Abu Ghraib inmates recall torture

[Kazimierz]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

There are more. Far far more.

# Nicholas Berg, April/May, 2004
# Paul Johnson, June 18, 2004
# Kim Sun-il, June 22, 2004
# Mohammed Mutawalli, August 8, 2004
# Khaled Abdul Messih, August 25, 2004
# Durmus Kumdereli, August 17/September 13, 2004
# Eugene Armstrong September 20, 2004
# Jack Hensley September 21, 2004
# Barea Nafea Dawoud Ibrahim October 2, 2004
# Kenneth Bigley, October 8, 2004
# Luqman Mohammed Kurdi Hussein, reported October 11, 2004
# Maher Kemal, reported October 11, 2004
# Ala al-Maliki, October 12, 2004
# Fadhel Ibrahim, October 13, 2004
# Firas Imeil, October 13, 2004
# Ramazan Elbu, October 14, 2004
# Seif Adnan Kanaan, October 22, 2004
# 1 Iraqi, October 28, 2004 (one of eleven was beheaded, the rest shot)
# Shosei Koda, October 31, 2004
# Major Hussein Shunun, November 3, 2004
# Margaret Hassan

vs 100,000+ and all "insurgents" we've killed. I'm not seeing this as justification.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

In regards to the WMD Stockpiles in Iraq, both the Clinton Administration, CIA, and contacts, were wrong. Hussein was still not allowing inspectors in "off-limits" sections of the country, and did not show his files of the WMD destruction to Bush when he delivered the ultimatum. A simple search on Google will show you this.

So, what was he hiding, his kiddie porn? After invading, we could go to the off-limit areas. We tested the ground and the buildings for traces of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, and found none. We went where Rumsfeld said they were. There wasn't anything. Now the government is telling you, straight up, that Hussein did not have weapons before the war. And you're still trying to argue this point?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

"Shock and Awe" has absolutely nothing to do with civilians, and is an adaptation of the Blitzkrieg.

And the Blitzkrieg, like our "Shock and Awe" had very little effect on civlians.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Iraq is not being colonized and the occupation is the result of the removal of a threat to the general populace of the people. Just like the reason why there is a nation called France, not Grossdeutschland and why there is a South Korea, instead of Korea.

OK, what about the threat to the people of Somalia, Sudan for the last 5 years, the Congo, Liberia. What about them? More people are dying there, and it would be a 100% humanitarian relief mission. Why did we pick Iraq? Because we did not go there to "remove a threat to the general populace". We went there officially because of the threat of WMD, and the ulterior motive, if any, is up for debate.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Despite the fact that the combatees opposing the U.S. Armed Forces have not signed the Geneva Convention, the military still tracks down on people breaking that code, just like what happened at ABu Ghraib. I remember watching some clip, and a soldier asked, and I am paraphrasing here:

"Sir, why don't we just shoot them all?"

and his CO replied

"Because we're America and we do things clean"

We are subject to following the Geneva Conventions as much as they are. We are not subject to, or able to be tried, by the International Criminal Tribunal. If anything, the Insurgents are held more accountable by them, as they can and likely will be tried.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

It is unecessary to publicize them thakes in huge part to yellow journalism, because A) just like in years past, the military will come down hard on soldiers who break the rules, and B) it aids and abets the enemy. You can take the most absolutely important cause in the liberation of a country, but a incident like Abu Ghraib, and thanks to the media circus, can make the populace you are trying to free hate and fear, and as a result, fight against you, despite the fact you are trying to help them.



You can't prove this because it is not factual. Just like the deal with how the troops were not getting enough armor on their humvees; that was already being takened cared of when the media "uncovered" it, and reported how the troops were getting inadequate supplies. The day after the one Pvt. popped the question to Rummy, about why they have to go digging around for scrap, which was propagated by a reporter, was not necessary. Why? Because revamping the Humvees was already scheduled for the next day, no thanks in any part to the media.

Exactly, suppress the media for the sake of freedom. Dipshit.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Puppet regimes do not exist in France, nor South Korea. The United States does not need the oil from Iraq; as a matter of fact, 28% of the current United States importation comes from the entire Persian Gulf. If we were having a desperate need for oil, Canada and Mexico, one of the top two exporters for oil for the United States, is where we would have went first, not Iraq.

30% of a multi-hundred billion dollar industry (trillion?) is not small potatoes. Let's say you spend on average 2000 a year at the pump. 30% is 600 bucks. Multiply by how many ever hundred million Americans you want. Per year.

Originally Posted by Wisebobo

Journalists do not belong in war. They only make things more difficult for the troops, and cause hysteria at home. This kind of bullshit did not happen in WWII because the style of journalism did not try to bring down the cause of liberation at every turn, which is what we see now. Look at the New York Times or Washington Post; and if you want to, turn on CBS.

Because in WWII the cause was just, and obviously so, and was supported by the rest of the World. You're comparing the invasion of Iraq to WWII? Are you even serious, or is this some kind of sick sarcastic joke?

Imagine you are living in Soviet Russia, and the only source for news is the government. Are you going to get honest reporting? Now imagine you are in America, and the only source for news is the government. Are you going to get honest reporting? What's the difference? Because in America's case, we're the good guys and we're right? According to who? The world? Obviously not. Just like Soviet Russia, the only people who thought they were right were the Soviets themselves. And now we find ourselves in the same boat. We're the only one's who think we are right. Oh, and a few of our satellite states. You're just dying for an American version of Pravda aren't you, you die-hard "patriot".

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

vs 100,000+ and all "insurgents" we've killed. I'm not seeing this as justification.

The numbers from the BBC Report you are referring to are extremely false. Why you ask? Because they surveyed 30 familes around Fallujah, and let me repeat that, they surveyed 30 families in Fallujah. One of the citys in Iraq with the most insurgent activity, and thus, coalition forces as well. The technique of applying these numbers from Fallujah to Iraq in its entirety is even worse than the exit polling done on November 2nd, if you can believe that.

So, what was he hiding, his kiddie porn? After invading, we could go to the off-limit areas. We tested the ground and the buildings for traces of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, and found none. We went where Rumsfeld said they were. There wasn't anything. Now the government is telling you, straight up, that Hussein did not have weapons before the war. And you're still trying to argue this point?

The only reason we invaded Iraq in March of 2003 was because two administrations were wrong, the CIA was wrong, Great Britain's Intelligence was wrong, and so were our contacts in the region. Prior to the invasion, Saddam was not allowing inspectors, like Hans Blix, complete access to areas in Iraq. Combine that with the fact that he was completely disregarding the U.N. Sanctions imposed on him after Desert Storm.

Capische?

And the Blitzkrieg, like our "Shock and Awe" had very little effect on civlians.

Not the Blitzkrieg itself, but the government using it, the Third Reich, which murdered 12 million civilians.

OK, what about the threat to the people of Somalia, Sudan for the last 5 years, the Congo, Liberia. What about them? More people are dying there, and it would be a 100% humanitarian relief mission. Why did we pick Iraq? Because we did not go there to "remove a threat to the general populace". We went there officially because of the threat of WMD, and the ulterior motive, if any, is up for debate.

I want military action in Somalia, Sudan, the Congo, and Liberia as well.

Hopefully the U.N. can get off of their asses as well.

We are subject to following the Geneva Conventions as much as they are. We are not subject to, or able to be tried, by the International Criminal Tribunal. If anything, the Insurgents are held more accountable by them, as they can and likely will be tried.

The Insurgents are not subject to the Geneva Convetion because they have no state and have not signed it. They can be tried for war crimes, but the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. The U.S. Military does not need a foreign court; it can handle all the war criminals in the military by itself.

Exactly, suppress the media for the sake of freedom. Dipshit.

You can call it propaganda, you can call it the media, but don't ever call it Journalism. This one-sided shit has been going on for far too long. Do you ever see U.S. Soldiers giving candy and supplies to little Iraqi Children or Iraqi's hugging and kissing them on Al Jazeera, CNN, or CBS?

The answer is no, you don't. You see the corpses of U.S. Servicemen being dragged through the streets, and Abu Ghraib.

If you are not going to be civil, just fuck off.

30% of a multi-hundred billion dollar industry (trillion?) is not small potatoes. Let's say you spend on average 2000 a year at the pump. 30% is 600 bucks. Multiply by how many ever hundred million Americans you want. Per year.

72% of a multi-hundred billion dollar industry (trillion?) is not small potatoes. Let's say you spend on average 2000 a year at the pump. 30% is 600 bucks. Multiply by how many ever hundred million Americans you want. Per year.

Because in WWII the cause was just, and obviously so, and was supported by the rest of the World. You're comparing the invasion of Iraq to WWII? Are you even serious, or is this some kind of sick sarcastic joke?

A Lieutenant in the Marines did the exact same thing a few weeks ago. Is he sick as well?

We're the only one's who think we are right. Oh, and a few of our satellite states. You're just dying for an American version of Pravda aren't you, you die-hard "patriot".

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill

[Kazimierz]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

The numbers from the BBC Report you are referring to are extremely false. Why you ask? Because they surveyed 30 familes around Fallujah, and let me repeat that, they surveyed 30 families in Fallujah. One of the citys in Iraq with the most insurgent activity, and thus, coalition forces as well. The technique of applying these numbers from Fallujah to Iraq in its entirety is even worse than the exit polling done on November 2nd, if you can believe that.

The numbers from the BBC report are from a number of differen't sources, 100,000 being the highest estimate, the lowest being 15,000. Since you are obviously familiar with the thread in question, you will also remember that mathematically, Saddam killed less people per year than the United States is. But he's a murderer and we're liberators. I could interview 30 people of my choosing, and they would all be either 100% in support or 100% against the war in Iraq. 30 people, 30 families even, are in no way an honest sample of the whole, wherever you got this information from.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

The only reason we invaded Iraq in March of 2003 was because two administrations were wrong, the CIA was wrong, Great Britain's Intelligence was wrong, and so were our contacts in the region. Prior to the invasion, Saddam was not allowing inspectors, like Hans Blix, complete access to areas in Iraq. Combine that with the fact that he was completely disregarding the U.N. Sanctions imposed on him after Desert Storm.

We invaded because we were wrong? Hans Blix said we shouldn't go. Do you honestly think we were wrong? Or maybe, just maybe, we really wanted to go and were looking for any sort of reason.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Not the Blitzkrieg itself, but the government using it, the Third Reich, which murdered 12 million civilians.

The Blitzkrieg and the Final Solution are two differen't things.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I want military action in Somalia, Sudan, the Congo, and Liberia as well.

Hopefully the U.N. can get off of their asses as well.

Now the UN should step in? They already are in these various places, most notably Congo, where they are asking for United States help.

Originally Posted by Wisebobo

The Insurgents are not subject to the Geneva Convetion because they have no state and have not signed it. They can be tried for war crimes, but the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. The U.S. Military does not need a foreign court; it can handle all the war criminals in the military by itself.

Which by no means is a conflict of interest. We're going to be judge and jury for ourselves in the war crimes department. What if Milosevic got the same deal? The Nazi officers?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

You can call it propaganda, you can call it the media, but don't ever call it Journalism. This one-sided shit has been going on for far too long. Do you ever see U.S. Soldiers giving candy and supplies to little Iraqi Children or Iraqi's hugging and kissing them on Al Jazeera, CNN, or CBS?

The answer is no, you don't. You see the corpses of U.S. Servicemen being dragged through the streets, and Abu Ghraib.

Because we didn't go there to give candies to little kids. We went there to fight a fucking war, and in a war, it's not the candies that are important, but the lives that are being lost and taken.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

72% of a multi-hundred billion dollar industry (trillion?) is not small potatoes. Let's say you spend on average 2000 a year at the pump. 30% is 600 bucks. Multiply by how many ever hundred million Americans you want. Per year.

Don't spin it around. If you had $70,000, would you want an extra $30,000? What if the people that supported your bid for presidency, and would support your reelection did?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

A Lieutenant in the Marines did the exact same thing a few weeks ago. Is he sick as well?

Delusions of grandeur if you want. Answer the question, are you comparing the invasion of Iraq to WWII?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stuart Mill

"Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell.

How can you call yourself a patriot when you openly want supression of the press to further the goals of the country? This, and many other topics of obvious interest to you can be found in the aforementioned novel.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

The numbers from the BBC report are from a number of differen't sources, 100,000 being the highest estimate, the lowest being 15,000. Since you are obviously familiar with the thread in question, you will also remember that mathematically, Saddam killed less people per year than the United States is. But he's a murderer and we're liberators. I could interview 30 people of my choosing, and they would all be either 100% in support or 100% against the war in Iraq. 30 people, 30 families even, are in no way an honest sample of the whole, wherever you got this information from.

I would also like to note that between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, Hussein murdered upwards of 500,000 civilians.

The Blitzkrieg and the Final Solution are two differen't things.

And I very well know that, which is why I didn't understand the way you responded to my initial post the way you did.

Now the UN should step in? They already are in these various places, most notably Congo, where they are asking for United States help.

The U.N. also has a problem with their peacekeeprs raping women, but you know what, I want the armed forces to start kicking warlord ass.

Which by no means is a conflict of interest. We're going to be judge and jury for ourselves in the war crimes department. What if Milosevic got the same deal? The Nazi officers?

Unlike the Nazis and Communists, our Military Judicial System, and our "normal" Judicial System is not corrupt.

Because we didn't go there to give candies to little kids. We went there to fight a fucking war, and in a war, it's not the candies that are important, but the lives that are being lost and taken.

Not important?

Don't spin it around. If you had $70,000, would you want an extra $30,000? What if the people that supported your bid for presidency, and would support your reelection did?

I would be extremely satisfied with $70,000. $30,000 would be like icing on the cake, but good cake, like Cheesecake, doesn't need icing.

Answer the question, are you comparing the invasion of Iraq to WWII?

Operation: Iraqi Freedom is closer to WWII than Vietnam.

How can you call yourself a patriot when you openly want supression of the press to further the goals of the country? This, and many other topics of obvious interest to you can be found in the aforementioned novel.

I do not want suppression of the press. I want news that is not in the news because it is "bad" for ratings.

[Viet Era Marine]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

Because we didn't go there to give candies to little kids. We went there to fight a fucking war, and in a war, it's not the candies that are important, but the lives that are being lost and taken.

Getting a bit uptight Kaz?

See, the candy passing should be important, but, CNN doesn't get squat for ratings from pics of troops getting "hugs". Just doesn't fit in with the "we should never have been there in the first place" line of poop that's
been coming down the pipe since day one.

BTW: I do have photos of our troops laughing with Iraqi kids and playing
soccer. You will NEVER see this on CNN.

Regards,
VEM

Originally Posted by Viet Era Marine

Getting a bit uptight Kaz?

See, the candy passing should be important, but, CNN doesn't get squat for ratings from pics of troops getting "hugs". Just doesn't fit in with the "we should never have been there in the first place" line of poop that's
been coming down the pipe since day one.

BTW: I do have photos of our troops laughing with Iraqi kids and playing
soccer. You will NEVER see this on CNN.

Regards,
VEM

Wait Americans can play soccer!?? just kidding anyways, the "candy passing" shouldnt and isnt important because that has nothing to do with the US's stated mission in Iraq but is instead an attempt to move the Iraqis withought trully acknowleging their concerns. By the way if the media was truly against the war then why do they constantly talk about the election and demonize the insurgents?? What about all the demonstraitions that were occuring in IRaq why didnt they show those? About those photos however their are plenty of photos showing peoples hatred of the US as well, so whats your point?

Originally Posted by Viet Era Marine

Getting a bit uptight Kaz?

See, the candy passing should be important, but, CNN doesn't get squat for ratings from pics of troops getting "hugs". Just doesn't fit in with the "we should never have been there in the first place" line of poop that's
been coming down the pipe since day one.

BTW: I do have photos of our troops laughing with Iraqi kids and playing
soccer. You will NEVER see this on CNN.

Regards,
VEM

Wait Americans can play soccer!?? just kidding anyways, the "candy passing" shouldnt and isnt important because that has nothing to do with the US's stated mission in Iraq but is instead an attempt to move the Iraqis withought trully acknowleging their concerns. By the way if the media was truly against the war then why do they constantly talk about the election and demonize the insurgents?? What about all the demonstraitions that were occuring in IRaq why didnt they show those? What about all the civilian casualties why arent they shown? About those photos however their are many more photos showing peoples hatred of the US as well.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Saladin06

the "candy passing" shouldnt and isnt important because that has nothing to do with the US's stated mission

THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF OUR MISSION IN IRAQ.

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST!

[Kazimierz]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I would also like to note that between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, Hussein murdered upwards of 500,000 civilians.

And mathematically, like i pointed out, we're still bigger murderers than he is.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

And I very well know that, which is why I didn't understand the way you responded to my initial post the way you did.

You mention the government of the Third Reich murdering 12 million people. 6-12 million people died in the Holocaust. A majority of the people you mentioned died because of the Holocaust, not because of the Blitzkrieg.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

The U.N. also has a problem with their peacekeeprs raping women, but you know what, I want the armed forces to start kicking warlord ass.

It's OK to blame the actions of a few on the whole group when discussing the U.N. but not when discussing the U.S.? This is completely irrelevant to the topic i presented. You want us in there. The U.N. asked for us there. You say we went to Iraq to liberate. So why aren't we anywhere else, especially in places that need help, and ask for help?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Unlike the Nazis and Communists, our Military Judicial System, and our "normal" Judicial System is not corrupt.

Right. Then what about the governments of Western Europe, Canada, etc?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Not important?









I could show you pictures of the opposite, but you would throw them away as propaganda and pushing an agenda. But why are you so quick to support these images? Let's go back to Soviet Russia (as your logic seems to be tied nice and close). Did the Soviets show images of their soldiers being killed, or of injustice in their own country? Of starvation, of anything bad? No. And you want the same here. Any government, be it democractic, socialist, communist, or a monarchy, can and will use propaganda as a tool. You're wanting control of the press, where only "good" things are reported. Control of the press is the same thing as supression.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I would be extremely satisfied with $70,000. $30,000 would be like icing on the cake, but good cake, like Cheesecake, doesn't need icing.

What if this 30% translated into the economy of the world's strongest country? What if this 30% meant that social security did not run aground. What if this 30% meant that you could keep campaign promises? What if this 30% could in turn, be given back to the people throw lowered taxes...

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Operation: Iraqi Freedom is closer to WWII than Vietnam.

Operation Iraqi Liberation is nowhere near WWII. It is closest to Vietnam, and that's an argument against it if anything else.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I do not want suppression of the press. I want news that is not in the news because it is "bad" for ratings.

Control of content does not equal freedom, Stalin.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

THAT IS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF OUR MISSION IN IRAQ.

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST!

Our mission was to find WMD, as our president and every member of his senior cabinet told us. Repeatedly. The government slowly started changing it's stated goal through press confrences and other official communication, to where now people think liberation of the Iraqi people was our goal. People like you, who will believe anything the government says, and forget what they used to say. Eastasia or Eurasia?

Originally Posted by Viet Era Marine

See, the candy passing should be important, but, CNN doesn't get squat for ratings from pics of troops getting "hugs". Just doesn't fit in with the "we should never have been there in the first place" line of poop that's
been coming down the pipe since day one.

So we should show images of what the government wants to show, instead of what the people want to see?

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

And mathematically, like i pointed out, we're still bigger murderers than he is.

No, not mathematically, only statistically speaking based on deaths per year.

You mention the government of the Third Reich murdering 12 million people. 6-12 million people died in the Holocaust. A majority of the people you mentioned died because of the Holocaust, not because of the Blitzkrieg.

I very well know that. I was refuting another member's point of our invasion technique, "Shock and Awe", of targeting civilians, which is truly an adaptation of the Blitzkrieg, and does not kill civilians, as you and I both know.

It's OK to blame the actions of a few on the whole group when discussing the U.N. but not when discussing the U.S.?

I did not mean the U.N. as a whole, but the "peace keepers", that is, the actual troops wearing the blue helmets.

So why aren't we anywhere else, especially in places that need help, and ask for help?

Obviously it is political. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, and the United States as well, will willingly liberate a country with military force unless there is something to gain. That is how politics work. Hopefully that will change, or else the world is going to turn into a shithole real damn quick.

Then what about the governments of Western Europe, Canada, etc?

There is absolutely no need to "outsource" the law.

What if this 30% translated into the economy of the world's strongest country? What if this 30% meant that social security did not run aground. What if this 30% meant that you could keep campaign promises? What if this 30% could in turn, be given back to the people throw lowered taxes...

Not even 30% is going to save Social Security. :icon_rofl

Operation Iraqi Liberation is nowhere near WWII. It is closest to Vietnam, and that's an argument against it if anything else.

Vietnam was not a liberation. It was an occupation by military force of South Vietnam to protect France's interests in the area. Obviously, the Cambodians wished we had tried just a wee bit harder (wee bit being ||).

Control of content does not equal freedom, Stalin.

I am not asking for control of content. I am asking for both sides of the inherent "truth" to be on my television when I watch it at 6 and 10 P.M.

Our mission was to find WMD, as our president and every member of his senior cabinet told us. Repeatedly. The government slowly started changing it's stated goal through press confrences and other official communication, to where now people think liberation of the Iraqi people was our goal. People like you, who will believe anything the government says, and forget what they used to say. Eastasia or Eurasia?

That sounds nice to say Kaz, but you're wrong.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

- President George W. Bush, March 17, 2003.

So we should show images of what the government wants to show, instead of what the people want to see?

I want to see the good things from the war, not just the bad. I want to see the reports of the insurgent activites and casualties, and the pictures of the children getting candy, supplies, even soccer balls, to know what every U.S. Serviceman is sacrificing for those foreigners so far away.

[Kazimierz]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

No, not mathematically, only statistically speaking based on deaths per year.

Statistics is considered math. You are running around the point, again. We statistically kill more people per year than Saddam did. But we kill other people for just reasons?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I very well know that. I was refuting another member's point of our invasion technique, "Shock and Awe", of targeting civilians, which is truly an adaptation of the Blitzkrieg, and does not kill civilians, as you and I both know.

Shock and Awe kills civilians. The Blitzkrieg killed many civilians. See: Poland, Germany's first use and most powerful use of the Blitzkrieg.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I did not mean the U.N. as a whole, but the "peace keepers", that is, the actual troops wearing the blue helmets.

Same question, referring to U.S. troops and U.N. troops. Stop dodging questions.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Obviously it is political. Countries like France, Germany, Russia, and the United States as well, will willingly liberate a country with military force unless there is something to gain. That is how politics work. Hopefully that will change, or else the world is going to turn into a shithole real damn quick.

Will not willingly. Yes. We did not go to Iraq to liberate people. Are you agreeing?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

There is absolutely no need to "outsource" the law.

I'm sure Bosnia and Herzegovina would have used that same logic. As would most nations, especially those committing actions that could be construed as illegal. The rest of the "civilized" and industrialized world is willing to be held accountable for it's actions, why are we so scared? If our fight and our actions were truly just, there would be nothing to fear.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Not even 30% is going to save Social Security. :icon_rofl

It could help. It could help a lot with a lot of problems we have here in the U.S.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Vietnam was not a liberation. It was an occupation by military force of South Vietnam to protect France's interests in the area. Obviously, the Cambodians wished we had tried just a wee bit harder (wee bit being ||).

Neither is Iraq. And no, it was a fight to stop the spread of Communism.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I am not asking for control of content. I am asking for both sides of the inherent "truth" to be on my television when I watch it at 6 and 10 P.M.

And you will decide what is the truth? You are presented with all sorts of news outlets, from all different political sides, just change the channels. And if you are interested, i use: http://news.bbc.co.uk.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

That sounds nice to say Kaz, but you're wrong.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

- President George W. Bush, March 17, 2003.

That is not a statement of purpose. That, if anything, is a push for Iraqi support. If you look up the multitude of quotes of the entire cabinet giving reasons for war to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, you will hear WMDs. Fear Goldstein.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

I want to see the good things from the war, not just the bad. I want to see the reports of the insurgent activites and casualties, and the pictures of the children getting candy, supplies, even soccer balls, to know what every U.S. Serviceman is sacrificing for those foreigners so far away.

I'll agree to that. But you must realize, that however nicely troops of any nation are portrayed can not make up for a war that was unjustified (as i believe). I do not believe that Saddam was a "good guy", and i do not believe that the Iraqi's were living in the freest country in the world, by no means. But i believe that we went to war for reasons of financial and military gain. I do not appreciate my government shoving one reason for war down my throat, to have them later tell me that reason was wrong.

I support the United State's role as a country of free people who help those in trouble, and liberate those under oppression. But i support this only through actions, not through nice news reports and propaganda claims. I want us to be in the countries that really do need help, and i would love for us to go in, by ourselves, to liberate a people with absolutely nothing to gain for doing it.

[GhostDog]

This Charles Graner guy disgusts me so much. No, he angers me, I plan on becoming a officer for the united states army aviation branch (USAAC), I am taking aviation class's and help out at a local national guard hanger for the 86th medevac. I know officers and soldiers. These guys are… well… dirtbags. I mean I watched a big part of his recent trial.... (i must say i think court is boring as hell) but this part just struck me like the news of the death of a family member.

*I served my country well and i did a damn good job of it*

WHAT THE FUCK? *sorry excuse my language* but sweet lord please; you disgraced the art of war itself, you disgraced the rules of the upmost of natural respect for other cultures, you disgraced the dod, the united states, the fundamentals of the founding fathers, you are a mere disgrace to all human values.

You humiliated inmates and forced them to disgrace themselves and their people for your own amusement and consider yourself a war hero... He made these people eat pork and drink alcohol and laughed at them while they sobbingly surrendered to their force...


I support the trials and I’m damn proud that they get a chance to defend themselves in court *cause if you ever get into shit, the right to a trial will for now on make you proud of the American flag* But that one sentence, just made me sick... Saddam treated us prisoners better then this... *there’s a difference between saddam hussian's actual army and the poorly lead, poorly stuctured insurgents*


Everything else in the trials is a blur to me, I was kinda bored watching it... but that just got me... Sorry if I’m ranting, but come on. Am I the only one that thinks these guys are getting it a little to easy? I mean this deserves a firesquad...


*Even knowing that you can only get firing squad by request in the military, but they should just give it to him anyways this is deserving in my eyes*

Edit -

Just wanted to add that chances are there was a higher up involved (as in a officer turned the other shoulder) Be even if President Bush himself... no if G. Patton ordered someone to do something like this, That is one order you don't obey and you know it. There’s no way you will get in any trouble for disobeying such a order with the power the media has right now.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

Statistics is considered math. You are running around the point, again. We statistically kill more people per year than Saddam did. But we kill other people for just reasons?

An average of 41667 civilians were killed each year in Saddam's 24-year reign.

Using the estimates from the U.S. Armed Forces, roughly 20 thousand, it is less.

Shock and Awe kills civilians. The Blitzkrieg killed many civilians. See: Poland, Germany's first use and most powerful use of the Blitzkrieg.

The Blitzkrieg has absolutely nothing to do with the killing of civilians. It is a byproduct of war.

The key to Blitzkrieg was to organize the troops into mobile forces with excellent communications and command, able to keep the momentum up while the battle unfolded. The basic concept was to concentrate all available forces at a single spot in front of the enemy lines, and then break a hole in it with artillery and infantry. Once the hole was opened, tanks could rush through and strike hundreds of miles to the rear. This allowed the attacking force to fight against lightly armed logistics units, starving the enemy of information and supplies. In this way even a small force could destroy a much larger one through confusion, avoiding direct combat as much as possible. In a perfect development the enemy would be retreating to the rear to set up new defensive lines, which the attacking force would have already passed. Increasing confusion and desperation among the defender's chain of command would render it competely ineffective.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

Shock and Awe
The term was popularized by the United States in its 2003 invasion of Iraq, although a doctrine similar to shock and awe was employed by the German armies in World War II under the name blitzkrieg. Opinion as to the success of shock and awe in Iraq remains divided as of 2004.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe

Same question, referring to U.S. troops and U.N. troops. Stop dodging questions.

The U.N. has a harder time maintaning order and deceny within their armed forces than the U.S. I have yet to see any peacekeepers brought to trial for rape.

Will not willingly. Yes. We did not go to Iraq to liberate people. Are you agreeing?

Yes, we did go to Iraq to liberate. Just like we went to Europe in 1944. Both France and Iraq were under a totalitarianship that murdered civilians.

The rest of the "civilized" and industrialized world is willing to be held accountable for it's actions, why are we so scared? If our fight and our actions were truly just, there would be nothing to fear.

"Civilized" nations do not need to outsource their courts of law; definition of being civilized. France should not have to go through our courts, nor Germany, and so on. Unless of course those said nations become corrupt.

Neither is Iraq. And no, it was a fight to stop the spread of Communism.

Iraq is a liberation. I've alread posted pictures of how this is so, as well as President Bush's first speech.

The Vietnam War was the latter stage of the Indochina War and was, in many ways a direct successor to the French Indochina War in which the French, with the financial and logistical support of the United States, fought a losing effort to maintain control of their former colony of French Indochina.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

And you will decide what is the truth?

There are two variations of the truth; optimistic, and pessimistic. I want both on the same channel.

That is not a statement of purpose. That, if anything, is a push for Iraqi support. If you look up the multitude of quotes of the entire cabinet giving reasons for war to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, you will hear WMDs. Fear Goldstein.

LOOK UP THE QUOTES FROM THE CABINET AND YOU WILL HEAR LIBERATION.

But i believe that we went to war for reasons of financial and military gain. I do not appreciate my government shoving one reason for war down my throat, to have them later tell me that reason was wrong.

And I believe we went to war for the removal of a dictator and a threat capable of possesing WMD's. The CIA was wrong, the current Admnistration was wrong, Clinton was wrong, Kerry was wrong, Great Britain was wrong, and so forth. France, Germany, and Russia were making millions in oil money by illegaly using the "oil-for-food" program, while Saddam grew rich.

I want us to be in the countries that really do need help, and i would love for us to go in, by ourselves, to liberate a people with absolutely nothing to gain for doing it.

As do I, but we will simply never know the true motives in Iraq unless this insurgency is destroyed, and the elections held. Only then will we see the true colors of what has occured. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if this whole thing is just a scam for oil, I sure as hell will take a good look at my values and my intelligence, or lack thereof.

[Kazimierz]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

An average of 41667 civilians were killed each year in Saddam's 24-year reign.

Using the estimates from the U.S. Armed Forces, roughly 20 thousand, it is less.

Don't pick and choose whether to use a highball estimate for one and a lowball for the other. The U.S. is hardly the most unbiased source for figures relating to civilian casualties caused by them. If you use both lowballs (as we did in the previous thread) or both highballs, we're still outpacing Saddam.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

The Blitzkrieg has absolutely nothing to do with the killing of civilians. It is a byproduct of war.

War kills civilians. A huge war kills more civilians. Bombing of cities kills civilians. Massive bombing of cities kills many civlians.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

The U.N. has a harder time maintaning order and deceny within their armed forces than the U.S. I have yet to see any peacekeepers brought to trial for rape.

If we compare all the crimes allegedly committed by U.N. peacekeepers and by U.S. soldiers, we would see the U.S. soldiers winning, and we would see from both counts that they are a small minority of the whole. So back to my original question: How can you stereotype one group for the actions of a few, and disregard this same approach when dealing with a group you support?

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Yes, we did go to Iraq to liberate. Just like we went to Europe in 1944. Both France and Iraq were under a totalitarianship that murdered civilians.

"the area… that coalition forces control… happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"

"There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction - Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few - but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons... His regime is paying a high price to pursue weapons of mass destruction -- giving up billions of dollars in oil revenue. His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

"It should be noted that biological weapons -- which Iraq and North Korea both possess -- can be as deadly, and arguably more immediate a danger -- because they are simpler and cheaper and deliver, and are even more readily transferred to terrorist networks than are nuclear weapons."

"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."

All by Donald Rumsfeld. Find me some quotes, prior to the invasion, that said we were going there to liberate.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

"Civilized" nations do not need to outsource their courts of law; definition of being civilized. France should not have to go through our courts, nor Germany, and so on. Unless of course those said nations become corrupt.

Nations who subscribe to international law and who only use force when necessary and deemed just need not fear trial for war crimes. Places like North Korea, Iraq, etc are places that would fear this, and the U.S. stands with this great crowd.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

Iraq is a liberation. I've alread posted pictures of how this is so, as well as President Bush's first speech.

Undoubtedly people are happy Saddam is gone, but showing pictures after the fact does not have any correlation to the reasons for war, it's what happened after. His first speech did not say we are going to war to liberate Iraq, his speech just told the Iraqi people we were going and what would happen and wanted to build support. Find me a quote that contextually says: We are going to/want to invade Iraq to liberate the people of Iraq.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

There are two variations of the truth; optimistic, and pessimistic. I want both on the same channel.

The truth is the truth. Spinning the truth to make it optimistic and or pessimistic is called propaganda.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

LOOK UP THE QUOTES FROM THE CABINET AND YOU WILL HEAR LIBERATION.

I support my points, your job is to support yours.

Originally Posted by Wisebobo

And I believe we went to war for the removal of a dictator and a threat capable of possesing WMD's. The CIA was wrong, the current Admnistration was wrong, Clinton was wrong, Kerry was wrong, Great Britain was wrong, and so forth. France, Germany, and Russia were making millions in oil money by illegaly using the "oil-for-food" program, while Saddam grew rich.

The government said they had WMDs and they knew where they were. Not "capable". Were they wrong, or did they know it was false and use it as a justification anyway? Claims that France/Germany/Russia were making money has nothing to do with our invasion.

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

As do I, but we will simply never know the true motives in Iraq unless this insurgency is destroyed, and the elections held. Only then will we see the true colors of what has occured. And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if this whole thing is just a scam for oil, I sure as hell will take a good look at my values and my intelligence, or lack thereof.

The insurgency being destroyed and us having control will reveal true motives (if the current are hidden) how exactly? There will never be any proof that this is a scam for oil, and i avoid making that claim. There were undoubtedly many reasons for going there, some hidden, some clear. Those that are clear have been disproven, or added after the fact, hinting to me that they were just meant as a cover for the real ones. I am not attacking your values or your intelligence. I will discontinue this debate when intelligence fails.

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Kazimierz

Don't pick and choose whether to use a highball estimate for one and a lowball for the other. The U.S. is hardly the most unbiased source for figures relating to civilian casualties caused by them. If you use both lowballs (as we did in the previous thread) or both highballs, we're still outpacing Saddam.

Not, the U.S., the U.S. Armed Forces, the ones actually fighting the war. They will know far better than any news outlet. Using lowball figures, we are not outpacing Saddam.

How can you stereotype one group for the actions of a few, and disregard this same approach when dealing with a group you support?

Because the U.N. has yet to do anything about it. The absolutely sickening soldiers in the Abu Ghraib incident are being sentence and brought to trial. I don't see the same for the U.N. peacekeepers who rape and extort.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42088

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

"I can honestly say now that I'm proud to be an Iraqi. Because of what has happened, because there is freedom here like I have not known before. Now I can talk-to you, to people I could never talk to before. I am a simple man. I am just a worker. But even these simple things-talking-give me hope."
Khalid Nemah, an Iraqi taxi driver, Chicago Tribune, 8/05/03

"Iraqis are very thirsty to learn what is happening outside of Iraq."
Abbas Darwish, owner of a Baghdad shop that sells newspapers, The New York Times, 8/05/03

"You never knew who was sitting next to you. In the past no one would dare to just speak out. Now everybody is talking. About federalism, about a monarchy. ... I think our aims are just one, to eliminate persecution for anyone ever again."
Jafar Adel Amr, a tool salesman in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 8/05/03

"Freedom is much sweeter. I can get up in the morning and decide whether I want to shave or not; if someone in my family is sick, I can stay home with them. I don't need to ask permission."
Salim Kasim, one of Uday's chief mechanics, Los Angeles Times, 8/02/03

"We didn't believe these things, but we had to say them. Saddam was there in all the books, even the math books."
Ghada Jassen, a fifth grade teacher in Iraq, Chicago Tribune, 7/31/03

"We don't want patriotic education anymore. Nothing about war. We want flowers and springtime in the texts, not rifles and tanks."
Dunia Nabel, a teacher in Baghdad, Chicago Tribune, 7/31/03

"We have full freedom to print anything we want. The coalition doesn't interfere in our work but, of course, we have our own red lines."
Ishtar el Yassiri, editor of the new satirical Iraqi newspaper Habez Bouz, Financial Times (London), 7/31/03

"This is the first time we as Shiites can represent ourselves and talk with a loud voice. They never let us express our feelings."
Akil Dair, a part-time student at Baghdad University, The New York Times, 6/21/03

Places like North Korea, Iraq, etc are places that would fear this, and the U.S. stands with this great crowd.

And unlike North Korea and Iraq, the United States does not commit atrocities against the citizenry of this nation, nor is the judicial system corrupt.

Find me a quote that contextually says: We are going to/want to invade Iraq to liberate the people of Iraq.

I already have with President Bush's speech. You just pass it off has a half-ass attempt to gain support from the Iraqi's. Read it again and again until you get the message.

Spinning the truth to make it optimistic and or pessimistic is called propaganda.

No, that is called the news.

Claims that France/Germany/Russia were making money has nothing to do with our invasion.

Guess who vetoed support for the invasion?

There will never be any proof that this is a scam for oil, and i avoid making that claim. There were undoubtedly many reasons for going there, some hidden, some clear. Those that are clear have been disproven, or added after the fact, hinting to me that they were just meant as a cover for the real ones. I am not attacking your values or your intelligence. I will discontinue this debate when intelligence fails.

If there is no proof that there is a scam for oil, yet, but just a radical theory by some nutjobs, similar to the "Bush = Anti-Christ" mess, than the only thing you can truly believe is that it was a liberation. The facts are that Saddam Hussein has been captured, and the torture rooms are no longer just that; torture rooms. Hospitals are being opened. Electricity is running, along with water. Kids are playing soccer, and eating candy and supplies from U.S. Troops. There is no proof however, that the whole thing is a sham for oil. The only facts regarding oil and Iraq are with the "Oil-for-food" scandal in the U.N.