|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Why was invading Iraq the right strategic move? I'm trying to think... (and deleted a bunch of sentences putting words in your mouth). The biggest reason, aside from the general fact that Saddam is the most murderous ******* since Stalin or the Khymer Rouge, is as an object lesson to countries that continued to support radical islamist groups. The success or recent failures of the group depend on governments that are willing to allow them to train and stage in their countries. Whether or not that Al Qeada actually trained or was supported by Iraq is fairly irrelavent, I don't know why any of the Bush administration even mentioned. There has always been a tie between the Iraqis and Al Qaeda, that's why Clinton bombed the factory in the Sudan, owned by Bin Laden and supplying the Iraqis. While I think the response was ineffective, the intelligence there seem to have been correct. Glad I asked! I thought you were going to mention the strategic importance of oil. Hard to say how many Saddam killed. Excluding wars, which maybe I shouldn't, it was probably fewer than Tutsis killed by Hutus in Rwanda. It seems to be true that Saddam supported Palestinian suicide bombers. That "terra" justification implies we are fighting a proxy war for Israel. Such a thing would not seem advisable on grounds of US national interest, unlike the quest for cheaper oil. Is it worth killing (what is it now, almost 800) American soldiers to protect Israel? Not to mention tax $$s. I saw a webpage claiming Iraq was behind the first WTC (van) bombing, but there was never any follow-up. Another conspiracy-oriented website said Iraq was behind the Oklohoma City bombing although that's even less likely. Bottom line: Iraq supported terror, but probably not against the USA. I do believe that this is all out war between the Islamist and the West. If we in the US and the West are not willing to take direct action against countries that provide support of terrorist groups, then we lose. However it's worth nothing that Islam, especially fundamentalist Islam, is by no means modern. These guys are not exactly going to make scientific discoveries and exceed the west in knowledge of and capability for warfare. It's almost like we're fighting old men. Islam is an imperialistic religion however, so maybe what scares western elites is its strangely strong appeal and rejection of modern global-trade values. Already you see some results, Libya coming in from the cold, the Saudis Government, and perhaps more importantly, religious leaders denoucing suicide bombings and terrorist murders. Even Iran is softening its hardline stance. IMO, if we pull out now, we have just paved the way for the Islamist to operate openly in every Arab nation in the Middle East. I recuse myself from further comment, being partly of Armenian heritage and a Tashnak sympathizer. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Wilko wrote: If there were U.S. advisors at the scene of the slaughter, then you definately should take responsibility. Just standing around doing nothing when people are being tortured or murdered means that you're involved as well. It's not as if these so called advisors aren't a party in a war, even if their designation seems to point in another direction.. Then NATO and the European community is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Serbian Population from Croatia and the atrocities committed by the Croatians? The European community didn't do anything to stop that action, which is directly responsible for the debacle that followed in the Balkans. The EU had European advisors standing around who were supporting the parties doing the ethnic cleansing? Personally I think the EU and NATO were at least partially responsible for the situation in the Balkans for waiting so long before acting, but that's not nearly the same as getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities... Often these so called advisors are in effect leading these groups of foreign troops and if these troops don't work on the U.S. orders (direct or indirect), and the group will lose all (material, financial and direct military) support from the U.S I don't see that in Afganistan. The local Militias had a command structure already in place and were by all non secret accounts pretty independent. Support does not mean control. While the US has leverage with these groups, that does not mean day to day control of the complete infrastructure. Several documentaries prove the opposite: small groups of U.S. special forces and CIA leading big groups of Afgan militia. The militia obviously followed the U.S. orders in each case. One is the documentary about the slaughter inside the fortress, that doubled as prison for hundreds of Taliban troops, the other that I can remember seeing is about a group of afghan militia lead by U.S. special forces raiding suspected opium dealers, suspected Taliban members and looking for weapon caches (sp?). Often in War you are forced to choose Allies that you would have perferred not to deal with in Peace. Stalin in WWII (or the French :^)) for example. And that is what the current situation is, whether you want to recognize that or not, a War. Even the best of the local Middle Eastern governments are despotic and oppressive, so what real choices are available? Although I agree that sometimes there is a need to ally with rather unlikely parties, one should try to look at the future consequences. The U.S. support of the Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan has direct negative effects on the U.S. troops there now. Allying yourself with nations that are having shaky governments doing all kinds of despicable things, for the sole reason of invading another sovereign nation where despicable acts are being carried out, but where you don't have any business, is plain wrong twice. In reality, the Terrorist have little protection under either international law or the Geneva Convention. While the Taliban would fall under the protection of the Convention, there is nothing in it that would prevent you from executing members of Al Quada whenever you captured one. So what are all of those Taliban *and* civilian prisoners in Guantanamo doing there, being tortured, not being allowed legal aid, not being given a reason for being held there? If the U.S. handles prisoners like that, then what reason does the U.S. have to point a finger at others who abuse prisoners? What makes the U.S. occupation forces any better than Saddam? How do you know that these people are innocent? I think that is an assumption that is a stretch in a combat zone. So far the proof of guilt has to be proven by the people holding them. As has been said time and again now, most of the people that were held in that Iraqi prison so far have been allowed to go free because they didn't have any reason to keep them there. That means that those people were innocent, but they were tortured anyway... If you've seen the methods that are being used by U.S. troops to extract people for interrogation, it should come as no surprise that many if not most of the people that are being put in prison are innocent. The U.S. government has been using double standards and strong arm tactics for quite some time now, but I'm surprised that it takes so long for the limited international support for this behaviour to fall apa Yet you didn't seem to mind when NATO intervened in the Balkans without UN support and the oppositions of most of Slavic Europe. If you remember my stance with regard to Kosovo, I wasn't for that action at all. I also think that NATO and the UN shouldn't have intervened as haphazardly as it did in the other countries in the balkans. Personally, my opinion of it is that Continental Europe would like to sit back and let the US and the Brits do all the dirty work and except the benefits of that effort, while point at how aweful our behavior is while do it. I would prefer to see the U.S. be completely disarmed, because most of the wars that were started by those that country in the last couple of decades have had little or no positive effects. In the other scnerio's where advisors, money and/or weapons have been sent, it usually only helped to further escalate a situation or cause serious backlashes to the U.S. and the rest of the world as a result. The U.S. is not the world's police force, no matter how much it seem to like to think that it has that role sometimes. It's maybe the world's vigilante, with a very skewed look at who does something wrong and who doesn't. The double standards by which the U.S. operates and the gross neglect of international law and conventions makes the U.S. one of the biggest hindrances to world peace. If there was a real world's police force, it should round up the U.S. administration and put them before the international court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and ignoring international law and conventions. Alas, we don't have such an organization. The U.N. was ignored and abused by the U.S. and other countries, and I don't see another organization with enough power come to life anytime soon. -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
|
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Larry Cable wrote:
Wilko The EU had European advisors standing around who were supporting the parties doing the ethnic cleansing? As a matter of fact, yes, at least in the case of Croatia, the UN and NATO did have observers in the area and allowed the explusion of the Serbian population. That's stretching wording beyond their breaking point Larry: there's a huge difference between advisors who lead and fight and observers who observe. Personally I think the EU and NATO were at least partially responsible for the situation in the Balkans for waiting so long before acting, but that's not nearly the same as getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities... NATO was not directly involved? Didn't NATO bomb the Serbians in both Bosnia,Yugoslavia and Kosovo? That's pretty direct involvement. Or are you saying that the atrocities were only committed by the Serbian militias and the rest behaved in a civil manner? Read what I wrote Larry: I said "getting directly involved in the conflict with so called advisors supporting one of the parties carrying out atrocities..." Taking a direct stance by sending in troops (or by patrolling the air space) is not the same as sending in "advisors". Still, I think NATO and the UN did too little at first and too much later on (Kosovo). But that was not the point here. U.S. support of the Mudjahedeen in Afghanistan has direct negative effects on the U.S. troops there now. We are actually back to supporting groups that we supported during the Soviet occupation. The Taliban was the late comers and really didn't take much part ing the actual combat during that time. You conveniently forget to mention that many of the Taliban were just locals who had their first fighting experiences with the Mudjahedeen and other fighters before joining the Taliban forces well over a decade later. Most of the U.S. support during the Soviet occupation came in through the south of Afghanistan, that's exactly where the Taliban had its origins. The Mudjahedeen in the north couldn't expect all of that to reach them if they didn't ally with the ones in the south. So what are all of those Taliban *and* civilian prisoners in Guantanamo doing there, being tortured, not being allowed legal aid, not being given a reason for being held there? You aren't keeping up with things. Taliban members were extended the protection of the Geneva Convention shortly after it became a issue. Some have even been released back to Afganistan. The "Civilian" prisoners are a differenct matter. So it's okay that those people were held there like that untill it became an issue? For a country that repeatedly knocks itself on the chest for being about freedom and equal rights, it's a bit bizar to see that it measures with two measurements. Either the U.S. stands for justice and fair treatment of everyone, or it's just as bad as the terrorists because it doesn't treat others with the standards it expects to be treated by itself. Which one is it? -- Wilko van den Bergh Wilkoa t)dse(d o tnl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Thu, 13 May 2004 13:30:16 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: Well, it's not quite that simple. I agree that the restrictions on what passengers can carry have gone overboard, but it's important to make sure that they don't carry anything that could be used to damage the aircraft catestrophically. Firearms definitely fall into that category. I hope you're not referring catastrophic decompression being caused by things a passenger might bring on board, like a gun or other implement. http://kwc.org/blog/archives/000929.html http://www.nfa.ca/journalist/skymarshal.html It just doesn't happen. I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention. Years ago, I carried ice axes on a plane once, but I wouldn't try to do that again. I can see security inspection concerns, but aside from that, why not? It simply wouldn't be worth the hassle. You say "It's not quite that simple." Uh, yes it is. As I've shown above, that's incorrect. That's a completely unfair characterization. The warning system has a purpose, which is to make the public aware of possible threats and to enlist their aid in watching for problems. You left out that the public should be checking it's shopping lists. Bush has told us that shopping is a very important thing to do. When they raise the "terror alert" what is the message that the administration tells us? Go shopping, but be more alert when you do. Or continue to go to public (but not events where criticism might be aired) events, but to be "more alert." Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not? Rather than making sweeping criticisms motivated by your disdain for the administration, why don't you propose some better ideas? "Effective stuff" is not exactly specific or helpful, is it? I did posit some suggestions. One effective thing that could be done is to secure the cockpits. That's already been done. No more commercial aircraft flying into buildings as was done at the WTC and the Pentagon. Quit telling us that "two oceans" used to "protect" us. What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone. I suppose that "protection" is why the current administration was hell bent on building a missile defense (What was Dr Rice going to speak about on 9/11?). I notice the administration isn't yelling quite so loud about that anymore. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways. It's time to take a deep breath and consider things calmly. Yes, a tragedy occurred on 9/11, but we can eliminate that possibility entirely, something the current administration with its Homeland stuff and the increased "security" around airports has failed to do. Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced. In spite of all the Justice Department's "efforts," not a single terrorist regarding 9/11 has been charged by the US. So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role? Why is it that the current administration wants more and more money for the Defense Department, yet denies funds for local first responders? I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one aspect and not the entire picture. Do you think that has anything to do with why the New York Fire Department personnel will no longer pose with Bush? Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that, I truly feel sorry for you. Americans are willing and capable of doing more than just being frightened. Americans can understand fairly complex ideas that go beyond "them evil, us good," even if the Bush crew can't. What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration, hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
Galen Hekhuis wrote: On Fri, 14 May 2004 12:16:52 GMT, Brian Nystrom wrote: That's not the story that's coming out of the hearings (though it is the opinion of some individuals). There is no report from any congressional committee that I am aware of, your perception that "that's not the story that's coming out of the hearings" is simply your perception, nothing more. It is no more the consensus of any hearing than the "opinion of some individuals." I watch some of the hearings too (on C-Span) and get a radically different picture. The blame is going well up the chain of command and it's looking entirely likely that at least one general and one colonel will be court martialed, plus their subordinates in the chain of command. I can see 8 individuals, none of which are female, in one picture. There have been at least 3 females charged, shown in other pictures. That's eleven I can count RIGHT NOW. So what's your point? They're finding out who's culpable and charging them. That's how the justice system works and it IS obviously working. With your "6 or 7" bad apples and the general and the colonel that's only 9 at the most. Excuse me? I don't recall ever saying that there were a specifically limited number of people involved. Again, the investigation is finding the culprits and bringing them to justice. What the hell do you want? And the general and colonel don't appear in ANY photograph that I'm aware of. So what does that have to do with anything? The "handful" you refer to looks like it's going to have to be an awfully big hand involved. I said there were a handful of people (relatively speaking) who perpetrated the acts. That certainly doesn't mean that they're the only guilty parties. While it appears that there were only a handful of people who actually perpetrated the offenses, the web of culpability is definitely going to extend much further. If military investigators are at all like you I'm pretty certain that some (many) of those responsible will never be looked at. Exactly what do you know about me? For that matter, what do you know about military investigations? Just to make it clear to you, eleven is greater than the sum of your "bad apples" and those you have indicated in the chain of command. So what? Where did I indicate that I thought that they were the only ones involved? What I said is that the investigations were ongoing and I expected more people to be charged. My friend, either you are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster... No, you are distorting what I've said and reading what you want into my statements. Your inferences have NO bearing in fact. You're also acting as if you know some "ultimate truth" that none of the rest of us are privy to. All you actually have is suspicion and cynicism, neither of which are legal grounds for charging anyone with a crime. You're trying to make an ongoing investigation that's apparently doing its job quite well look like some kind of sham. The justice system is working as it's supposed to and people are being charged as evidence against them is found. You're crying and complaining about the investigation before the outcome is even known! Get a grip, will ya? Let the investigation run its course, then we'll see if justice is served. Again, based on your other posts in this thread, this is all "classic Galen". To wit: - Complain if nothing is done. - Complain if something is done. - Complain about how it's done. - Complain that things haven't been done when they already have been. - Complain about the outcome before it's even known. In other words, complain, complain, complain, complain, complain, regardless if there is justification or if you have any better ideas, simply because you don't like the people in control. All of this stems from your hatred of the Bush administration and your zeal to discredit them in any way possible. These irrational statements and arguments show the depth of your desperation and make you look ridiculous. You really need to get your emotions under control and try to look at the situation dispassionately. In the real world, you simply can't have it all ways at once. |
OT and contentious: Torture photos from Iraq
On Mon, 17 May 2004 13:23:59 GMT, Brian Nystrom
wrote: I realize that, and no, that's not what I was referring to. Planes are full of electrical, electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems that could be catastrophically damaged with a firearm. It certainly wouldn't be difficult for someone to obtain basic diagrams of where such systems are located within a plane, if damaging one of them was their intention. I would say that the motive of attacking a plane would be either to gain control of it or to use it as a hostage taking opportunity, something which disabling it would be rather counter-productive. The attempted hijacking would be of no value whatsoever, especially if the cockpit were secure and it was known that an aircraft would be shot down if it deviated from it's scheduled route. You could post diagrams of electronic, hydraulic and fuel systems for all the difference it would make then. The most a terrorist gang could do is crash the airplane, presumably causing the death of those on board, but at least you would eliminate, I mean totally eliminate, the possibility that terrorists could ever commandeer an aircraft and fly it into a building again. As I've shown above, that's incorrect. You've shown that aircraft are rather fragile things, relatively, but you have not shown at all how a terrorist (or terrorists) could succeed in ever flying a plane into a building (or anything else) if some rather simple measures were taken. Now you're just being plain silly and once again mischaracterizing the nature of the statements made by the administration. Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not? Remember those little "CD" (for Civil Defense) markings that used to be on radios? Remember the "duck and cover" drills? I can remember "Fallout Shelter" being stenciled on various caves. (Caves are very, very poor places to escape radiation, however the feds looked into it several years ago and at the time thought they would be dandy places to safely stash people.) Those are only a few. Can you name any comparable measures this administration has taken with the public in regards to the threat of terrorism? Being alert, buying duct tape and stuff or otherwise encouraging folks to go shopping, etc. isn't exactly similar. That's already been done. Securing the cockpits? The most I've been made aware of is to lock doors and reinforce them. I believe crews and others have been instructed on how best to impede the progress of those who might try to gain access to the cockpit, but cockpits are hardly "secure." When the current "security" measures are tested, they fail miserably time and time again, even when the FAA does the testing. What are you talking about. I don't see this being emphasized by anyone. Bush and others have remarked that among the other things we realized from 9/11 is that the oceans don't protect us any longer. That has been one of his rationales for pre-emptive action. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that events have caused them to re-examine their priorities? What a concept! It amazes me that you take what should be considered as positive initiative and try to turn it into criticism. If they didn't respond, you be yelling "WHY NOT?" at the top of your lungs, wouldn't you? So now when they do respond, you attack them for that, too? Sorry Galen, but you can't have it both ways. I'm not trying to have it both ways. I thought a missile shield idea was folly from the get-go. It is indeed unfortunate that the events of 9/11 had to happen to get the administration to realize that building some kind of missile umbrella wasn't exactly a top priority. Excuse me? Have there been ANY other instances of planes being flown into buildings in the US since 9/11? Have there been any other aircraft related terrorist attacks? Granted, airline security is not perfect, but the threat of such attacks has obviously been dramatically reduced. The incidence is down, not the threat. And, yes, shortly after 9/11 some guy flew a plane into a building in Tampa. It reminds me of the story of a drunk on the corner snapping his fingers to keep the tigers away. His "proof" of the efficacy of his snapping his fingers is the seemingly incontrovertible evidence that you don't see any tigers around. So what's your point? Could it perhaps be due to the fact that they all died in the attacks? Should we expend resources to prosecute dead people? Obviously not. There have been plenty of arrests of related conspirators in other countries. Do you not think that we had a hand in those, at least in a collaborative/supportive role? No, everyone involved in the plot did not die. Only those who actually were on the aircraft. I do not believe that only the 19 who died were involved. I just find it slightly incredible that in this length of time the government has prosecuted absolutely NO ONE. Not even anyone related. In fact, I think only a single person has been charged to date, and even he hasn't had a trial or anything. I guess it comes down to priorities. Do you try to prevent the disease or prepare to treat the symptoms if it strikes? Obviously, we need both capabilities and the trick is to strike the right balance. Perhaps we're not there yet, but the problem is never as simple as shoveling money in one direction or another. It's also not terribly useful to focus on one aspect and not the entire picture. If the treatment is wrong it doesn't matter what balance is struck. If "terrorism" is a disease, this administration is hardly in the forefront of prevention, let alone in preparation for an event in the future. Of course not. If you're really so cynical that you would believe that, I truly feel sorry for you. I only know that the NYFD will not appear with Bush anymore. I suspect it has to do with their treatment by the administration after Bush made his comment with the bullhorn. After that well-televised event, I, and I don't think I'm alone, imagined the New York firefighters would be solidly behind Bush. They aren't. What in the world are you babbling about? You really seem hell-bent on creating the illusion of a problem where none exists. This so typical of Bush-bashers. Are we just supposed to accept that exaggeration, hyperbole and downright silliness are somehow justified in desperate attempts to criticize the administration's policies without offering any viable alternative solutions? If you have better ideas, let's hear 'em. I have presented specific ideas time and time again. I have volunteered with the local police department and the US Coast Guard (I don't live too far from the Gulf Coast in Florida). I get much farther with locals than the current administration. If you don't, then quit yer bitchin'. You'd do well to try to maintain some perspective and emotional control. We all know that you hate the Bush administration, but like it or not, not everything they do is wrong. Criticism without justification only weakens your arguments. I'm not saying that everything the administration and Bush do is wrong. In this case, however, I think it is more "window dressing" than actually doing something. Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA We are the CroMagnon of the future |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com