselves from us.

paul

I think we just look worse. Yes, we snatch people in the middle of the night (but they are often returned and almost always unharmed) Yes we roll military vehicle through the streets but the laws need to be enforced. A great bulk of the citizenry is glad we invaded and that Saddam is gone.

[MongoTheGeek]

We invalidated their religion simply by wiping out the governing body and replacing it with a western, liberal, nonsecular government, which is against these people's religious beliefs. Bush seemed surprised when he was told that there was no way to introduce a completely islam-free government, because to these people, religion and government are one and the same. So, yes, we did.

And i agree with jxyama, you're just spouting stuff you heard on CNN. If you think Iraqis are torture free, you're blind. If you think they will be, thanks to our new government, you're ignorant. The only thing that's really changed in a daily life of an iraqi, is that before, they had to sit and suffer in silence, but had stable lives, and now they can protest things, but have no jobs, money, or food. Suffer, suffer, suffer, they will ALWAYS suffer until they have their own people's revolution. Which they won't have, as long as we keep interfering before it can happen. We perpetuate things by not letting the natural order of society take place.

paul

The people tried to rebel. That happened in 92 when we pulled out the first time. The results were mass executions, gasoline being dropped onto crowds of peaceful protesters, and purges of Maoesque proportions.

Like the bay of pigs the US was too chicken- to step in and help. "People's Revolutions" generally only work against free and open societies. Communism fell because it was opening up. Had Lenin or Stalin been in power there wouldn't have been the mass exodus out of East Germany, the Soviet Union wouldn't have dissolved. There would have been knocks on doors in the middle of the night and everyone would know thats how things were.

[JesseJames]

Man this thread went off the rails. Lively dialogue though.
Desecrating corpses is a very human thing to do actually. It's like a final insult to an enemy.
I knew a lot of guys that fought in Desert Storm and they said they decapitated burnt Iraqi corpes and stuck their bayonets into the singed flesh to see how deep it was cooked.
They even had a picture of guys with their protective masks on holding up a burned Iraqi corpse. Kind of like "Look ma! War! Ain't it cool?!".
Also, the drivers of the tanks and Bradleys rolled over corpses mangling them. I saw a picture where one body was rolled over so many times all that remained was a disfigured arm sticking out of the sand. Exactly like roadkill.
It's a phenomenon of war. All bets are off. The sentiment being: anyone messes with us, they get the same. Simply an example.
Makes me think of Vlad Dracul who impaled thousands of people just to get the message ingrained that he was boss.
Also, how in an ancient battle - I think it was the Turks and someone else - one general shot severed enemy heads at his opponent in a fort. Not to be outdone, the other side crucified prisoners after killing them and floated them out to him across the river.
It just goes on and on.
If you want to see something truly heinous go to rotten.com and click on "French Algeria". BE FOREWARNED, NOT FOR CHILDREN. MOST TERRIBLE.

[jxyama]

I think we just look worse. Yes, we snatch people in the middle of the night (but they are often returned and almost always unharmed) Yes we roll military vehicle through the streets but the laws need to be enforced. A great bulk of the citizenry is glad we invaded and that Saddam is gone.

why is it our business to "enforce the laws," as you say?

and guess what? we only "enforce the law" when we have some self interest. oil. drugs. american security. etc. so let's not pretend like we are doing these people a favor. we are doing ourselves a favor and taking others along for the ride. and we are surprised when some of them don't like it!

[jxyama]

Man this thread went off the rails. Lively dialogue though.
Desecrating corpses is a very human thing to do actually. It's like a final insult to an enemy.
I knew a lot of guys that fought in Desert Storm and they said they decapitated burnt Iraqi corpes and stuck their bayonets into the singed flesh to see how deep it was cooked.
They even had a picture of guys with their protective masks on holding up a burned Iraqi corpse. Kind of like "Look ma! War! Ain't it cool?!".
Also, the drivers of the tanks and Bradleys rolled over corpses mangling them. I saw a picture where one body was rolled over so many times all that remained was a disfigured arm sticking out of the sand. Exactly like roadkill.
It's a phenomenon of war. All bets are off. The sentiment being: anyone messes with us, they get the same. Simply an example.
Makes me think of Vlad Dracul who impaled thousands of people just to get the message ingrained that he was boss.
Also, how in an ancient battle - I think it was the Turks and someone else - one general shot severed enemy heads at his opponent in a fort. Not to be outdone, the other side crucified prisoners after killing them and floated them out to him across the river.
It just goes on and on.
If you want to see something truly heinous go to rotten.com and click on "French Algeria". BE FOREWARNED, NOT FOR CHILDREN. MOST TERRIBLE.

thanks for that...

there's a reason we don't hear about *these* things...

if we did, would you call ourselves "fanatic"? or are we going to be hypocritical and deny that we'd do these things?

[rainman::|:|]

thanks for that...

there's a reason we don't hear about *these* things...

if we did, would you call ourselves "fanatic"? or are we going to be hypocritical and deny that we'd do these things?

We can't be fanatics. We're christians. That makes us right, so we're "righteous".

paul

[MongoTheGeek]

and we know all that how..? american news feed? :rolleyes:

I was just looking at Amnesty International, the well known arm of American Conservative propaganda and they say

The lack of law and order continues to be a major concern in many areas of Iraq. Amnesty International delegates witnessed first-hand the devastating impact the lawlessness was having on the lives of ordinary Iraqis, whether it be looting, revenge killings, kidnappings or violence against women.

"Ensuring justice is fundamental for the countless victims of human rights violations in Iraq. Iraqis have suffered decades of grave violations by their government as well as abuses committed during the course of several conflicts, including the recent war and its aftermath.

[jxyama]

i don't see anything in that amnesty international quote that gives credibility to another part of your previous claim:


They're doing a whole lot less of it now. And more Iraquis are happy and live torture free.

[MongoTheGeek]

why is it our business to "enforce the laws," as you say?

and guess what? we only "enforce the law" when we have some self interest. oil. drugs. american security. etc. so let's not pretend like we are doing these people a favor. we are doing ourselves a favor and taking others along for the ride. and we are surprised when some of them don't like it!

Saddam Hussein was a mad dog on the loose. The only reason he didn't have weapons of mass destruction was because the people working for him figured it was safer to just not make them. He trained hijackers and terrorists (a highly glossed over fact of the report that said "oops no weapons" was that there was a much tighter integration between Al Queda and Iraqi secret intelligence than was initially assumed)

We enforce the law there because we had to dismantle the Iraqi army and police (same thing) to get to Hussien. He was cruel and inhuman and dangerous. He should have been shut down in '88 when he gassed the Kurds. In my mind the war was just unfinished business. I tell you this, when they pried Saddam from his little hole there were thousands of ghosts that saw final rest.

[jxyama]

The only reason he didn't have weapons of mass destruction was because the people working for him figured it was safer to just not make them.

please, keep WMD out of this.

our government claimed that WMD existed.

our government claimed that saddam had WMD and that was the reason for the invasion.

WMD is not "missing." it was our claim and we were wrong.

[miloblithe]

He trained hijackers and terrorists (a highly glossed over fact of the report that said "oops no weapons" was that there was a much tighter integration between Al Queda and Iraqi secret intelligence than was initially assumed)

Um, proof?

[rainman::|:|]

Um, proof?

Yeah, i'd love to see even a shred of proof backing this one up. Even cheney was forced to admit that there's no terrorist connection...

paul

[wdlove]

It is a very sad situation. They are a different culture from our. So there is no way for us to comprehend such actions. Each person is only responsible for them self.

[ExoticFish]

wow, i should have had my morning caffeine before checking out this thread this morning! you're totally right about "what if that kids brother was killed" and such, i'd be pretty darn pissed too.

and other good points were made about how some people benfited from Sadams rule, a very valid point that i can understand. in some respects it that same as having a president, some people liked Clinton and now hate Bush and some are the other way around for various reasons.

and i also agree that we should not try to spread our western culture the way we do, that's just wrong to me. but i'm just an ignorant american who doesn't understand their culture and such.

so with these things i can understand where some of the violence is coming from, i just don't understand things like this. why would someone burn the bodies and drag them around and stuff?? i dunno, why do people go hunting small defenseless animals with semi-automatic rifles? it all doesn't make sense to me.


P.S. sorry if i angered you paul with my first comment there, you seemed a little mad! i'll try not to post anything before i'm awake and thinking again! ;)

[MongoTheGeek]

Yeah, i'd love to see even a shred of proof backing this one up. Even cheney was forced to admit that there's no terrorist connection...

paul

I went looking and I admit the best I found were some prewar things and a few pieces from places like the Washington Times that support the position. I couldn't find a source that I felt would be viewed as sufficiently objective.

[Juventuz]

We invalidated their religion simply by wiping out the governing body and replacing it with a western, liberal, nonsecular government, which is against these people's religious beliefs. Bush seemed surprised when he was told that there was no way to introduce a completely islam-free government, because to these people, religion and government are one and the same. So, yes, we did.

WOW, you're completly ignorant of Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Iraq was a non-secular government under Saddam. He hated the power that the imams held. He made the inclusion of religion illegal in Iraqi government. He was a firm believer of the separation of church and state. Islamic clerics have had unprecedented power since the fall of Saddam.

So, NO, we didn't.

And i agree with jxyama, you're just spouting stuff you heard on CNN. If you think Iraqis are torture free, you're blind. If you think they will be, thanks to our new government, you're ignorant. The only thing that's really changed in a daily life of an iraqi, is that before, they had to sit and suffer in silence, but had stable lives, and now they can protest things, but have no jobs, money, or food. Suffer, suffer, suffer, they will ALWAYS suffer until they have their own people's revolution. Which they won't have, as long as we keep interfering before it can happen. We perpetuate things by not letting the natural order of society take place.

paul

While crime is a major problem in Iraq, Iraqi's are experiencing an increase in jobs, food and pay. Please do some homework before you rant.

[idkew]

UPDATE:

The people that were disfigured were US Civilians. Contractors sent there to help rebuild the country. Take what you want from that.

[SiliconAddict]

Link- but be warned, it is VERY GRAPHIC (http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news/?p=Fallujah&ei=UTF-8&=&c=news_photos)

I do not understand how someone could feel good about what they are doing. Even if you hate the person, this have gone over the line. Civilized people do not act in this way. Civilized people bury their dead enemies like the man/woman they were. Sad, sad day for Iraq.


Civilized people? For shame. You should know by now that the human species is far from civilized. A stray emotion can cause murder. A group of hateful emotions causes riots that can spread like an infection.
Look at the riots that have occurred in the US throughout our bloody history. Look at the treatment of blacks no more then 60-70 years ago. Do you think leaving someone swinging in a tree on a rope is any better?!? People will do anything if they believe the end justifies the means. Humanity is far from civilized. We put on suits and ties and play nice but in the end we are a stones throw away from using clubs and screeching at one another.

[miloblithe]

WOW, you're completly ignorant of Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Iraq was a non-secular government under Saddam. He hated the power that the imams held. He made the inclusion of religion illegal in Iraqi government. He was a firm believer of the separation of church and state. Islamic clerics have had unprecedented power since the fall of Saddam.

So, NO, we didn't.
Please do some homework before you rant.

You have it backwards. Secular means non religious. Iraq had a secular government.

[SiliconAddict]

While crime is a major problem in Iraq, Iraqi's are experiencing an increase in jobs, food and pay. Please do some homework before you rant.

Please show me proof that shows an increase in jobs. If you heard it on Fox news I'd call that hearsay more then anything. Fair and balanced my ***
Personally I think they are a stone's throw away from un-civil war there.

[rainman::|:|]

WOW, you're completly ignorant of Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Iraq was a non-secular government under Saddam. He hated the power that the imams held. He made the inclusion of religion illegal in Iraqi government. He was a firm believer of the separation of church and state. Islamic clerics have had unprecedented power since the fall of Saddam.

So, NO, we didn't.

While crime is a major problem in Iraq, Iraqi's are experiencing an increase in jobs, food and pay. Please do some homework before you rant.

As any good dictator will do, saddam felt entirely comfortable using religion as a method of population control. That it was ultimately secular, and that he as an individual did not follow religion, just used it, doesn't matter in this one... the government gave the appearance of being non-secular, to it's people.

And, joblessness in Iraq is much greater than when saddam was in power. How, precisely, are people supposed to go work at factories that were bombed? Hospitals that were looted? shops that were destroyed? Quite frankly, there isn't even an infrastructure in place yet to have high employment, it's impossible at this point-- unless, of course, America does something brilliant, paying them all to sit at home and stuff envelopes or something :P

Granted things like electricity, clean water, and food are getting back to normal. They were gone for months. Think about this one, could you live without electricity for a day? How about half a year? The only food they could find for a long time were ration packets disguised as, of course, cluster bombs! When our charities finally stepped in, people stopped starving to death...

I do know people in iraq, on both sides. Friends of mine are putting their lives on the line every day. I've heard from citizens in iraq. and the point that keeps coming back is, american's don't know what they're doing. To obsessed with their own way of life to consider that of others. I'm not saying we didn't do it for good reasons (for the most part), from our point of view, but i am saying that you cannot have an objective, non-national view of the situation and say that we were right to do what we did. 'Tis why the UN didn't approve.

paul

[jxyama]

Contractors sent there to help rebuild the country. Take what you want from that.

contractors sent by companies leaping great benefit from this war also.

[jsw]

....but i am saying that you cannot have an objective, non-national view of the situation and say that we were right to do what we did. 'Tis why the UN didn't approve.

paul

Yeah, when the majority of the civilized world isn't too keen on an action, you have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, they have a point.

It is just stunning to me the amount of post-9/11 goodwill towards America that we flushed down the toilet with the war in Iraq and related foreign policy blunders.

[rainman::|:|]

P.S. sorry if i angered you paul with my first comment there, you seemed a little mad! i'll try not to post anything before i'm awake and thinking again! ;)

haha no worries, it's fun to debate these things, as long as we don't take anything personally. So, i might get angry but not seriously :D

plus, i liked what you had to say above... carry on... hehe

:)
paul

[m4rc]

We are demanding very few changes in their society. The changes we are making are pretty much only for good.

What gives anyone that right? Maybe they did want rid of the regime, maybe they didn't, but the people of Iraq didn't get much choice njow did they.

Up until the first Gulf War Iraq was a very western country.

Really? You think? By who's standards? If you have been there, and know the region, I apologise, but I am confident that you are wrong. They may have had Jeans, but I wouldn't have called them westernised, and the Iraqi's certainly feel they are not.

Marc

[mactastic]

Wow, if these are the open arms and flowers our government promised we would be recieved with in Iraq, I'd hate to see what they do when they get pissed at us....

[jxyama]

having been to mongolia, i would like to chime in with the fact westernization is not an ideal thing for all the regions.

not everyone wants to live like americans/westerners.

and not all regions are able to support american/western lifestyles. (mongolia is an example of this.)

while we may not be able to envision life without american/western conveniences, that doesn't mean what we have is the best, that everyone in the world would want one or that they would "gratefully" take them. (and worse yet, assume that if they don't want it, they are "crazy." or to think that we are doing those people are favor.)

[idkew]

i think you guys are looking at it wrong. we are not over there to say that every iraqi needs a house, a car and a turkey in the oven, or however it goes. the people do not need to be wearing jeans, drinking beer and watching the bears win their second superbowl for us to have *won*.

what we are *attempting* to do is bring an idea over there that everyone should live in equality, and that people have rights... we ARE telling them that women are not objects, they are people. we ARE telling them that crimes are punished through a court system, not through retribution...

wether or not we are/will achieve this, no one knows. some days it looks like it, others it doesn't. regardless of the outcome, the process will take years, maybe decades. we still have troops stationed in germany. that same may (probably) be true of iraq in 50 years.

but, we have proven that we can turn a hated enemy, one which we severely wounded (japan), into a great friend and ally.

[jxyama]

i think you guys are looking at it wrong. we are not over there to say that every iraqi needs a house, a car and a turkey in the oven, or however it goes. the people do not need to be wearing jeans, drinking beer and watching the bears win their second superbowl for us to have *won*.

no, i wasn't advocating something like this. or thought that that's what we are after.

what i was trying to say is the we need to get off the idea that we are doing those people a favor and that if they don't accept, they are "crazy."

[rainman::|:|]

what we are *attempting* to do is bring an idea over there that everyone should live in equality, and that people have rights... we ARE telling them that women are not objects, they are people. we ARE telling them that crimes are punished through a court system, not through retribution...

And we have no right to do this. Countries can decide for themselves what rights they want to grant other races, genders, whatever. We have established an ideal that i believe is important to maintain, in the USA. If we want other countries to get those ideals, we have to wait for them to pick up on it... They're supposed to respect women because we tell them to? No, i don't think so. There needs to be a sufferagette movement for them. Just because we've figured out how to do things, doesn't mean we can take our newfound values and thrust them on other populations.

I really do enjoy a free society, i'm libertarian like no other. Equal rights for all, all that jazz. But we have absolutely no right to go insisting, through violence, that these standards be upheld in places that are nowhere near ready for them, in terms of sociological evolution. I say again, it will merely prolong the suffering of those we think we're helping.

paul

[miloblithe]

Saddam's government was better on women's rights than any Iraqi government of the near future is likely to be.

[MorganX]

and we know all that how..? american news feed? :rolleyes:

Iraqi men women and children freed from political torture chambers. The families of those in mass graves. The families of those murdered by Saddaams sons.

[MongoTheGeek]

Saddam's government was better on women's rights than any Iraqi government of the near future is likely to be.

True. The fact that a woman made the deck of cards speaks volumes. I doubt you could find women in power in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. I think a few are installed in Afghanistan. Bhutto in Pakistan was an example until she was ousted.

[idkew]

yet others believe that as the sole superpower left we have the obligation to be the police of the world.

i don't believe it entirely. in fact, if we could completely ignore the middle east, and not suffer any repercussions, 9/11 style, i would be all for it. that is one reason why i am so anti-oil. we stop sending them money, we can ignore them and stop making them mad. i could care less if their culture tells them to incessantly fight between each other over a wall, as long as myself and my way of life is not affected.

very self serving, yes, but we would have a lot of men and boys still alive to serve themselves all they want if the middle east were not in the equation. i could happily go about my blissfully ignorant life.

also- for all you against war for oil. due to our utter dependence on oil, if someone were to take oil hostage, we would be forced to liberate it. our country would virtually cease to function without it. until we change this, we will have "pointless" wars and violence. our dependence forces us to have a say in what happens with these sovereign nations. i am so against oil that nuclear power *almost* looks good. (i don't believe we went iraq for oil, this time)

[rainman::|:|]

Iraqi men women and children freed from political torture chambers. The families of those in mass graves. The families of those murdered by Saddaams sons.

You do know, i hope, that while the torture was beyond excessive, a relatively small number of people were affected... We have many, many, many times more people than saddam ever had, in this wonderful little political torture camp called Guantanamo Bay. He had dozens, we have hundreds! I'd say that's a definite improvement... :rolleyes:

paul

[Juventuz]

You have it backwards. Secular means non religious. Iraq had a secular government.

You're absolutely correct. I apologize.

[MongoTheGeek]

having been to mongolia, i would like to chime in with the fact westernization is not an ideal thing for all the regions.

not everyone wants to live like americans/westerners.

and not all regions are able to support american/western lifestyles. (mongolia is an example of this.)

while we may not be able to envision life without american/western conveniences, that doesn't mean what we have is the best, that everyone in the world would want one or that they would "gratefully" take them. (and worse yet, assume that if they don't want it, they are "crazy." or to think that we are doing those people are favor.)

I don't want to live like the stereotypical American. I don't like the culture of consumerism. My big requirements for clothes are that I don't get arrested for being naked and that they are comfortable. My requirements for a car is that it gets me from place A to B. I miss walking to and from work and the store but the constraints of family demand concessions.

I have no problems with some of the Shi'ite rituals of beating themselves with swords. I think its rather cool actually.

I do have issues with honor killings and the like. I also have issues when they come here and raise a ruckus, and when they raise a ruckus in friendly countries.

Where do you draw a line and allow for intervention?

[MongoTheGeek]

You do know, i hope, that while the torture was beyond excessive, a relatively small number of people were affected... We have many, many, many times more people than saddam ever had, in this wonderful little political torture camp called Guantanamo Bay. He had dozens, we have hundreds! I'd say that's a definite improvement... :rolleyes:

paul

He had 10's of thousands. We have hundreds. There are even a few prisoners who say that life in Guantanamo is an improvement. Admittedly they are from soviet bloc countries and have low expectations.

[jxyama]

yet others believe that as the sole superpower left we have the obligation to be the police of the world.

i disagree. "we" believe that as the sole superpower left, we have the obligation to be the police of the world. worse yet, i'd say that "we" believe that as the sole superpower left, we have the ability to mold the world to our liking under the pretense of being the police of the world.

simplistic, yes. not 100% correct, yes. cynical, yes.

but i believe there's some truths to this.

[rainman::|:|]

yet others believe that as the sole superpower left we have the obligation to be the police of the world.

i don't believe it entirely. in fact, if we could completely ignore the middle east, and not suffer any repercussions, 9/11 style, i would be all for it. that is one reason why i am so anti-oil. we stop sending them money, we can ignore them and stop making them mad. i could care less if their culture tells them to incessantly fight between each other over a wall, as long as myself and my way of life is not affected.

very self serving, yes, but we would have a lot of men and boys still alive to serve themselves all they want if the middle east were not in the equation. i could happily go about my blissfully ignorant life.

also- for all you against war for oil. due to our utter dependence on oil, if someone were to take oil hostage, we would be forced to liberate it. our country would virtually cease to function without it. until we change this, we will have "pointless" wars and violence. our dependence forces us to have a say in what happens with these sovereign nations. i am so against oil that nuclear power *almost* looks good. (i don't believe we went iraq for oil, this time)

Self-serving maybe, it's the best way of handling one's own country. 9/11 would not have happened to begin with, had we taken the hands-off approach you describe above... Instead, we meddle in politics, interfere and unbalance deals, and support anything Israel tells us to. Well, Israel, until you start coming to our aid, i say we stop coming to yours.

If we had a war for oil, i don't know that i'd be so against it, in truth. Wars have historically been fought many times for control of natural resources, it's nothing new. And we do indeed need oil. But, i want the president and the government to come out, quit lying about "liberating" and "terrorists" and other BS, and just tell America "Yes, we're spending trillions of dollars, your children are dying on foreign soil, and other countries now hate us, so you can drive to your office every day in a Hummer". It might give people enough of a kick in the ass to start working against oil dependency. But the way it works out now, we don't see the real motives for war, so we can't see the real solutions that might avoid war in the future.

paul

[idkew]

i disagree. "we" believe that as the sole superpower left, we have the obligation to be the police of the world. worse yet, i'd say that "we" believe that as the sole superpower left, we have the ability to mold the world to our liking under the pretense of being the police of the world.

simplistic, yes. not 100% correct, yes. cynical, yes.

but i believe there's some truths to this.

not sure what you mean by this? you agree with the statement? and add that we mold people also?

also- i use we as in the US. forget i am in a worldwide forum sometimes. to me the forum is in chicago. maybe that is part of the world's problems. we, the world, think for ourselves before we think globally, if we think globally at all.

[jxyama]

Iraqi men women and children freed from political torture chambers. The families of those in mass graves. The families of those murdered by Saddaams sons.

...interviewed by american news feed.

[rainman::|:|]

He had 10's of thousands. We have hundreds. There are even a few prisoners who say that life in Guantanamo is an improvement. Admittedly they are from soviet bloc countries and have low expectations.

First, get me a source on this "tens of thousands". Anything but fox news. Secondly, have you ever *seen* one of the cells at guantanamo? No roof (open to sun and weather), it's more of a pen than a cell. It's ten times worse than our nastiest prison, and yet, one needs not be charged with a crime to go to this prision. Saddam at least made up charges to *look* like he was playing fair.

paul

[idkew]

"Yes, we're spending trillions of dollars, your children are dying on foreign soil, and other countries now hate us, so you can drive to your office every day in a Hummer".

paul

just to make a point, hummers and other gas guzzelers do not force us to buy oil overseas (or down south, over continents)

yes, they may drink twice as much as my corolla, but my corolla still drinks too. if we want big vehicles, we have every right to it, i just wish we would not build one B2 and put that $2,000,000,000 towards making our country less foreign energy dependent.

[jxyama]

not sure what you mean by this? you agree with the statement? and add that we mold people also?

also- i use we as in the US. forget i am in a worldwide forum sometimes. to me the forum is in chicago. maybe that is part of the world's problems. we, the world, think for ourselves before we think globally, if we think globally at all.

in the prev. post, you wrote "...others believe that..." (we should police the world)

that part i don't agree. i think it's "us" that think we have to police the world. i don't see "others" telling us to be the police of the world.

WE think we should police the world. and WE often mold the world in the way that serves US under the pretence of "policing the world."

[mactastic]

I also have issues when they come here and raise a ruckus, and when they raise a ruckus in friendly countries.


You suppose an average Iraqi might feel the same way you do?

[idkew]

First, get me a source on this "tens of thousands". Anything but fox news. Secondly, have you ever *seen* one of the cells at guantanamo? No roof (open to sun and weather), it's more of a pen than a cell. It's ten times worse than our nastiest prison, and yet, one needs not be charged with a crime to go to this prision. Saddam at least made up charges to *look* like he was playing fair.

paul

it is not like the "pen" is in Minnesota. a few hundred years ago the inhabitants of that island probably lived similarly, albeit it free to move... as they please.

afaik no one has been starved to death or died of dehydration at x-ray or delta. until this happens, or people die from exposure, why would we need to put walls up, only to stop air circulation and raise the temp more?

and our prisons are too nice, so if it is worse, then good. for those that are there for a reason, they should not be treated like a royal, they should be treated like a criminal, a human criminal.

[idkew]

in the prev. post, you wrote "...others believe that..." (we should police the world)

that part i don't agree. i think it's "us" that think we have to police the world. i don't see "others" telling us to be the police of the world.

WE think we should police the world. and WE often mold the world in the way that serves US under the pretence of "policing the world."

sorry, i meant other americans. as not me, but my peers.

[jxyama]

my favorite bumper sticker: "we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them."

5, 10 or 20 years from now, we'll see how successful we are in fighting the "war on terror."

[jxyama]

... they should be treated like a criminal, a human criminal.

gee, and i thought one of the fundamental principles most americans are proud of is "innocent until proven guilty." :rolleyes:

[rainman::|:|]

just to make a point, hummers and other gas guzzelers do not force us to buy oil overseas (or down south, over continents)

yes, they may drink twice as much as my corolla, but my corolla still drinks too. if we want big vehicles, we have every right to it, i just wish we would not build one B2 and put that $2,000,000,000 towards making our country less foreign energy dependent.

Well, they certainly don't help. Say there are 50 million cars in the USA, and each uses 5 gallons of gas, per week, on average. Replace 5 million of those cars with giant suburban assault vehicles, that use 15 gallons of gas/per/average. You've just gone from 250 million gallons/week oil consumption to 275 million gallons/week consumption. Gas guzzlers most certainly do affect our consumption. Now, granted, cars in general have gotten much better in the past 20 years, so we're (i think) using less than before. But, we could be using even *less* if these assholes didn't have to buy SUVs for everything.

And yes, we have the right to buy big cars, but we also have the right to demolish an entire mountaintop for mining purposes-- Doesn't mean we should do it, or allow it.

edit: okay, my math is really wrong, but the point is the same. i'm just too busy at work to be accurate right now ;)

paul

[mactastic]

gee, and i thought one of the fundamental principles most americans are proud of is "innocent until proven guilty." :rolleyes:

Now, now... do as I SAY not as I DO. :p

Besides, we're only talking about terrorists, not actual human beings let alone Americans. :rolleyes:

[rainman::|:|]

it is not like the "pen" is in Minnesota. a few hundred years ago the inhabitants of that island probably lived similarly, albeit it free to move... as they please.

afaik no one has been starved to death or died of dehydration at x-ray or delta. until this happens, or people die from exposure, why would we need to put walls up, only to stop air circulation and raise the temp more?

and our prisons are too nice, so if it is worse, then good. for those that are there for a reason, they should not be treated like a royal, they should be treated like a criminal, a human criminal.

But they're not criminals. They're innocent civilians who's only crime it was to survive Saddam for so many years, so they could be arrested and detained indefinitely with NO justice, just so we can have a military base/prision to look good in our little "war on terror". these people are so innocent that the government can't even figure out things to charge them with. when is this going to end???

I should remind you, you're footing QUITE a hefty bill to run this little vacation spot.

And don't tell me how it's OK to sit under a hot sun (at the equator!) for hours every day, until you've done it. Wait until your skin blisters and oozes pus, which you have to lick up to avoid dehydration.

paul

[Juventuz]

You do know, i hope, that while the torture was beyond excessive, a relatively small number of people were affected... We have many, many, many times more people than saddam ever had, in this wonderful little political torture camp called Guantanamo Bay. He had dozens, we have hundreds! I'd say that's a definite improvement... :rolleyes:

paul

Relatively small number of people? Thousands is hardly a small amount.

Did you forget about the mass graves? Many of those people were tortured before they were executed. Last year alone they found over 15,000 bodies in mass graves. During Saddam's reign over 250,000 people were tortured or executed

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm) has information on it.

And just for those that don't want to believe western news sources, here's Al Jazeera's take on it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/809E8529-86DB-4A93-8AEA-21AED3A713B2.htm

There are videos (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068571/) out there that show the type of torture that Saddam's regime inflicted on its citizens.

We do not have many, many, many time more people than Saddam ever had.

[wowser]

if someone invaded your country, invalidated your religion, overthrew your government, and demanded that your entire society be completely different, all the while killing thousands of citizens, i'll bet you'd do some sick **** too.

paul

The only thing the war has achieved was to undermine the war on terrorism. The US is practically asking for young men in the middle east to become terrorists

[mactastic]

But they're not criminals. They're innocent civilians who's only crime it was to survive Saddam for so many years, so they could be arrested and detained indefinitely with NO justice, just so we can have a military base/prision to look good in our little "war on terror". these people are so innocent that the government can't even figure out things to charge them with. when is this going to end???

I should remind you, you're footing QUITE a hefty bill to run this little vacation spot.

And don't tell me how it's OK to sit under a hot sun (at the equator!) for hours every day, until you've done it. Wait until your skin blisters and oozes pus, which you have to lick up to avoid dehydration.

paul

Are there any prisoners from Iraq at Gitmo? I didn't think there were, since we are using Abu Ghraib as our own prison facility. Plus we've got detention facilities at Baghdad International Airport. So far as I know, the only prisoners at Gitmo were captured in Afghanistan.

[Juventuz]

First, get me a source on this "tens of thousands". Anything but fox news.

Check my other post. It's got Al Jazeera, hopefully that'll satisfy you.

Secondly, have you ever *seen* one of the cells at guantanamo? No roof (open to sun and weather), it's more of a pen than a cell. It's ten times worse than our nastiest prison, and yet, one needs not be charged with a crime to go to this prision. Saddam at least made up charges to *look* like he was playing fair.

paul

http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/jtfgtmo/d/d/021203-A-7236L-010.jpg

That's a cell at Camp Delta, Camp X-Ray USED to be open to the elements, yes there were roofs so they were protected from rain.

Here (http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/jtfgtmo/d/dlt001.html) are more pics from Camp Delta, a camp which Amnesty International, UN reps and HRW have all visited. The pics might not be believable to you though, they're from the Navy.

If you go over to Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm) you'll get a complete run down of what Camp Delta is like.

[rainman::|:|]

Relatively small number of people? Thousands is hardly a small amount.

Did you forget about the mass graves? Many of those people were tortured before they were executed. Last year alone they found over 15,000 bodies in mass graves. During Saddam's reign over 250,000 people were tortured or executed

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/iraqmassgraves.htm) has information on it.

And just for those that don't want to believe western news sources, here's Al Jazeera's take on it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/809E8529-86DB-4A93-8AEA-21AED3A713B2.htm

There are videos (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3068571/) out there that show the type of torture that Saddam's regime inflicted on its citizens.

We do not have many, many, many time more people than Saddam ever had.

I'm talking people that were in Saddam's personal torture chambers, murdered at the hands of saddam and the sons. That's what we were discussing. You're referencing casualties by the Baath party, which are indeed staggering, and i don't have to watch the video to know how brutal it was. It still does not address why we can continue to hold half a thousand people captive in much the same conditions? It still does not explain why we as a country decided to illegally invade another country, when we could have made it legal? Why we are spending so much time and money setting up a government that will collapse quickly? Why the administration is busily awarding non-bidding contracts to personal friends? Why we're now looking for other targets? Why we had to make up lies about WMDs and terrorist connections with Saddam?

paul

[wowser]

the new camp may be an improvement, but the fact still remains that 1/3 of all those detained at the camp are innocent

[mactastic]

the new camp may be an improvement, but the fact still remains that 1/3 of all those detained at the camp are innocent
How did you come up with that figure?

[rainman::|:|]

Check my other post. It's got Al Jazeera, hopefully that'll satisfy you.



http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/jtfgtmo/d/d/021203-A-7236L-010.jpg

That's a cell at Camp Delta, Camp X-Ray USED to be open to the elements, yes there were roofs so they were protected from rain.

Here (http://www.nsgtmo.navy.mil/jtfgtmo/d/dlt001.html) are more pics from Camp Delta, a camp which Amnesty International, UN reps and HRW have all visited. The pics might not be believable to you though, they're from the Navy.

If you go over to Global Security.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/guantanamo-bay_delta.htm) you'll get a complete run down of what Camp Delta is like.

Well we're still operating against laws and treaties, holding a lot of innocent people, but it's *fantastic* to know that camp delta has sheet-metal walls, i'm satisfied i'm sure...

If it were your father, brother, son, behind held like this, would it really make things all better to know that they were being held in a state-of-the-art (taxpayer funded) detention facility? Sure it's illegal, indefinite, without charges, without defense, but at least they've got paved floors now...

paul

[Juventuz]

But they're not criminals. They're innocent civilians who's only crime it was to survive Saddam for so many years, so they could be arrested and detained indefinitely with NO justice, just so we can have a military base/prision to look good in our little "war on terror". these people are so innocent that the government can't even figure out things to charge them with. when is this going to end???

We never sent Iraqi's to Gitmo, they've remained in Iraq.

And don't tell me how it's OK to sit under a hot sun (at the equator!) for hours every day, until you've done it. Wait until your skin blisters and oozes pus, which you have to lick up to avoid dehydration.

paul

They don't sit under the hot sun all day, they have barracks they live in. Besides, Cuba is miles North of the equator. It's only 90 miles south of Florida and the US is no where near the equator.

[rainman::|:|]

How did you come up with that figure?

Technically they're all innocent, we're spreading democracy, remember? They have to be proven guilty. christ, even a military tribunal would be better than nothing... Innocent until proven guilty must not apply in this case, not a great example to set...

paul

[mactastic]

Technically they're all innocent, we're spreading democracy, remember? They have to be proven guilty. christ, even a military tribunal would be better than nothing... Innocent until proven guilty must not apply in this case, not a great example to set...

paul

Oh I'm with you, I just wonder how someone could be so sure 1/3 is innocent and 2/3 are guilty.

[Juventuz]

Well we're still operating against laws and treaties, holding a lot of innocent people, but it's *fantastic* to know that camp delta has sheet-metal walls, i'm satisfied i'm sure...

If it were your father, brother, son, behind held like this, would it really make things all better to know that they were being held in a state-of-the-art (taxpayer funded) detention facility? Sure it's illegal, indefinite, without charges, without defense, but at least they've got paved floors now...

paul

If I had a father, brother or son that felt it was justified to hijack planes and fly them into building I'd be ashamed of them. Let's remember that Gitmo is for AQ people, NOT Iraqi's.

[Juventuz]

I'm talking people that were in Saddam's personal torture chambers, murdered at the hands of saddam and the sons. That's what we were discussing. You're referencing casualties by the Baath party, which are indeed staggering, and i don't have to watch the video to know how brutal it was. It still does not address why we can continue to hold half a thousand people captive in much the same conditions? It still does not explain why we as a country decided to illegally invade another country, when we could have made it legal? Why we are spending so much time and money setting up a government that will collapse quickly? Why the administration is busily awarding non-bidding contracts to personal friends? Why we're now looking for other targets? Why we had to make up lies about WMDs and terrorist connections with Saddam?

paul

We don't hold 500 people in the same conditions as Saddams torture chambers.

"Ali and two of his children were held in Basra in a 12-by-18-foot room with 70 to 80 other people and one open toilet. They were released on Oct. 14, 1999, and found their home had been razed and that Jawad had lost his job as a teacher."

That's from one of the links I provided.

[wowser]

How did you come up with that figure?

Channel 4 news report (The best news in the UK)

[rainman::|:|]

If I had a father, brother or son that felt it was justified to hijack planes and fly them into building I'd be ashamed of them. Let's remember that Gitmo is for AQ people, NOT Iraqi's.

Oh, I see, the only people we're holding are afghans who were caught hijacking planes. I didn't realize, my bad. Seemed to me, we were pulling them in off the street, from their homes, based on unsubstantiated tips and information gleamed from the same sources that were nothing but unreliable.

Oh, and personally i'd rather be kept in a smelly, packed room to be let go (even to find my life in ruins) than to be kept in a sterile concrete-and-metal room forever.

And, to clear the air, i apologize for thinking iraqis were taken to guantanamo, that changes everything :rolleyes:

paul

[1macker1]

We need to get out of their country. What's our reason for being there. We have terrorists here that need to be handled. But atlast, I think it's all too late. We now have the responsibility of rebuilding Iraq.

[MongoTheGeek]

First, get me a source on this "tens of thousands". Anything but fox news. Secondly, have you ever *seen* one of the cells at guantanamo? No roof (open to sun and weather), it's more of a pen than a cell. It's ten times worse than our nastiest prison, and yet, one needs not be charged with a crime to go to this prision. Saddam at least made up charges to *look* like he was playing fair.

paul

The pictures of the cells I had seen did have roofs. Yes there were no walls and it was much more a cage than a cell.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde14.htm

Suspected political opponents, including possible prisoners of conscience, continued to be arrested and tens of thousands of others arrested in previous years remained held.

http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2000web.nsf/countries/24fe8ccc9d037845802568f200552932?OpenDocument


Hundreds of people, among them political prisoners including possible prisoners of conscience, were executed. Hundreds of suspected political opponents, including army officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were arrested and their fate and whereabouts remained unknown.

Other years reports give much the same :(

[Juventuz]

Oh, I see, the only people we're holding are afghans who were caught hijacking planes. I didn't realize, my bad. Seemed to me, we were pulling them in off the street, from their homes, based on unsubstantiated tips and information gleamed from the same sources that were nothing but unreliable.

No, the people we're holding there aren't just Afghans, but rather they were caught in Afghanistan. You stated that we were sending Iraqi's there, when we're not. Just trying to get some facts out there.

Oh, and personally i'd rather be kept in a smelly, packed room to be let go (even to find my life in ruins) than to be kept in a sterile concrete-and-metal room forever.

You do know that a lot have already been released right? Some said it was hell while others said it wasn't bad.

And, to clear the air, i apologize for thinking iraqis were taken to guantanamo, that changes everything :rolleyes:

paul

Apology accepted [/sarcasm]

[Juventuz]

Channel 4 news report (The best news in the UK)

I wonder if they can tell me what next weeks lotto numbers are.

[idkew]

Oh, I see, the only people we're holding are afghans who were caught hijacking planes. I didn't realize, my bad. Seemed to me, we were pulling them in off the street, from their homes, based on unsubstantiated tips and information gleamed from the same sources that were nothing but unreliable.

Oh, and personally i'd rather be kept in a smelly, packed room to be let go (even to find my life in ruins) than to be kept in a sterile concrete-and-metal room forever.

And, to clear the air, i apologize for thinking iraqis were taken to guantanamo, that changes everything :rolleyes:

paul

you're right. lets return those afghans to their homes so they can immediately rejoin their terrorist pals and shoot at your friends.

i would rather them be in a controlled environment than running around with an AK trying to find americans to shoot.

while some may be innocent, the majority are men caught fighting against our forces. in fact, since we sent over such a strong response to the 9/11 bombing, the sears tower and la towers are still here today. ask kalid shake muhammid (i know i spelled it wrong, but i don't feel like looking up the correct way). he will confirm this for you.

but, i guess you are against a proactive measure such as detaining a terrorist. do you subscribe to the get bombed first, ask questions later point of view?

[wowser]

I wonder if they can tell me what next weeks lotto numbers are.

excuse me?

[mactastic]

you're right. lets return those afghans to their homes so they can immediately rejoin their terrorist pals and shoot at your friends.

i would rather them be in a controlled environment than running around with an AK trying to find americans to shoot.


Sounds like you subscribe to the 'guilty until proven innocent' theory of justice. Or the 'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' theory.

[idkew]

these are POWs as far as i am concerned. if i am a soldier, and i catch you fighting against me in a war, you are a pow, are you not?

when there is no more fighting, they can be released, just as it has been for americans being held by other countries.

[JesseJames]

Can't we all just get along?

[Juventuz]

excuse me?

If they can predict whether a person is innocent or not I was wondering if they could predict the winning numbers for next weeks lotto.

ANYWAYS, this thread has gotten SO far off topic.

[jxyama]

do you subscribe to the get bombed first, ask questions later point of view?

personally, i subscribe to the idea that we should just let it be. if we get bombed, well, sorry to say, but that's a price we have to pay in order to bring the entire situation to halt. and i don't think it's too big of a price to pay. i think the greatest gift we can give to the future generations is to forgive the enemy and ask for their forgiveness.

i don't believe in pummeling the enemy so we can keep on repeating history. i think it would be the ultimate form of civility if we could bypass acting on our emotion of revenge.

[kgarner]

these are POWs as far as i am concerned. if i am a soldier, and i catch you fighting against me in a war, you are a pow, are you not?

when there is no more fighting, they can be released, just as it has been for americans being held by other countries.

This is I think the critical distinction. We didn't let the German POW go during WWII. After the war is over then you can let them go back home. Like it or not, this is war. If it were merely an investigation into the crime of 9/11, this would be wrong, but this is a war on terrorism.

For those interested, George P. Schultz had an interesting editorial about this the other day at opinionjournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com).

[Juventuz]

personally, i subscribe to the idea that we should just let it be. if we get bombed, well, sorry to say, but that's a price we have to pay in order to bring the entire situation to halt. and i don't think it's too big of a price to pay. i think the greatest gift we can give to the future generations is to forgive the enemy and ask for their forgiveness.

i don't believe in pummeling the enemy so we can keep on repeating history. i think it would be the ultimate form of civility if we could bypass acting on our emotion of revenge.

That's great and all, but try asking them to do the same. It's safe to say they wouldn't.

[jxyama]

That's great and all, but try asking them to do the same. It's safe to say they wouldn't.

but they will eventually stop. one, world will be against them. two, the future generations will eventually realize that they have no reasons to carry on - they have not been harmed by their "enemy."

the point is that we adopt this attitude on our own. it's not dependent on whether or not the enemy would do the same. it's not bargaining. it's not "what can you do for me now?" it's a selfless act. that's why i believe it will work. (however unlikely for it to actually happen is beside the point.)

[idkew]

personally, i subscribe to the idea that we should just let it be. if we get bombed, well, sorry to say, but that's a price we have to pay in order to bring the entire situation to halt. and i don't think it's too big of a price to pay. i think the greatest gift we can give to the future generations is to forgive the enemy and ask for their forgiveness.

i don't believe in pummeling the enemy so we can keep on repeating history. i think it would be the ultimate form of civility if we could bypass acting on our emotion of revenge.

would you still feel this way of your dad and brother were killed by a terrorist bombing?

it would be great if we could say we forgive them, and they forgive us. but i doubt these people understand forgiveness. most afghnas have known war all their lives. to them life is fleeting, you could lose it at any moment. if we were to suddenly relent and forgive, this would simply give the bad guys (not all afghnas are terrorists obviously) their old stomping ground back and allow them to plan more attacks against the rest of the non-islamic world.

[idkew]

but they will eventually stop. one, world will be against them. two, the future generations will eventually realize that they have no reasons to carry on - they have not been harmed by their "enemy."

the point is that we adopt this attitude on our own. it's not dependent on whether or not the enemy would do the same. it's not bargaining.

now that is funny. do you realize how long people have been fighting in the middle east? has it ever seen peace in all of history?

[mactastic]

these are POWs as far as i am concerned. if i am a soldier, and i catch you fighting against me in a war, you are a pow, are you not?

when there is no more fighting, they can be released, just as it has been for americans being held by other countries.

Ah now you're venturing into the grey area of whether it's a war if the president says so. Seems to me Congress is supposed to declare war....

And personally I subscribe to the view that military action against terrorists will have only limited success. Police work, although much less news-worthy and much less cathartic for those seeking vengance, is much more successful against this kind of threat.

[jxyama]

would you still feel this way of your dad and brother were killed by a terrorist bombing?

it would be great if we could say we forgive them, and they forgive us. but i doubt these people understand forgiveness. most afghnas have known war all their lives. to them life is fleeting, you could lose it at any moment. if we were to suddenly relent and forgive, this would simply give the bad guys (not all afghnas are terrorists obviously) their old stomping ground back and allow them to plan more attacks against the rest of the non-islamic world.

well, no doubt i will be upset. but i will not seek revenge.

the point is, we ask for forgiveness, not demand it. if we have to wait, then so be it. this is not an instant fix. it will take generations, but i feel it will eventually work.

fighting them, suppressing them and killing them will compound the problem into eternity and i don't see that as a solution at all.

[jxyama]

now that is funny. do you realize how long people have been fighting in the middle east? has it ever seen peace in all of history?

that's because neither side has decided to forgive and ask for forgiveness.

if anything, middle east situation proves that seeking revenge and keeping on fighting solves nothing.

[idkew]

:)

just noticed all this bantering and bickering has kicked me up to a 68000. cool. i can't wait until i can run system 7!

how many posts do you think is worthy of a PPC 975?

[jxyama]

:)

just noticed all this bantering and bickering has kicked me up to a 68000. cool. i can't wait until i can run system 7!

how many posts do you think is worthy of a PPC 975?

talk about OT!

this could get wastelanded or moved to political discussion section and you'd lose the post counts... (though maybe you get to keep the designation as it is grandfathered, i think...)

anyway, i'm no saint, i'll admit that and even my idea may not solve anything... oh well, i guess i'm out of here, rather be spending time speculating on next PB updates. :p

[wdlove]

talk about OT!

this could get waste-landed or moved to political discussion section and you'd lose the post counts... (though maybe you get to keep the designation as it is grandfathered, i think...)

anyway, I'm no saint, i'll admit that and even my idea may not solve anything... oh well, i guess I'm out of here, rather be spending time speculating on next PB updates. :p

The same thing was going through my mind as I read the latest comments. I don't think that you loose any since it was posted while in the "Current Events."

My interest happens to be in the Power Mac G5 Rev. B. :)

[Stelliform]

paul, please go read some news. the majority of iraqis are actually happy this change of power has happened. i don't feel like finding the link, but this is not the will of the many, it is the will of the few. notice the pictures show mostly young men; impressionable kids.


The town of Falluja has been a problem since day one. The majority of the population was employed in Saddam's army. So of course they are pissed that Saddam is out of power. They would be pissed at an internal coup that led to his downfall. These guys are out of work and power.

Evidence to support my statement. :) (http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-06/06/article10.shtml)

[wowser]

If they can predict whether a person is innocent or not I was wondering if they could predict the winning numbers for next weeks lotto.

ANYWAYS, this thread has gotten SO far off topic.

i suppose it is based on the fact that people are put in there without there being any evidence at all of them having committed a crime. Teenagers from England have been sent there, only to be returned when it was found out that they were innocent

[Juventuz]

i suppose it is based on the fact that people are put in there without there being any evidence at all of them having committed a crime. Teenagers from England have been sent there, only to be returned when it was found out that they were innocent

I wouldn't say they were innocent, more along the lines of bottom of the totem pole.

People caught in AQ camps or fighting with AQ are hardly innocent. It's not like the kids from England were snatched from England. They were snatched in Afghansitan. How many of them were actually Afghans?

[Juventuz]

talk about OT!

this could get wastelanded or moved to political discussion section and you'd lose the post counts... (though maybe you get to keep the designation as it is grandfathered, i think...)

anyway, i'm no saint, i'll admit that and even my idea may not solve anything... oh well, i guess i'm out of here, rather be spending time speculating on next PB updates. :p

Yep, post counts were lost.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't say they were innocent, more along the lines of bottom of the totem pole.

People caught in AQ camps or fighting with AQ are hardly innocent. It's not like the kids from England were snatched from England. They were snatched in Afghansitan. How many of them were actually Afghans?

Yeah, we'd never make a mistake right? I mean, after all, we are Americans, and being American means never having to say 'I'm sorry'?

Would you recommend lowering the burden of proof of a crime by a US soldier to 'having been arrested'? Or for that matter, anyone. If the cops arrest you, are you automatically guilty? Sure you have a higher probability of being guilty, but is it a guarantee?

[idkew]

Yep, post counts were lost.

i am not too worried. as long as i have my 'tar i am happy. so, barring 2/3rds of my posts being wastelanded, i am ok. besides, i am sure i have already lost a few, as i know i have posted in wastelanded threads

[idkew]

Yeah, we'd never make a mistake right? I mean, after all, we are Americans, and being American means never having to say 'I'm sorry'?

Would you recommend lowering the burden of proof of a crime by a US soldier to 'having been arrested'? Or for that matter, anyone. If the cops arrest you, are you automatically guilty? Sure you have a higher probability of being guilty, but is it a guarantee?

remember, in the military, you are guilty until proven innocent.

[mactastic]

remember, in the military, you are guilty until proven innocent.

So are we exporting democracy, or military rule?

[Juventuz]

Yeah, we'd never make a mistake right? I mean, after all, we are Americans, and being American means never having to say 'I'm sorry'?

Would you recommend lowering the burden of proof of a crime by a US soldier to 'having been arrested'? Or for that matter, anyone. If the cops arrest you, are you automatically guilty? Sure you have a higher probability of being guilty, but is it a guarantee?

So what happened? Some guy from England was taking a stroll through Tora Bora and comes upon a bunch of Al Qaeda terrorists and next thing he knows he's in Gimto.... please. If he's caught fighting with AQ and he's not a native Afghan then there's a good chance that he's up to something bad.

There's probably a couple people who are getting a raw deal, but let's be realistic here. The majority of those people are guilty for the association with AQ, I have no regrets in throwing those guys away for good.

[mactastic]

I have no regrets in throwing those guys away for good.

You mean the innocent ones?

[jxyama]

i am not too worried. as long as i have my 'tar i am happy. so, barring 2/3rds of my posts being wastelanded, i am ok. besides, i am sure i have already lost a few, as i know i have posted in wastelanded threads

well, i'm glad this one won't count, because it's borderline spam. ;)

after 500 and i got my 'tar, i haven't paid too much attention to the post count, actually... once in a while, i multiply the number of posts by, say 3 min. spent on each, then divide by the number of days i've been a MR member and... :eek:

(the time spent per day is nothing outrageous, but it definitely adds up.)

[pseudobrit]

I'm guessing this thread was dumped here after getting political, and I'm late to the show.

One thing:

it's amazing how many people who haven't followed the political forum have spewed out as undisputable fact ideas that were long ago dispelled right here.

It reminds me of the 3/03 days of the Pol/War forums. The bull****ters eventually ran away when pressed to prove their claims with something more substantial that a ****e House canned speech.

[Neserk]

personally, i subscribe to the idea that we should just let it be. if we get bombed, well, sorry to say, but that's a price we have to pay in order to bring the entire situation to halt. and i don't think it's too big of a price to pay. i think the greatest gift we can give to the future generations is to forgive the enemy and ask for their forgiveness.

i don't believe in pummeling the enemy so we can keep on repeating history. i think it would be the ultimate form of civility if we could bypass acting on our emotion of revenge.


Violence begets violence.

Where in Meechigan are you from? I was born and raised there!

[Frohickey]

We invalidated their religion simply by wiping out the governing body and replacing it with a western, liberal, nonsecular government, which is against these people's religious beliefs. Bush seemed surprised when he was told that there was no way to introduce a completely islam-free government, because to these people, religion and government are one and the same. So, yes, we did.


Saddam's Baathist government is nothing if not secularist.

[Frohickey]

so with these things i can understand where some of the violence is coming from, i just don't understand things like this. why would someone burn the bodies and drag them around and stuff?? i dunno, why do people go hunting small defenseless animals with semi-automatic rifles? it all doesn't make sense to me.

going off thread here, but...

because small defenseless animals taste good with barbeque sauce...I think it would be inhuman to douse them with barbeque sauce and eat them while they are still alive... that would make it very messy.

:eek:

[Frohickey]

WOW, you're completly ignorant of Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Iraq was a non-secular government under Saddam. He hated the power that the imams held.

Umm... err... I think its again time for Frohickey's Dictionary Definition post.

secular (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular) adj - Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Saddam's Baathist party government is secular, meaning its not religious. Thats is why Osama did not like Saddam. Osama wanted a single Arab state based on Islamic 'principles', meaning state religion.

[Frohickey]

Civilized people? For shame. You should know by now that the human species is far from civilized. A stray emotion can cause murder. A group of hateful emotions causes riots that can spread like an infection.
Look at the riots that have occurred in the US throughout our bloody history. Look at the treatment of blacks no more then 60-70 years ago. Do you think leaving someone swinging in a tree on a rope is any better?!? People will do anything if they believe the end justifies the means. Humanity is far from civilized. We put on suits and ties and play nice but in the end we are a stones throw away from using clubs and screeching at one another.

Agreed.

Some people are made civilized by religious teachings.
Some people are made civilized by secular principles of law and order.
Some people are made civilized by displays of righteous and overwhelming force.

[diamond geezer]

I went looking and I admit the best I found were some prewar things and a few pieces from places like the Washington Times that support the position. I couldn't find a source that I felt would be viewed as sufficiently objective.

The source was probably Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. He and his associates were the source of much of the lies that helped convince the US public to support the invasion and occupation.

When asked more recently about this, he said that what he said before the invasion didn't matter, all that matters is that Saddam is gone and the US is in.

I'm sure Bush and Co (and judging by recent polls, Jo Average) are in full agreement with his statements.

[Frohickey]

You do know, i hope, that while the torture was beyond excessive, a relatively small number of people were affected... We have many, many, many times more people than saddam ever had, in this wonderful little political torture camp called Guantanamo Bay. He had dozens, we have hundreds! I'd say that's a definite improvement... :rolleyes:

paul

If Saddam's dead can talk, you would not be able to hear the Gitmo prisoners gripes over the din.

[diamond geezer]

Rather enjoying seeing so many new faces in the Political forum.

Please stay awhile.

[IJ Reilly]

Osama wanted a single Arab state based on Islamic 'principles', meaning state religion.

This is an over-simplification. Osama wants a 15th Century fundamentalist version of Islamic law to rule, of the kind the Taliban more or less instituted in Afghanistan. Many other nations have Islam as a state religion but don't adhere to this reactionary creed.

[idkew]

nice to see many of my old nemeses here, now that this thread has been "politicized". :)

[idkew]

Umm... err... I think its again time for Frohickey's Dictionary Definition post.

secular (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular) adj - Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Saddam's Baathist party government is secular, meaning its not religious. Thats is why Osama did not like Saddam. Osama wanted a single Arab state based on Islamic 'principles', meaning state religion.

i believe this mistake has already been addressed...

[idkew]

It reminds me of the 3/03 days of the Pol/War forums. The bull****ters eventually ran away when pressed to prove their claims with something more substantial that a ****e House canned speech.

mind not swearing so i can tell what you are saying?

what is ****e? shyte-e?

[idkew]

I'm sure Bush and Co (and judging by recent polls, Jo Average) are in full agreement with his statements.


regardless of how it was accomplished, it is hard to argue that the world is not a better place without saddam in power.

[Frohickey]

would you still feel this way of your dad and brother were killed by a terrorist bombing?

it would be great if we could say we forgive them, and they forgive us. but i doubt these people understand forgiveness. most afghnas have known war all their lives. to them life is fleeting, you could lose it at any moment. if we were to suddenly relent and forgive, this would simply give the bad guys (not all afghnas are terrorists obviously) their old stomping ground back and allow them to plan more attacks against the rest of the non-islamic world.

Hehehe...
I will now use a whole slew of movie quotes to answer various points.

To the ones saying that Afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary:
Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our @sses kicked pal! - Pvt Hudson in "Aliens"

Favorite quote of the liberals that want to forgive and forget:
That's it, man. Game over, man! Game over! - Pvt Hudson in "Aliens"

To the ones that are having second thoughts on the War on Terror:
Hey! I know we're all in strung out shape but stay frosty and alert. We can't afford to let one of those bastards in here. -Cpl. Hicks

To the terrorists in the area, if they attack again:
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. - Ellen Ripley

[idkew]

bit too abstract for me, not sure what you are getting at... for sure. ;)

[Frohickey]

Ah now you're venturing into the grey area of whether it's a war if the president says so. Seems to me Congress is supposed to declare war....

And personally I subscribe to the view that military action against terrorists will have only limited success. Police work, although much less news-worthy and much less cathartic for those seeking vengance, is much more successful against this kind of threat.

Agreed. Congress is supposed to declare war. Besides, when was the last time you saw the newspapers use the word "WAR!" in 250-point print? :eek:

The main problem is that police work only happens if you have cooperation between the country seeking to find the criminals, and the country where the criminals are located at. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no sympathetic government situation in that country that would have given us the cooperation with which to pursue the criminals in that country.

How else would you have dealt with the situation where the necessary cooperation for police work is non-existent? The logical conclusion would be the use of the military. The results might take a bit longer while the previous infrastructure is broken down, and a new policing infrastructure brought back up, but at least that is progress instead of non-progress.

There is the added benefits of making the terrorists run and hide, slowing down their plans for further attacks, as well as replacing a government that gives terrorists safe haven. The alternative would be multiple diplomatic missions being rebuffed time and time again by the uncooperative country, while the terrorists finish their plans and perform another attack.

[Juventuz]

You mean the innocent ones?

Uh, no. The sentence before... the one about the AQ terrorists.

[Juventuz]

Umm... err... I think its again time for Frohickey's Dictionary Definition post.

secular (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secular) adj - Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Saddam's Baathist party government is secular, meaning its not religious. Thats is why Osama did not like Saddam. Osama wanted a single Arab state based on Islamic 'principles', meaning state religion.

Right, hence my correction afterwards...

I should have left the non off of the secular.

[glyph]

it looks to me that the people who got killed were already dead before they were mutilated. so, they were killed like all the other personnel who are part of the iraqi invasion force, except they were - in addition to being killed - mutilated. where was the outrage when previously, other soldiers were getting blown away? there wasn't much. if we were as outraged about a death as we are a corpse mutilation maybe we would've thought twice about invading iraq in the first place. the respect we place on a dead corpse is more than we have for the life that was once inhabiting it. now that's sick!

[diamond geezer]

regardless of how it was accomplished, it is hard to argue that the world is not a better place without saddam in power.

Iraq may be better off without Saddam, but ask the Spanish if they think the world is better off thanks to the Iraq invasion.

How is the World better off, thanks to the US oil/territory grab, which most non-yanks think has only increased the risk of terrorism?

[Neserk]

How is the World better off, thanks to the US oil/territory grab, which most non-yanks think has only increased the risk of terrorism?

So do many Yanks ;) I'm trying (without any luck) to help some realize that Bush has only mananged to increase our risk of being targets, not decreased it.

[toontra]

it looks to me that the people who got killed were already dead before they were mutilated. so, they were killed like all the other personnel who are part of the iraqi invasion force, except they were - in addition to being killed - mutilated. where was the outrage when previously, other soldiers were getting blown away? there wasn't much. if we were as outraged about a death as we are a corpse mutilation maybe we would've thought twice about invading iraq in the first place. the respect we place on a dead corpse is more than we have for the life that was once inhabiting it. now that's sick!

I think the reasons for the shock at the mutilations are twofold:

1 It underlines the depth of hatred for the occupying forces amongst some Iraqis, which I think the US public have been (intentionally) insulated from.

2 It is perceived that the invasion is not, and may never, leave Iraq as a peaceful, democratic (as we understand it) state, which would undermine the case for war even further. Again this is contrary to the perceptions instilled it the US public by the administration and the majority of the media.

[glyph]

...Again this is contrary to the perceptions instilled it the US public by the administration and the majority of the media.

i like how in every reported ambush, the attacks were carried out with 'homemade explosives'. i find that hard to believe when iraq had so much munitions stockpiled - they're all over the place. i suppose this is a perception they want to promote also - that our troops are being blow up - not with technology supplied to them by ourselves and our allies, but with 'homemade devices'; and that the iraqi resistance is not as strong as it really is. :eek:

[jefhatfield]

my favorite bumper sticker: "we are creating enemies faster than we can kill them."

5, 10 or 20 years from now, we'll see how successful we are in fighting the "war on terror."

the war on terror could be handled in a smart way...so far, i give our president a bad grade on foreign policy...his dad was a master at foreign policy, but jr is not his dad

going after al qaeda in afganistan was the right thing to do since al qaeda did attack us, but anything W did there just ended up looking like a precursor to iraq and a totally misguided military project...many distrust W's motives

the usa seemed focused after september 11th and the world was with us...but attacking iraq for terrorism ties or wmd's...both of which have been debunked...has made us an island with few friends

now the war in iraq is splitting the usa in two, much like vietnam did

the usa has to fight al qaeda since they are the enemy and leave iraq, iran, and north korea out of it

[mactastic]

Agreed. Congress is supposed to declare war. Besides, when was the last time you saw the newspapers use the word "WAR!" in 250-point print? :eek:

The main problem is that police work only happens if you have cooperation between the country seeking to find the criminals, and the country where the criminals are located at. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no sympathetic government situation in that country that would have given us the cooperation with which to pursue the criminals in that country.

How else would you have dealt with the situation where the necessary cooperation for police work is non-existent? The logical conclusion would be the use of the military. The results might take a bit longer while the previous infrastructure is broken down, and a new policing infrastructure brought back up, but at least that is progress instead of non-progress.

There is the added benefits of making the terrorists run and hide, slowing down their plans for further attacks, as well as replacing a government that gives terrorists safe haven. The alternative would be multiple diplomatic missions being rebuffed time and time again by the uncooperative country, while the terrorists finish their plans and perform another attack.

But there is also the problem of creating more terrorists by doing exactly what UBL said we would be invading Islamic countries. And sure, the military was the correct response - in Afghanistan. Not so in Iraq however. By invading and toppling the Taliban we increased our standing with, and as a result increased the level of cooperation from, the world community whom you cite as necessary to a police-style pursuit of terrorists. Then we blew all that away when we marched into Baghdad. Now the world community is less willing to help us than if we'd left well enough alone. That leaves us with the option of attacking and occupying every country that harbors or feeds a terrorist.

Or do you still buy the line that Iraq was an 'imminent and gathering threat' directly to the US? Or that there were connections between Saddam and Usama?

[pseudobrit]

mind not swearing so i can tell what you are saying?

what is ****e? shyte-e?

A typo. It should have been White House. But ****e House has a nice ring to it.

[idkew]

nice typo. thanks for the morning laugh!

[Frohickey]

Or do you still buy the line that Iraq was an 'imminent and gathering threat' directly to the US? Or that there were connections between Saddam and Usama?

So, what would you do with a recalcitrant country from which terrorist attacks are coming from? Saddam gave money to suicide bombers. Saddam gave refuge to the Achille Lauro seajacker that killed an American citizen. Keep the 10 year economic sanctions going for another 10 years, and hope that no attacks originate from Iraq?

[mactastic]

So, what would you do with a recalcitrant country from which terrorist attacks are coming from? Saddam gave money to suicide bombers. Saddam gave refuge to the Achille Lauro seajacker that killed an American citizen. Keep the 10 year economic sanctions going for another 10 years, and hope that no attacks originate from Iraq?

Are either of those issues related to the security of the US? Lets see...

First off, we agreed not to prosecute Abu Abbas (who I assume you are refering to) and second what threat does Saddam supporting Palestinian suicide bombers pose to our great nation? Or are you advocating a lesser standard for the use of our military?

Are these your best effort at showing that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US? Puleeeeeze!

[idkew]

Iraq was not an IMMINENT threat to the US, but neither was Osama (according to some) a few decades ago. Neither was Hitler when he was in Prison. Wouldn't it have been nice to preempt their deeds? We will never know if anything would have happened...

Who knows, we may have stopped something bad from happening to the world. We definitely will have stopped a lot of people from being tortured to death in Iraq for thinking for themselves. Yes, some have died during the power vacuum, but these deaths will stop someday. They was no end in sight during Saddam's rule.

The fact remains that Saddam is a horrible person, who ruled through terror and murder. He used WMDs on his own people. This can not be denied. Someone such as him should not be running a country, he should be in a cold, wet prison.



AND- on a completely unrelated note- a good friend of mine returned home from Iraq last night! I will be celebrating him and his return in a few hours. He did his duty for our country, the least I can do is buy him few beers. I'd get him a woman if I knew where to look. :)

Everyone say: Thank you Brad Rehak!

[zimv20]

"we had to destroy the world in order to save it"

[idkew]

"we waited until everyone was dead before we took action"



extremes usually sound foolish, now don't they?

[zimv20]

"we waited until everyone was dead before we took action"

extremes usually sound foolish, now don't they?
i was parodying the statement made in vietnam (sub "village" for "world")

[diamond geezer]

The fact remains that Saddam is a horrible person, who ruled through terror and murder. He used WMDs on his own people. This can not be denied. Someone such as him should not be running a country, he should be in a cold, wet prison.


And the fact remains the the US was more than happy to support him during the period when he was using WOMD on his own people.

As it continues to support other murderers around the globe.

Stop your hypocritical BS.

[idkew]

when did i say the US was right in supporting iraq against the ussr?

stop putting words in my mouth. it will help you keep your foot out of yours.

[Frohickey]

Are either of those issues related to the security of the US? Lets see...

First off, we agreed not to prosecute Abu Abbas (who I assume you are refering to) and second what threat does Saddam supporting Palestinian suicide bombers pose to our great nation? Or are you advocating a lesser standard for the use of our military?

Are these your best effort at showing that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US? Puleeeeeze!

What is your solution to terrorists attacks originating from a host country that is complicit with the terrorists?

If your next door neighbor has a kid that breaks into your house and kills your goldfish and pet cat, and the next door neighbor tells you to go p!ss up a rope when you complain about the kid, and the police says to go and write your congressman, what do you do? Prepare the toilet bowl for another goldfish sea burial and prepare another kitty grave?

[idkew]

And the fact remains the the US was more than happy to support him during the period when he was using WOMD on his own people.

As it continues to support other murderers around the globe.

Stop your hypocritical BS.


and you support saddam's return to power, murder of his citizens, and oppression of his people.

oh wait, you never said that.

[mactastic]

Iraq was not an IMMINENT threat to the US, but neither was Osama (according to some) a few decades ago. Neither was Hitler when he was in Prison. Wouldn't it have been nice to preempt their deeds? We will never know if anything would have happened...


And our bombing may have killed the one person who would have cured cancer or brought peace to the Middle East. Speculating about what may have happened and then using it as proof of your viewpoint doesn't fly.

And isn't our military supposed to be used only against direct and imminent threats? At least that's what all the right-wingers were screaming about during Kosovo...

[idkew]

And our bombing may have killed the one person who would have cured cancer or brought peace to the Middle East. Speculating about what may have happened and then using it as proof of your viewpoint doesn't fly.

And isn't our military supposed to be used only against direct and imminent threats? At least that's what all the right-wingers were screaming about during Kosovo...


so you support O/Usama ad Hitler?


(sorry, i have to stop putting words in people's mouths like other people. i know you don't.)

[mactastic]

so you support O/Usama ad Hitler?


(sorry, i have to stop putting words in people's mouths like other people. i know you don't.)

I can't tell whether you are accusing me of treason or of putting words in your mouth...

[zimv20]

What is your solution to terrorists attacks originating from a host country that is complicit with the terrorists?

are we talking about saudi arabia now?

[mactastic]

What is your solution to terrorists attacks originating from a host country that is complicit with the terrorists?

What country are you talking about here? I don't recall Iraq originating any terrorist attacks. Oh wait, are you talking about 9/11 here? :p

If your next door neighbor has a kid that breaks into your house and kills your goldfish and pet cat, and the next door neighbor tells you to go p!ss up a rope when you complain about the kid, and the police says to go and write your congressman, what do you do? Prepare the toilet bowl for another goldfish sea burial and prepare another kitty grave?

So I'm curious... When did Saddam 'break into our house'? Or is this just another completely in-apt analogy from the Frohickey file?

[Frohickey]

mactastic, what is your solution? Simple question. Forget Iraq.

Call it "Country A", and "Home Country".

[idkew]

I can't tell whether you are accusing me of treason or of putting words in your mouth...

actually the post has nothing to do with you. i was attempting to illustrate a point.

[mactastic]

mactastic, what is your solution? Simple question. Forget Iraq.

Call it "Country A", and "Home Country".

I asked you a question first! :D

[mactastic]

actually the post has nothing to do with you. i was attempting to illustrate a point.

Oh.. I just assumed it was since you quoted me.

[toontra]

What is your solution to terrorists attacks originating from a host country that is complicit with the terrorists?

If you are refering to Iraq, as has been pointed out, you are continuing to peddle WH propoganda that has been discredited. A lie doesn't become the truth through repetition!

This intentional confusing of the facts was a shame-faced deception as you should know, and you do your arguments no good by going down this line.

[skunk]

The fact remains that Saddam is a horrible person, who ruled through terror and murder. He used WMDs on his own people. This can not be denied.

Oh yes it can:

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By Stephen C. Pelletiere
New York Times | Opinion

Friday 31 January 2003

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition -- thanks to United Nations sanctions -- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

Everybody bangs on and on about "gassing his own people". Firstly it is by no means certain he did, and secondly if he did, guess who supplied the weapons?

[Frohickey]

No answer forthcoming from mactastic about what to do about terrorists within a country that doesn't want to do anything about the exportation of terrorists.

Okay, since you want me to answer your specific questions, how about answering some of my general questions.


BTW, I am one of the first to say that Afghanistan and Iraq should have been done with Congress declaring war, as per their Constitutionally-granted power. None of the mamby-pamby Use of Force Joint House/Senate Resolutions. GWBush should have asked for a genuine bonafide Declaration of War. Doesn't matter if the Arco tower in LA, and the Sears tower in Chicago come tumbling down a few months later.

[vwcruisn]

What is your solution to terrorists attacks originating from a host country that is complicit with the terrorists?

If your next door neighbor has a kid that breaks into your house and kills your goldfish and pet cat, and the next door neighbor tells you to go p!ss up a rope when you complain about the kid, and the police says to go and write your congressman, what do you do? Prepare the toilet bowl for another goldfish sea burial and prepare another kitty grave?


ummm.. bomb the **** outta the kids neighborhood?

[takao]

so warmed up my hands for posting in this thread

1. i'm not surprised about the event: this happened very often in history in nearly every war..
it is hate errupting.. remeber not so long ago people it was germany vs. french (now those are close friends),protestants vs. catholic (for central europe this discussion was cleared during 1618-1648),mongolians vs chinese, etc...
an invasion "just 'cause" never works
not in france(germany),afghanistan(russia) etc. in the end you will lose more than you gained..

2.america is a democratic country ..just like germany in 1933 (the party which won was saying "we will make new jobs,help our economy and save our homeland from threats")
democracy works as long as there are only moderatly smart people in charge

3. america is america - the middle east is the middle east
in some parts of the world people are thinking completly different


just a few quotes for some people to think about:
"[insert you country guess here] is prepared to agree to any solemn pact of non-aggression, because she does not think of attacking but only acquiring security."

"There could be no issue between the Church and the State. The Church, as such, has nothing to do with political affairs. On the other hand, the State has nothing to do with the faith or inner organization of the Church"

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
does this sound familiar ? (*hint* look for the 2 most brutal dictators during the 20th century)

i guess otto von bismarck (united germany during the 19 century,and started wars of course) was pretty right:
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the
battlefield will think hard before starting a war."
"People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an
election."
"Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."

[mactastic]

No answer forthcoming from mactastic about what to do about terrorists within a country that doesn't want to do anything about the exportation of terrorists.

No answer forthcoming from Frohickey about whether he believes Iraq attacked us, nor whether those examples he provided earlier constituted an imminent threat to the US.

Why the heck should I go about answering your questions when you won't answer mine?

[skunk]

"He who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind" someone said once.

[pseudobrit]

If your next door neighbor has a kid that breaks into your house and kills your goldfish and pet cat, and the next door neighbor tells you to go p!ss up a rope when you complain about the kid, and the police says to go and write your congressman, what do you do? Prepare the toilet bowl for another goldfish sea burial and prepare another kitty grave?

I know! I know! You exercise your second amendment rights by buying a cache of weapons, then you protect your goldfish by killing the little bastard!

God Bless America, where property is God.

[mactastic]

I know! I know! You exercise your second amendment rights by buying a cache of weapons, then you protect your goldfish by killing the little bastard!

God Bless America, where property is God.

I vote for blowing the $*** out of the kid too! Surely that will solve the problem neatly, with no negative repercussions to me! Oh wait, I'd better shoot the kid's parents so they don't decide to do the same thing I did and kill the person who had wronged me. And just to be safe, I'd better wipe out his entire family and friends too. Don't want to leave myself open to retaliation. :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

No answer forthcoming from Frohickey about whether he believes Iraq attacked us, nor whether those examples he provided earlier constituted an imminent threat to the US.

Why the heck should I go about answering your questions when you won't answer mine?

Never claimed that Saddam ever attacked the US. I'm one that says we should have declared WAR before going into Iraq.

So, if you were President, what would you have done instead?

[Frohickey]

I vote for blowing the $*** out of the kid too! Surely that will solve the problem neatly, with no negative repercussions to me! Oh wait, I'd better shoot the kid's parents so they don't decide to do the same thing I did and kill the person who had wronged me. And just to be safe, I'd better wipe out his entire family and friends too. Don't want to leave myself open to retaliation. :rolleyes:

Hmm...

By that post alone, I am glad that you are a liberal and are anti-gun. You would be a danger to me and other peaceful people with that kind of attitude. I hope that you never avail yourself to your God-given right to self preservation and self-defense. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Never claimed that Saddam ever attacked the US. I'm one that says we should have declared WAR before going into Iraq.

You dodged the second part of his question.

[pseudobrit]

Hmm...

By that post alone, I am glad that you are a liberal and are anti-gun. You would be a danger to me and other peaceful people with that kind of attitude. I hope that you never avail yourself to your God-given right to self preservation and self-defense. ;)

I'm not anti-gun. What do you think of my answer?

What would you do in your hypothetical situation? I'm sure you'll tell us the "right" answer.

[mactastic]

Never claimed that Saddam ever attacked the US. I'm one that says we should have declared WAR before going into Iraq.

So what was all that about a kid breaking into your house? Were you not trying to imply that Saddam was a threat by the analogy of someone breaking into your house?

So, if you were President, what would you have done instead?
I would have hugged a tree, sung Kumbayaa, gutted the military appropriations, raised taxes, expanded social programs, given Jeanine Garafalo an ambassadorship, and taken away all the guns in America!
:D


Actually I would have invaded Afghanistan, and made it my purpose in life to nail UBL to the wall. I would not have taken resources away from such an important task until it was completed or a more urgent matter arose.

[mactastic]

Hmm...

By that post alone, I am glad that you are a liberal and are anti-gun. You would be a danger to me and other peaceful people with that kind of attitude. I hope that you never avail yourself to your God-given right to self preservation and self-defense. ;)

I am liberal, but when have you ever heard me say I'm anti-gun? That's the same BS logic that the right uses to say if you're not 100% supportive of Bush and his war then you are a terrorist symapthizer. A seditionist, as Savage would put it. And since when did God hand out the RKBA? I thought that came from the constipation? ;)

[pseudobrit]

Actually I would have invaded Afghanistan, and made it my purpose in life to nail UBL to the wall. I would not have taken resources away from such an important task until it was completed or a more urgent matter arose.

Your stance is not macho enough. Frohickey will be along momentarily to tell us how to be macho enough.

[Frohickey]

The manly macho thing to do is to get a White House intern to perform fellatio on you, and then send a couple million dollars worth of cruise missiles at a camel in a tent. Everyone knows that good sex is best followed by smoking a Camel. :p

[zimv20]

if you were President, what would you have done instead?
when my CIA director and counter-terrorism director told me every day that al qaeda was a growing threat, chatter was increasing, airplanes may be hijacked and an attack was more likely in months rather than years, i might have considered alerting the FAA. might have lobbed a few questions at my CIA director while i was at it.

[mactastic]

The manly macho thing to do is to get a White House intern to perform fellatio on you, and then send a couple million dollars worth of cruise missiles at a camel in a tent. Everyone knows that good sex is best followed by smoking a Camel. :p
Come on Frohickey, you got anything constructive to add, or are you going to try for the re-direction of our attention again?

[mactastic]

Questions Frohickey has dodged:

1) Or do you still buy the line that Iraq was an 'imminent and gathering threat' directly to the US? Or that there were connections between Saddam and Usama?

2) Are either of those issues related to the security of the US?

3) What country are you talking about here? I don't recall Iraq originating any terrorist attacks.

4) So I'm curious... When did Saddam 'break into our house'?

5) Why the heck should I go about answering your questions when you won't answer mine?

6) So what was all that about a kid breaking into your house? Were you not trying to imply that Saddam was a threat by the analogy of someone breaking into your house?

7) I am liberal, but when have you ever heard me say I'm anti-gun?

(I know some are redundant, but that's only because I ask and ask and all you say is "Never claimed that Saddam ever attacked the US." which of course you did by putting forth the analogy of the neighbor (Saddam) breaking into your house and killing your pets. I'm also a little unclear how the pets part works into that analogy. Did Saddam come here and kill Americans? Nevermind, you won't answer that with anything other than another flip attack on Bill Clinton.)

[pseudobrit]

The manly macho thing to do is to get a White House intern to perform fellatio on you, and then send a couple million dollars worth of cruise missiles at a camel in a tent. Everyone knows that good sex is best followed by smoking a Camel. :p

I love this ****. Typical of a Republican with nothing to argue with.

Q: How do you explain x? (where x is any indefensible Republican position)

A: Well, the way I see it... hmm.

Uh, Clinton got a blow job. A BLOW JOB! IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! *feign outrage*

[mactastic]

I love this ****. Typical of a Republican with nothing to argue with.

Q: How do you explain x? (where x is any indefensible Republican position)

A: Well, the way I see it... hmm.

Uh, Clinton got a blow job. A BLOW JOB! IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! *feign outrage*

Before the next Republican feigns outrage at Clinton's indiscretions... Remember Robert Livingston? :D

[mactastic]

So what would YOU do about the neighbor kid who kills your pets Frohickey?

[Frohickey]

Before the next Republican feigns outrage at Clinton's indiscretions... Remember Robert Livingston? :D

Hehehe... its pretty funny that you mention Bob Livingston.

When the allegations were proven true, conservatives did not rally around Bob Livingston. In fact, he was abandoned, unlike the liberals and Clinton.

I guess that is a personality flaw among conservatives, they will not tolerate liars and philanderers. Another case is the GOP congressman that divorced his long time wife to marry a younger campaign staffer, there were allegations of cheating, and he did not get reelected. Bill Pryor won in that contest.

Liberals... lets see, support for Clinton, support for Kennedy, support for Condit.

I probably missed a whole slew of others.

[Frohickey]

So what would YOU do about the neighbor kid who kills your pets Frohickey?

Prolly watch out for them, and blast them the next time they break in and enter. :D

[Frohickey]

Questions Frohickey has dodged:

1) Or do you still buy the line that Iraq was an 'imminent and gathering threat' directly to the US? Or that there were connections between Saddam and Usama?

2) Are either of those issues related to the security of the US?

3) What country are you talking about here? I don't recall Iraq originating any terrorist attacks.

4) So I'm curious... When did Saddam 'break into our house'?

5) Why the heck should I go about answering your questions when you won't answer mine?

6) So what was all that about a kid breaking into your house? Were you not trying to imply that Saddam was a threat by the analogy of someone breaking into your house?

7) I am liberal, but when have you ever heard me say I'm anti-gun?

(I know some are redundant, but that's only because I ask and ask and all you say is "Never claimed that Saddam ever attacked the US." which of course you did by putting forth the analogy of the neighbor (Saddam) breaking into your house and killing your pets. I'm also a little unclear how the pets part works into that analogy. Did Saddam come here and kill Americans? Nevermind, you won't answer that with anything other than another flip attack on Bill Clinton.)

The analogy was that Iraq could have harbored terrorists, and that the Iraqi government was not about to do anything about it. Saudi Arabia housed terrorists, 15 of the 19, but the Saudi government, upon being told, was amenable to fixing their own house, and policing the terrorists within their borders. Saddam was not. Khadafi did after he was attacked, during the Reagan era. Even China has clamped down on its own terrorists. Same with the various other countries.

Hopefully, that answered questions 1 through 6.

Now, to #7, what is your stance on guns?

[Sayhey]

Another case is the GOP congressman that divorced his long time wife to marry a younger campaign staffer, there were allegations of cheating, and he did not get reelected. Bill Pryor won in that contest.


whoops, I thought you were talking about Gingrich. Must be another GOP congressman - Dan Burton, perhaps? No, I'm sure I missed a ton of others.:p

[pseudobrit]

unlike the liberals ...they will not tolerate liars and philanderers.

Bush.

[IJ Reilly]

Bob Packwood.

[IJ Reilly]

"Nobody doubts the credibility of Henry Hyde. Nobody doubts his sense of fairness and his sense of honor." -- Tom DeLay

[Neserk]

So, if you were President, what would you have done instead?


Gee, I guess what Clinton was doing. Keeping the attacks from happening in the first place. What a concept. Prevention.

[Juventuz]

Gee, I guess what Clinton was doing. Keeping the attacks from happening in the first place. What a concept. Prevention.

Bang up job he was doing there. WTC the first time around in 1993, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings. Not to mention that the planning for 9/11 started during Clinton's administration.

Next time think before you type.

[Juventuz]

Everybody bangs on and on about "gassing his own people". Firstly it is by no means certain he did, and secondly if he did, guess who supplied the weapons?

31 Companies sold chemicals for the use in chemical weapons to Iraq. (http://www.mideastfacts.com/cmpnies_soldchmcals2iraq.html)

14 were Germany
3 from the Netherlands
3 from Switzerland
2 from France
2 from Austria
2 from the US (both US companies are now defunct)

the others were various countries such as Yugoslavia, Singapore and more.

"Singapore-based company may have been the largest supplier of the chemicals used in the 1980's to make chemical weapons, including 3,300 tons of a chemical that can be used to make nerve gas and 950 tons of an separate chemical used to make mustard gas and sarin."

This comes from a UN report.

So you see it's not just the US, there were many others making a lot more off of chemical sales to Iraq.

[pseudobrit]

Bang up job he was doing there. WTC the first time around in 1993, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Embassy bombings. Not to mention that the planning for 9/11 started during Clinton's administration.

Next time think before you type.

To be fair, only one of these occured inside the US.

We could talk about the Oklahoma City bombing or the Olympic Park bombing, various abortion clinic attacks including bombing and/or shooting, or the UNABOM case, but since those were homegrown terrorists, they somehow get treated like regular domestic crime while an al Qaeda attack is treated as a foreign threat to be answered with the military.

Why?

And further, why do we look to prevention for largely unpreventable attacks? Back during the UNABOM investigation, I thought we should focus a little on why our society could generate someone who would do this to prevent us from producing another one rather than dismissing him as a madman and ignoring his message.

I think the same thing is much more important when there are many people willing to kill themselves to attack us for a cause. Such cases cannot be dismissed as insanity, there are simply too many people for them all to be insane, inhuman cold-blooded killers. We must pay attention to the message they are trying to send.

Once we understand why they do it, we can adjust our society to avoid angering people so much that they would kill us. There is a difference between the stubborn, macho hard-line stance of not submitting to terrorists (or not even giving the appearance of wavering) and a course of altering our society and being humble to a point where we are tolerable enough that sane people aren't willing to die to kill us.

[Frohickey]

And further, why do we look to prevention for largely unpreventable attacks? Back during the UNABOM investigation, I thought we should focus a little on why our society could generate someone who would do this to prevent us from producing another one rather than dismissing him as a madman and ignoring his message.

I think the same thing is much more important when there are many people willing to kill themselves to attack us for a cause. Such cases cannot be dismissed as insanity, there are simply too many people for them all to be insane, inhuman cold-blooded killers. We must pay attention to the message they are trying to send.

Once we understand why they do it, we can adjust our society to avoid angering people so much that they would kill us. There is a difference between the stubborn, macho hard-line stance of not submitting to terrorists (or not even giving the appearance of wavering) and a course of altering our society and being humble to a point where we are tolerable enough that sane people aren't willing to die to kill us.

Some people are willing to adjust themselves in order to satisfy others. Why should we adjust ourselves, why couldn't they adjust themselves to us?

[zimv20]

Some people are willing to adjust themselves in order to satisfy others. Why should we adjust ourselves, why couldn't they adjust themselves to us?
try putting yourself into the situation. let's imagine the US falls on hard times, the military becomes a joke, there's lots of corruption, and china takes it upon itself to occupy the US. sure, they're taking some of our best scientists and business people, and exporting a lot of our grain, but they've restored some order and gotten the cable turned back on (though most of the news shows are now run by the chinese gov't).

some americans become "terrorists" and fight back. when found, they're rounded up and shot, but there always seem to be more. sometimes the terrorists (your neighbor calls them patriots) kill a few americans, but they swear it's only the ones who happen to be working for the chinese.

you hear reports of women being raped by chinese soldiers, but these reports are all second hand. the chinese gov't is assuring you that things are getting better, and there's just a few tweaks they're going to make to the constitution (for our benefit, naturally) before we'll get to hold free elections and govern ourselves. a free press is also promised. the UN, weakened by lack of funding (the US hasn't paid its dues in years), is unable to do anything but watch and issue complaints.

will you fight? or will you adjust?

[Frohickey]

try putting yourself into the situation. let's imagine the US falls on hard times, the military becomes a joke, there's lots of corruption, and china takes it upon itself to occupy the US. sure, they're taking some of our best scientists and business people, and exporting a lot of our grain, but they've restored some order and gotten the cable turned back on (though most of the news shows are now run by the chinese gov't).

some americans become "terrorists" and fight back. when found, they're rounded up and shot, but there always seem to be more. sometimes the terrorists (your neighbor calls them patriots) kill a few americans, but they swear it's only the ones who happen to be working for the chinese.

you hear reports of women being raped by chinese soldiers, but these reports are all second hand. the chinese gov't is assuring you that things are getting better, and there's just a few tweaks they're going to make to the constitution (for our benefit, naturally) before we'll get to hold free elections and govern ourselves. a free press is also promised. the UN, weakened by lack of funding (the US hasn't paid its dues in years), is unable to do anything but watch and issue complaints.

will you fight? or will you adjust?

I'd fight.

[zimv20]

I'd fight.
excellent

[pseudobrit]

I'd fight.

From their POV, that's all they're doing.

[Frohickey]

I don't see the US occupying Saudi Arabia or other arab country prior to the recent Afghanistan/Iraq war.
I don't see the US forcing the best arab people to leave and emigrate to other countries.

Maybe the best solution is instead of helping fix the country up and get the cable up and running again is to offer them a pile of cash in exchange for a piece of territory.

[zimv20]

I don't see the US occupying Saudi Arabia or other arab country prior to the recent Afghanistan/Iraq war.

US troops have been stationed in saudi arabia since the 1991 gulf war. having these infidels in the Holy Land is UBL complaint #1.

[Frohickey]

US troops have been stationed in saudi arabia since the 1991 gulf war. having these infidels in the Holy Land is UBL complaint #1.

Yep, from the invitation of Saudi Arabia, in order to act as a buffer between Saddam's 4th-largest-army-in-the-world, and the Kingdom of Saud.

I think that the world loses less people via these low intensity attacks and terror attacks, than a full-scale bonafide world war. Imagine if Saddam was not stopped from annexing Kuwait, you would have Kuwait, then Iran, maybe Saudi, etc. Pretty soon, you would have another regional superpower seeking to annex a small state that is aligned with another regional superpower, and WHAMMO!!!, you have the beginnings of a high intensity conflict with the commensurate high casualty rates.

UBL should have ran for Sultan or Caliph of Afghanistan, then he could have his Islamic state. He was already considered a regional hero for his efforts at getting rid of the Russians during the Afghan war. Oh, but he had to assassinate another regional hero, Masood.

[IJ Reilly]

More deadly mob violence, this time Shia.

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Shiites angry over the arrest of a top cleric's deputy stormed through a Baghdad neighborhood Sunday, killing seven U.S. troops, wounding dozens more and taking over buildings, coalition officials said.

The killings in the Shiite-majority Sadr City neighborhood came on a day that saw deadly clashes between protesters and coalition forces in the holy city of Najaf and a car bombing in Kirkuk.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/04/iraq.main/index.html

[mactastic]

Prolly watch out for them, and blast them the next time they break in and enter. :D

So why should you support someone who breaks into the kids house and kills him?

[mactastic]

The analogy was that Iraq could have harbored terrorists, and that the Iraqi government was not about to do anything about it. Saudi Arabia housed terrorists, 15 of the 19, but the Saudi government, upon being told, was amenable to fixing their own house, and policing the terrorists within their borders. Saddam was not. Khadafi did after he was attacked, during the Reagan era. Even China has clamped down on its own terrorists. Same with the various other countries.

Hopefully, that answered questions 1 through 6.

Now, to #7, what is your stance on guns?

Not even close. How does Iraq harboring terrorists equate to a kid breaking into your house and killing your pets?

So wait, you rail against Clinton for appeasing the Koreans, yet you are fine with it when Bush appeases both Qadaffi AND the Saudis? How does that line of logic go?

I like guns. Guns like me.