Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around...
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206 Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that. And guess what? This story will NEVER make the media outlets unless it snowballs, because they are not news. Don't feign yourselves into thinking they are.
aclu.com A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Yeah...SUGGESTS. Doesn't say yes or no, and plus, even if it was true...so what? We torture them to get answers. That saves American lives in the long run if we can get important information out of them.
P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A M-O-R-O-N You need help, your a sad sad shadow of a child, you give our President no respect, you give no one but people who share your hippie views with respect, you do nothing but spread propaganda, which you can not possible belive, if you do i feel sad for you and even worse for your parents (who i think should be beat with a rubber hose and electric lines for teaching you such loads of crap and not beating your ass enough when you were little). How could you possible belive such crap that our president authorized that?? Your simply full of it dude, sad sad sad. And he's PRESIDENT BUSH not "PRESIDENT" BUSH, , he won office, the people spoke, give him the title he rightfuly won.
Well, how about you READ the document and decide for yourself? Oh, and the Geneva Convention CLEARLY outlines that we will not torture people and the Constitution CLEARLY outlines that all signed treaties are the law of the land. Americans are not somehow more "godly" or more deserving to live than non-Americans. We're all people. Get it through your conservative skull. EDIT: cowmisfit, are you going to read the article or just be an idiot?
You people get our soilders killed EVERYDAY, people like you who post this garbage false propaganda. The terrorist and just normal people see this crap and they belive it , but they have an excuse, there not educated, YOU however are a fully educated American (even though you hate america) YOu have no excuse to beleive this shit except for the fact your parents are morons, which has to be the place you get your FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR left views from. THese people who besides the fact wouldn't think of killing one of our men, see this crap and belive it they go out and get one of our boys killed (which im sure you dont' care anything about as long as we arn't invading on anyones freedoms and bush gets blamed for it). YOU feed the fires of hate, you feed the fire that kills our boys in Iraq and Afganistan and around the world everyday with your sympothetic feelings torward the terrrorist. Get out of my country, im sure france or canada will take you.
SuperFlyingEngi Oh, and the Geneva Convention CLEARLY outlines that we will not torture people and the Constitution CLEARLY outlines that all signed treaties are the law of the land. Americans are not somehow more "godly" or more deserving to live than non-Americans. We're all people. Get it through your conservative skull. Listen to me, mindless drone. It's people like you who spread this shit that gets to the general public. The general public sees it, and they don't like it. In return, they complain to their elected officials that they don't like the war. The officials, afraid to lose the office, vote against supporting our troops. This weakens our troops, and in return, KILLS MORE OF OUR MEN BECAUSE THEY ARE LESS EQUIPPED. Brilliant strategy you got there, liberals. Those people aren't POWs. Those people are terrorists attacking our men. They know they can't win, but because their fucked-up loyalties cause them to desire to kill as many of our men as possible. They don't care about dying. In fact, they WANT to die for their cause. If we torture a few to get the knowledge we need to save more of our men, then LET IT HAPPEN. Yes, they are human, but in order to save more of our men AND more of THEM, we need to get answers NOW.
j_ball430 If we torture a few to get the knowledge we need to save more of our men, then LET IT HAPPEN. Yes, they are human, but in order to save more of our men AND more of THEM, we need to get answers NOW. Read taht part closely superflying, read it very closely and think on it before you post. You probebly still won't understand it, but its worth a shot. I'd love to see video of you telling one of the men who's lives might have been saved or loss by us tourchering prisionors or us not doing so because of people like you.
SFE I don't like picking sides but i am going to have to go with "them" this time, Shut up. I have relatives over in the middle east that i care about and then the people trying to kill them i would much rather have the retards with no education die then them, interrogation is fine by me, you need to relize as many stupid decisions Bush makes he makes some good ones, just let it go.
You actually read the ACLU web site... YOU ARE A LOSER. Besides if it is true who the hell cares. Beating the shit outta terrorists for information. Sounds pretty fair to me.
Through out history we have broke the "rules" of civilized warfare, we've done it for right and wrong reasons, in vietnam we raped woman for no reason, that was one of the wrong things we've done, we also shot children and woman in vietnam, that was one of the morally objectable things that we were forced to do to save our soilders lives and get info to save our soilders lives, its something that no one wants to do but it has to be done. Kill or be killed, kill or be killed. Personlly, would i WANT to kill an innocent person, no, would i want to even kill anyone nope, but if it saves the lives of my comrads and protects my freedom and nation, then damn't im gonna kill that son bitch dead.
Cowmisfit: I suppose you chose to go with the latter. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such a pathetic case, but I don't have much to do right now. First, my parents. Both got above a 1400 on their SATs, and my dad regularly works side by side with the top scientific brains in the physics textbook industry as a chief development editor. [Clue for the clueless: Important role.] You also can't declare your pretend lala belief that my parents are below the average intelligence level to rest within the level of "fact." Now, why do I hate America? Because I don't blindly follow our "leaders" like you do? No, that's why I love America. Again, I reiterate: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -Thomas Jefferson Now, I'm betting you no Arab fundamentalist fighters are reading Renegade Forums to listen to bitches like you. I care for our soldiers. Don't say I don't. I don't want them in this war. I want every one of them out of the Middle East right now. I never wanted any of them to be there. I never did, wanted, would, want or ever will want ANY of our soldiers to be hurt. j-balls430: First topic: One of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The vast majority of the populace probably never once wrote a complaint to their officials, because they just don't care that much. And those in positions of public office aren't going to vote against any more money for our troops, they're going to vote against our troops being in active combat if the populace demands it. If the citizens of the United States believe our soldiers are in an unjust war, then they can bring them out of the unjust war. Although, since a big chunk of voters on election day were voting on "moral values," your group obviously doesn't care. Terrorists and soldiers aren't the same thing. And that still doesn't justify torture. Are you saying it does? You're wrong. Read the article. Nope, still wrong. The United States does not torture anyone. Well, until "President" Bush, we didn't. Now, both of you have one last chance to get back on the topic of this article instead of attacking me ad hominem. If you're not going to address the article and instead try and throw your drivle at me, I quite frankly don't give a damn,
I'm sorry, but you have no grasp on reality.
DarkDemin You actually read the ACLU web site... YOU ARE A LOSER. Besides if it is true who the hell cares. Beating the shit outta terrorists for information. Sounds pretty fair to me. No, I got this tidbit from a blog site independent of the ACLU. MilkyLep SFE I don't like picking sides but i am going to have to go with "them" this time, Shut up. I have relatives over in the middle east that i care about and then the people trying to kill them i would much rather have the retards with no education die then them, interrogation is fine by me, you need to relize as many stupid decisions Bush makes he makes some good ones, just let it go. Oh, so we should go to their land and then kill them before we can kill us because in your eyes it's the best thing to do? How quaint. Also, this article is implying that Bush lied about whether or not he knew about torture in the Middle East. If we're going to be doing to them what Saddam did to them, shouldn't we at least know about it? Also, wasn't lying why Clinton was impeached and the main reason most of you dislike him? Or was that somehow different because otherwise you would all be caught in hypocrisy?
Re: As if we could pretend this wouldn't come around...
SuperFlyingFuck's Signature What is wrong with me?
Quote: I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such a pathetic case, but I don't have much to do right now. First, my parents. Both got above a 1400 on their SATs, and my dad regularly works side by side with the top scientific brains in the physics textbook industry as a chief development editor. [Clue for the clueless: Important role.] You also can't declare your pretend lala belief that my parents are below the average intelligence level to rest within the level of "fact." Wow, that means umm nothing?? I dont' give a shit how high of a score they got on there SAT's, it means squat. They have no REAL LIFE skills, they have no COMMON SENSE, things you can't learn from a text book. SO my statement stands, your parents are morons and shouldn't be rasing a child if they are going to instill beleifs of hate for ones country and harborning terrorist into them. Quote: Now, I'm betting you no Arab fundamentalist fighters are reading Renegade Forums to listen to bitches like you. Its not the point if there reading HERE, there reading stuff that people in higher people put out on the media waves, teh same crap you support and post here, you support it you support killing our troops as far as im concerned. [quote]I care for our soldiers. Don't say I don't.[quote] You don't care about them or you wouldn't be posting crap like this to get them killed. Quote: I don't want them in this war. I want every one of them out of the Middle East right now. I never wanted any of them to be there. I never did, wanted, would, want or ever will want ANY of our soldiers to be hurt. If you cared anything about america or its men in arms, you wouldn't have made that statement right there, they are PROTECTING OUR NATION, they don't WANT to be there, but most of them do WANT to be there because thats there job and they want to protect our nation and YOU (well not you, but you as in all of us) Thats the biggest hippie statement i've seen in ages, I DON"T WANT ANY OF THEM IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!! , as i've said before, go tell one of the 9/11 victums family you don't think we should be killing those sons a bitchs. O wait, you don't give a shit about them either, you would rather protect the rights of these terrrorist bastards than your own american right to defend freedom. You don't want any soilders hurt?? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ITS CALLED WAR YOU MORON!! PEOPLE DIE AND GET HURT IN WAR, YOU WANNA CURL UP IN A BALL AND PRAY TO JESUS OR A TREE OR SOMETHING YOU HIPPIE SCUM BAG??? OGM LK I R GIVE UP I R DON"T WANNA HURT YOU EVEN THO YOUR GONNA KILL MY FREINDS AND FAMILY!!, your a pathetic excuse for an american.
MilkyLep, I have to agree with SFE here, but ONLY because it has to deal with a universal truth. Impeachment is to be formally accused. Clinton WAS impeached.
MilkyLep: Why? If you can't explain it then you obviously aren't being entirely reasonable in stating it. [P.S. cowmisfit and j-balls430 have both lost their chances to talk to me because they are too stupid to even think of staying on topic. Too bad.]
SuperFlyingEngi MilkyLep: Why? If you can't explain it then you obviously aren't being entirely reasonable in stating it. [P.S. cowmisfit and j-balls430 have both lost their chances to talk to me because they are too stupid to even think of staying on topic. Too bad.] cowmisfit and j-ball SCORE: 1 Superflyinghomo SCORE: 0
SuperFlyingEngi [P.S. cowmisfit and j-balls430 have both lost their chances to talk to me because they are too stupid to even think of staying on topic. Too bad.] I...CAN'T....STOP....LAUGHING! You think it's an actual PRIVELAGE to talk to you? ROFL! You honestly think you're important enough to give out people "chances" to talk to you? WOW! I must quote my one of my previous posts: myself I'm sorry, but you have no grasp on reality.
Because i am tired and i have nothing better to do and you make these type of topics whenever you see an article bashing the prez which in my opinion make you an attetion whore. Sleepy time.
Just one more thing: Well, you obviously wanted to come and talk to me, as demonstrated by your coming and talking to me. But now, as warned, I must say no more. Also, that would be "I wrote". EDIT: MilkyLep Because i am tired and i have nothing better to do and you make these type of topics whenever you see an article bashing the prez which in my opinion make you an attetion whore. Discourse irritates you? This isn't your kind of forum. Icedog, read this ACLU article. Then read the documents if you want to. Then think for yourself. Reading and then thinking is the recipe for success. Now, time to get back on topic. Thoughts on this article? Come on, I know they're there.
SuperFlyingEngi Just one more thing: Well, you obviously wanted to come and talk to me, as demonstrated by your coming and talking to me. But now, as warned, I must say no more. Also, that would be "I wrote". DIdn't want to talk to you, just didn't want everyone seeing your one sided propaganda and being blinded by it with out seeing the truth.
SuperFlyingEngi I must say no more. Good for you. Maybe now you'll shut your fucking mouth. EDIT: I already gave you my response. I don't give a fuck. It's justified, no matter how much your twisted mind thinks it's not.
SuperFlyingEngi Icedog, read this ACLU article. Then read the documents if you want to. Then think for yourself. Reading and then thinking is the recipe for success. Reading that article has nothing to do with what situation you put yourself in. Reading your replies already shows me how much of a stupid fuck you are.
What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates? And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity.
If this can be backed up by another (preferrably MORE credible) source, I'll give it some serious thought. However, the UCLA saying something like this is perhaps as believable as speaking the word "christmas" being a capital offence.
SuperFlyingEngi What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates? And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity. I've doubted Bush's abilities enough times, and Clinton's too. Also, stop being such a fucking idiot, and RESPECT THE MAN FOR ONCE. He's the highest elected official in the nation. Show some fucking respect. Whether or not you respect him as a person, respect him as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Yes, that country that you live in.
warranto: Well, this is only the tip of a potential iceberg. Right now the ACLU has a big stack of documents [availible for review at the bottom of that article] that they presented to a judge to see whether or not an executive order has to be released and whether or not it must be determined if there was one. Don't be mistaken, this story hasn't resolved yet, but there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest what is about to come.
The saying comes to mind SFE... "Childern should be seen and not heard." Really you acctually believe an orginization that supports communism and the overthrowing of the American Governmental system. These people that hate Christians and think they are doing the world a favor by denying all Christian beliefs. They have sick ideologies, they believe that we shouldn't have done anything about Sadam killing and TORTURING his own people. Have you not noticed the kidnapings of people in Iraq were they are tortured and beheaded. Terrorists deserve no mercy. I couldn't care less if they beat them to death, as far as I am concerned the second they try to kill an American is the second they forfiet their right to life.
j_ball430 I've doubted Bush's abilities enough times, and Clinton's too. Also, stop being such a fucking idiot, and RESPECT THE MAN FOR ONCE. He's the highest elected official in the nation. Show some fucking respect. Whether or not you respect him as a person, respect him as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Yes, that country that you live in. But you forgot, he doesn't live in America, he was transferred to Canada by MoveThemOn.org.
icedog90 But you forgot, he doesn't live in America, he was transferred to Canada by MoveThemOn.org. No, that's just one of his wet dreams.
Super: Like I said, someone who suggests that saying "Merry Christmas" is a capital offence is not a credible source, so (no insult towards you intended) you'll need to provide something else to substantiate it before I comment. Be that a court order, or another news source (preferrably not FOX or CNN, because that will start a whole new "debate" about credibility ).
I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print. Thanks for your concern. The ACLU's objective is to assure that the Bill of Rights is upheld, not install a new economic system into the United States. Is this about those court cases where government offices are putting on Christmas displays? Because that and banning Christianity aren't exactly the same thing, you know. DarkDemin, I ask you, what good is it if we go into a country claiming to end the regime of a torturer, and then start torturing people while saying we're not? How much better are we than Saddam then? Not all Arabs are terrorists, you know. And here we go again with your Republican "Americans are more important than other races..." talk. I can't stand it. We invaded their country, and dropped so many bombs more or less all of them know someone personal that we have killed. That's why they hate us and our soldiers and our people, not because of our "freedoms" or any stupid reason like that. EDIT: warranto: No offense taken. I understand that this news hasn't resolved itself yet, so we must wait and see. However, this crowd didn't hold the same restraint in declaring it vile and wrong. And with that, I must retire for the night. I'll be back on sometime tomorrow.
If he gets that from FOX, I'll believe him.
Of course, the ACLU is there to make sure Religion has no place in the Government, and on tv, and in the work place, and in schools, and any place the public eye is. Oh wait, did I say Religion? I meant only Christianity. Any other religion would be discrimination, and thats protected. But enough about the ACLU's views as related to religion, that can be kept for another topic if it wishes to be discussed.
SuperFlyingEngi I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print. Use of a thesaurus doesn't really make you superior.
SuperFlyingEngi http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206 Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that. Did you read the article, or just the blog that pointed it out? Here's what it said about Bush. aclu The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." Oh my God, the horror. Lack of sleep, unconfortable seating, listening to barking dogs, and wearing hoods. That's got to be the worst "torture" ever heard of in history. That's right up there with being beaten, raped, maimed and/or killed. The article also keeps claiming "cover up", yet they have all these documents they got from a freedom of information lawsuit that spells all this out. Wow, that's a tremendous cover up there. Keeping records of all the incidents and releasing them to the ACLU has got to be the most insidious plot ever conceived to hide the truth from the American people. If they were really covering this up, then all the documents would have 'disappeared' before anyone at the ACLU could have got a hold of them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the counter-position to this is that the relevent documents taht condem it, simply state "torture", not specifying what types. (yes, I'm being broad, but at the moment I'm too tired to remember the names of the documents...)
SuperFlyingEngi Oh, and the Geneva Convention CLEARLY outlines that we will not torture people and the Constitution CLEARLY outlines that all signed treaties are the law of the land. As soon as the terrorists start abiding by the Geneva conventions then We should start and not a moment beforehand. SuperFlyingEngi You also can't declare your pretend lala belief that my parents are below the average intelligence level to rest within the level of "fact." Are you a fucking robot? You dont base all actions based solely on "Fact". Moral objection has to come into play SOMEWHERE DOESNT IT???? Heres how i think you see things: War == Violence Voilence == Bad Dont you ever see a fucking GRAY AREA???? SuperFlyingEngi "moral values," The fact that you put quotes around moral values doesnt surprise me. SuperFlyingEngi Also, wasn't lying why Clinton was impeached SuperFlyingEngi, your constant obsession with trying to make our President (notice the lack of qoutes) look like he is insufficient to run this country is both disturbing and absurd. The fact that I share the same country with you makes the taste of vomit form in my mouth. Whats more is your perversion of the statements that our founding fathers said I myself deem unpatriotic. I have news for you, times change and dissent is the opposite of patriotism. Have some pride in your country. You are the worst American I have ever seen.
Scamp Use of a thesaurus doesn't really make you superior. When did a thesaurus come into play? Neosaber Oh my God, the horror. Lack of sleep, unconfortable seating, listening to barking dogs, and wearing hoods. That's got to be the worst "torture" ever heard of in history. That's right up there with being beaten, raped, maimed and/or killed. The article also keeps claiming "cover up", yet they have all these documents they got from a freedom of information lawsuit that spells all this out. Wow, that's a tremendous cover up there. Keeping records of all the incidents and releasing them to the ACLU has got to be the most insidious plot ever conceived to hide the truth from the American people. If they were really covering this up, then all the documents would have 'disappeared' before anyone at the ACLU could have got a hold of them. "Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them. Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not. I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action? We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there, and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me. Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up. gbull As soon as the terrorists start abiding by the Geneva conventions then We should start and not a moment beforehand. Iraqis = Not Terrorists I can base actions based on something? Cool.... [Re-think that section] gbull The fact that you put quotes around moral values doesnt surprise me. Well, no, it doesn't surprise me either, because that was the reason stated by so many during the exit polls. gbull SuperFlyingEngi, your constant obsession with trying to make our President (notice the lack of qoutes) look like he is insufficient to run this country is both disturbing and absurd. The fact that I share the same country with you makes the taste of vomit form in my mouth. Whats more is your perversion of the statements that our founding fathers said I myself deem unpatriotic. I have news for you, times change and dissent is the opposite of patriotism. Have some pride in your country. You are the worst American I have ever seen. So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves.
You people need to to sort out whether or not those who were tortured were innocent of guilty of anything at all. And no, because American soldiers detained them doesn't mean they are automatically guilty.
j_ball430 It's justified, no matter how much your twisted mind thinks it's not. So... theoretically, if your town flew a plane into my school, I could come there and play music 24/7, have dogs bark at you, shine bright lights in your face and put hoods over your head?
SuperFlyingEngi So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves. You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you? You say that Republicans blindly follow Bush, yet everything you say and believe is nothing but Liberal propaganda spouted from Liberal media distributors. I certainly don't blindly follow Bush. As I said earlier, I've disagreed with him on a lot of subjects, but I see him as a better fit as president than Kerry would have been if he were to have been elected. I guarantee you that I have more morals than you do. Especially since I come from a religious perspective. I don't like the torture and killings of humans, but it's war. War has completely different rules. You have to do what you have to do in order to save lives and to better lives of people. I know for a fact that if God didn't approve of war, He wouldn't have let David slay Goliath, and then make him the greatest king of Israel. You can't just look at these situations from one perspective. You have have to look at all of them and then morally choose what's right, and not choose based on your bias. --- Yes. I wouldn't like it one bit, but in order to get to those behind the horrible act, then it'd all be worth it. I have enough common sense to know that I sure as hell don't want someone like that in my town. I wouldn't be protecting them, so what do I have to fear?
SuperFlyingEngi "Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them. Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not. I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action? We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there, and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me. Sleep deprivation, uncomfortable seating, and wearing hoods so you can't see for a while don't count as torture to me. I don't know what's up with the dogs, which is what I was trying to point out. The article just claims "use of dogs" not that they attack people. I've read that dogs are used to scare people, without attacking, so without evidence to the contrary I'm going to consider that to be the case here. I don't consider barking dogs to be torture. A little scary maybe, but not torture. What happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse and torture. People being beaten and by some reports killed certainly qualifies as such. The people who did it are being punished. Those investigations and court martials were being carried out months before the story even "broke". The military even announced it, but since there weren't any pictures of the torture, no one in the media really listened. However, I don't see anything in this executive order Bush signed that authorized what happened there. Your initial post said Bush authorized torture, but the evidence you've cited says otherwise to me. SuperFlyingEngi Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up. If there was a real cover up, documents would have been destroyed or never made to begin with. Keeping things secret for a time doesn't constitute a cover up. If I write myself a note and don't give it to anyone, I'm not covering it up. If I email a friend and don't announce the contents of the email to the world, I'm not covering things up. A lot of what the government does isn't released for years so current important information doesn't end up in the wrong hands. These documents weren't being "covered up" if they could get into the hands of the ACLU. They were probably just being shelved until the information in them was out of date.
War just generates war, in a never ending cycle of hate. It's a circle, and with a circle, just can run around it until you end up at the beginning. War will never be stopped. We invest in it, and we need it. We started this never ending circle, and the only way to stop it is to have something big stand in the way. But there can never be something big. War must go on. Today's leaders aren't getting any nicer, or any less corrupt. They sink lower and lower into what they call "defence". This "defence" means becoming "offensive" towards other countries. It's the primal instinct of kill or be killed. Scientists say humans need to die off sometime soon, that some big epidimic will kill off a large number of humans. But humans are ending themselves. We can't continue to live the way we do. We're dying slowly. We are fighting amongst ouselves, like primitive creatures. We fight disease and things we should be fighting but to no avail, because goverment budgets are more set to fighting other human beings. People. But we turn a blind eye. We don't see this part. Most people just think "they hurt us, we hurt them back". It won't end. It's what we're taught. War is bad, there's no way to put it. But we aren't defending ourselves anymore. We're attacking others that we feel threaten us. Primitive instinct. It's what drives war. Nothing more.
OK, SFE says that the US has never tortured anyone before... and yet John Kerry testified to the Senate that we did in Vietnam... make up your mind you propagandist moron. George Bush is the President, not the "President" whether you like it or not. Not even your pathetic party contest the results of the election. You are just showing your stupidity and ignorance when you do that. I think YOU have lost your privilege of talking to ME because you are completely unable to believe anything unless it's written by a left-wing nutjob.
SuperFlyingEngi So, I should blindly follow our leaders? No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves. SFE, they are questioning people with known terrorist ties not just iraqis, music is harmless if you are strong of will, Along with sleep deprevation. I myself THIS MONTH went 4 days with NO sleep, now i would bet that the people in question didnt even have to go that long. You go a little loopy after four days, nothing major. And I do not suggest blindly following our leaders but just NOT to question them ALL the time, when you do, nothing gets done. And SuperFlyingEngi, your a bad American because there is nothing patriotic in your views: no pride for America, no appreciation for your freedom, and nothing but whining like a little bitch about every little god damn thing Bush or the Republican party does. Appreciation and Pride for your Country is the Greatest form of Patriotism. Thats just the way it is.
NeoSaber Sleep deprivation, uncomfortable seating, and wearing hoods so you can't see for a while don't count as torture to me. I don't know what's up with the dogs, which is what I was trying to point out. The article just claims "use of dogs" not that they attack people. I've read that dogs are used to scare people, without attacking, so without evidence to the contrary I'm going to consider that to be the case here. I don't consider barking dogs to be torture. A little scary maybe, but not torture. You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently. NeoSaber What happened at Abu Ghraib was abuse and torture. People being beaten and by some reports killed certainly qualifies as such. The people who did it are being punished. Those investigations and court martials were being carried out months before the story even "broke". The military even announced it, but since there weren't any pictures of the torture, no one in the media really listened. However, I don't see anything in this executive order Bush signed that authorized what happened there. Your initial post said Bush authorized torture, but the evidence you've cited says otherwise to me. How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it? That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one. And that's where we are right now. NeoSaber If there was a real cover up, documents would have been destroyed or never made to begin with. Keeping things secret for a time doesn't constitute a cover up. If I write myself a note and don't give it to anyone, I'm not covering it up. If I email a friend and don't announce the contents of the email to the world, I'm not covering things up. A lot of what the government does isn't released for years so current important information doesn't end up in the wrong hands. These documents weren't being "covered up" if they could get into the hands of the ACLU. They were probably just being shelved until the information in them was out of date. These documents weren't intended to come out. They were leaked by federal employees. That's not the same thing as freely distributing them, FYI. Crimson OK, SFE says that the US has never tortured anyone before... and yet John Kerry testified to the Senate that we did in Vietnam... make up your mind you propagandist moron. George Bush is the President, not the "President" whether you like it or not. Not even your pathetic party contest the results of the election. You are just showing your stupidity and ignorance when you do that. I think YOU have lost your privilege of talking to ME because you are completely unable to believe anything unless it's written by a left-wing nutjob. Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it. We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines. But let's save all that for another thread. gbull SFE, they are questioning people with known terrorist ties not just iraqis, music is harmless if you are strong of will, Along with sleep deprevation. I myself THIS MONTH went 4 days with NO sleep, now i would bet that the people in question didnt even have to go that long. You go a little loopy after four days, nothing major. And I do not suggest blindly following our leaders but just NOT to question them ALL the time, when you do, nothing gets done. And SuperFlyingEngi, your a bad American because there is nothing patriotic in your views: no pride for America, no appreciation for your freedom, and nothing but whining like a little bitch about every little god damn thing Bush or the Republican party does. Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture and that Iraqis are just sissies? Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties? You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?! Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I'm gonna go with T.J. before you. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
i have stayed up for 4 days straight several times. Im an insomniac, why do you think i am able to post so often on these forums? cuz i have no life? And yes, they are just sissies, and y do i think they have terrorist ties? BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THE MILITARY TO DETAIN THEM OTHERWISE. And i never said that just because you dont agree with me that your not a patriot, its the fact that you never ever show any amount of pride or appreciation for this country. All you do is complain and that makes you a Whiney little Bitch. Fact is, I can admit to some great things Democrats have done WHEN THEY DO THEM. You for your life would never admit anything good about the Republican party, or conservatives for that matter. The Fact is, u think methods everyone else uses is wrong u fucking hypocrite. The Military gets answers the way they do things, they dont pamper the detained because every moment they spend ATTEMPING to get answers is a moment of time that an American Soldiers life could be lost because we didnt have that information. But then when that soldier dies, you wouldve bitched about that too and said it was Bush's fault for not getting intelligence fast enough. There is no winning with liberals if your not one.
SuperFlyingEngi You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes: SFE Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it. Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway. SFE We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines. Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY. SFE Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture and that Iraqis are just sissies? Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties? You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?! Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I'm gonna go with T.J. before you. Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles. Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes:
Whoa, you need to stop watching FOX news if you believe Iraqis are sissies. Until you can prove that these people were detained because they had reasonable terrorist ties, you can't go around trumpeting that they did. I love this country, you fool. George Bush is just the worst "President" certainly since Hoover. And yes, I do make a point of stating my opinions on something if I believe it to be wrong, because that's what people do in this democracy. Quite frankly, I would be much happier if Nixon weren't a puppet, Reagan hadn't gone senile in office, Bush Sr. hadn't barfed in the lap of the Japanese ambassador, and if Bush Jr. hadn't gotten our soldiers into this war and created an economic situation where the U.S. in a couple years is going to be slaughtered by inflation. Out of the whole bunch, Bush Sr. was probably the best. Oh, and if I may, what is hypocritical about believing the actions of others are incorrect? No, the military is in fact not supposed to subject people to torture, either physical or mental, since we signed the Geneva Convention. The Constitution defines all signed treaties as the Law of the Land, and Geneva is no exception. No, I would not be disgruntled if a soldier died because we did not torture people enough. I would be disgruntled if a soldier died in a war started with lies, lies lies. [Clue for the clueless: Weapons of Mass Destruction] Also, what substantial proof do you have to determine that we are really getting good information out of these people? Finally, cursing doesn't make you seem any smarter.
Crimson No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes: The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him. Crimson Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway. Could you show me the section where the convention says that? Crimson Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY. But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000... And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread. Crimson Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes: It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people. Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there. Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them.
SuperFlyingEngi You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently. Dictionary.com says torture includes excrutiating mental pain. How is sleep deprivation excrutiating? I've been deprived of sleep for a couple days before. It was annoying, not excrutiating. Stress positions? Being hand cuffed to the floor doesn't count as excruciating in my book. Growling dogs? (Note: I've changed from barking to growling based on the news reports on this that I saw yesterday). I've had plenty of dogs bark at me. It can be scary, not excrutiating. Then there's the hood wearing. I can't see (pun intended) how being blindfolded for a while counts as excrutiating. SuperFlyingEngi How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it? That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one. And that's where we are right now. They say in the article they know what's in the executive order. I'll admit, I mis-read that originally. I thought they meant they already had it when they were just saying they know what's in it, despite not having it. That lack of evidence is what they are citing when they say Bush authorized sleep deprivation, stress positions, etc. Citing evidence they didn't have confused me at first into thinking they had the evidence, I should have known better though. It never says they are after the executive order. At the end, the article says: Quote: The ACLU and its allies are scheduled to go to court again this afternoon, where they will seek an order compelling the CIA to turn over records related to an internal investigation into detainee abuse. They don't say they are after the executive order. They want records they claim exist about internal investigations into abuse. SuperFlyingEngi These documents weren't intended to come out. They were leaked by federal employees. That's not the same thing as freely distributing them, FYI. I didn't see anything about them being leaked to the ACLU. I'm just going by the article you posted about. In that article it says the documents came from a lawsuit the ACLU filed: Quote: The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. By the way, you said: SuperFlyingEngi And guess what? This story will NEVER make the media outlets unless it snowballs, because they are not news. Don't feign yourselves into thinking they are. Like I said above, I have seen a few stories on this already. The first story I saw was basically saying what the ACLU said verbatim. The only exception being, the story said "growling dogs" instead of "use of dogs". It was Fox News that ran these stories, I haven't watched the other channels enough to know if they are talking about it. I don't think the story will go much further unless the media gets bored, as there isn't really a story here. Most of what the ACLU said is already known information. I'd even heard of that executive order months ago. I think I saw it being were debated on O'Reilly. Regardless of what some may think about him, he has some of the highest rating of the news channels. If he was talking about it, then people know. If you want to get into big stories the media missed, I know of one where there's video of John Kerry, at a democratic fundraiser, taking money from known terrorists.
SuperFlyingEngi Crimson No, I haven't. I've seen pictures of people being SCARED by dogs. Typical. :rolleyes: The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him. Crimson Well then don't say that we have "NEVER" tortured/abused anyone. :rolleyes: Geneva Convention doesn't even apply to non-uniformed enemies anyway. Could you show me the section where the convention says that? Crimson Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY. But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000... And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread. Crimson Awwwww poor detainees were kept awake. My god, the ramifications will last for YEARS :rolleyes:.... you really lay it on thick, don't you. I should take a magnifiying glass to all Clinton's little wars and usage of military. But Patron Saint Clinton never did ANYTHING wrong except lie to the world about getting his weiner sucked off, right? I mean, someone who is willing to not only cheat on their wife and not even have the balls to confess when he was caught never did anything wrong in his entire life except for that. :rolleyes: It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people. Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there. Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them. You know what? YOU CAN TAKE A FUCKING 10 FOOT POLE AND SHOVE IT ALL THE WAY UP YOUR FUCKING ASS UNTIL IT COMES OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.
EXAMPLE:
Ouch... that has to hurt.
I have told you like 493 times that I don't watch FOX news... I read CNN.com for my news and nothing more. I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... I don't watch FOX... get it yet? If Clinton wasn't doing anything wrong then why were the Republicans all over him?
SuperFlyingLiberalTool, I honestly don't know why you continue to post anything political anymore. You are a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party. You always have been a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party, and you always will be a hypocritical tool of the Democratic Party. Here, let me go through every post you have made thus far in this pathetic excuse for a thread you created so it's made plainly clear to you.... Quote: Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that. And guess what? This story will NEVER make the media outlets unless it snowballs, because they are not news. Don't feign yourselves into thinking they are. Why do you have "President" in quotation marks? Oh, wait, that's right, since Michael Moore told you to believe that the 2000 election wasn't legitimate, that's the honest-to-God... oh, wait, I'm sorry, I forgot I can't say "God" for fear of offending an atheist... honest-to-Clinton (because he's the closest thing to a "god" you Democrats have) truth, and there is no other way it can possibly be. Lord Moore said it, so it must be so. Bush stole the election, and that's just the way it is. Now that Lord Moore and the Infallible Church of the ACLU have told you to believe that Bush authorized "torture" (of which, by the way, you have a very pussified definition, but I'll get to that later), it must be true, and there is no contesting it. Moving on.... Quote: Well, how about you READ the document and decide for yourself? Oh, and the Geneva Convention CLEARLY outlines that we will not torture people and the Constitution CLEARLY outlines that all signed treaties are the law of the land. Americans are not somehow more "godly" or more deserving to live than non-Americans. We're all people. Get it through your conservative skull. You obviously never read the Geneva Convention before, or you'd know that terrorists get absolutely no protection under it whatsoever. I'm amazed how you have claimed in the past to be more "open-minded" than conservatives, then you imply that all conservatives are white-supremacists. Not very open-minded, is it? You really showed those racist Republicans how open-minded you are! Great job in showing just how much of a hypocrite you are! :thumbsup: Quote: Cowmisfit: I suppose you chose to go with the latter. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on such a pathetic case, but I don't have much to do right now. First, my parents. Both got above a 1400 on their SATs, and my dad regularly works side by side with the top scientific brains in the physics textbook industry as a chief development editor. [Clue for the clueless: Important role.] You also can't declare your pretend lala belief that my parents are below the average intelligence level to rest within the level of "fact." Proof, ladies and gentlemen, that you can be incredibly book-smart but at the same time have no common sense. Quote: Now, why do I hate America? Because I don't blindly follow our "leaders" like you do? No, that's why I love America. Again, I reiterate: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" -Thomas Jefferson The reason we all say you hate America is you're always willing to blame America first for its problems. Before the war ever started, you said it was America's fault for Saddam being there in the first place. You said it was America's fault for giving weapons to the terrorists to fight the Soviets twenty years ago. You said it was America's fault for pissing the terrorists off in the first place. It's always America that's the belligerent country, isn't it, SuperFlyingLiberalTool? It's never the other side that is actually causing the problem, is it? It's America's fault that more than a thousand soldiers died in Iraq. It can't possibly be the terrorists' fault, even though they were the ones who were setting off the bombs and firing the AK-47s. Oh, wait, Ted Kennedy says it's America's fault for the war. I forgot; Lord Kennedy of the Kennedy dynasty is always right. My apologies. [quote]Now, I'm betting you no Arab fundamentalist fighters are reading Renegade Forums to listen to bitches like you.[quote] :rolleyes: That wasn't his point, and you know it. Quote: I care for our soldiers. Don't say I don't. No, you don't. You care more about the well-being of the terrorists than you do our own soldiers. This thread is a perfect example. Here you are, bitching about how we're keeping the terrorists up all night to obtain information from them that can be vital to the survival of an entire squad of soldiers (I'll delve deeper into this issue later on). If you truly cared about the well-being of our soldiers, you would step back and let the interrogators do their job and get every little bit of information out of the captured terrorists as possible. Quote: I don't want them in this war. I want every one of them out of the Middle East right now. I never wanted any of them to be there. I never did, wanted, would, want or ever will want ANY of our soldiers to be hurt. Here's where you go completely off the deep-end. In case you haven't noticed, WE'RE IN THERE ALREADY, and now that we're in there, WE CAN'T JUST UP AND LEAVE, OR THE IRAQI PEOPLE WOULD BE ROYALLY FUCKED OVER!!! Do you want us to build a fucking time machine and prevent the Iraq war from ever happening so Saddam can go back to torturing and murdering his own people? I thought your father, being the brilliant physicist he is, already taught you that time travel is impossible.... We can't leave now that we're in, and if you actually did care about our soldiers, you'd stop being such a hypocrite and let the interrogators do their job. If they have to keep terrorists up all night listening to the fucking Barney song in order to get them to spill their guts about where a terrorist weapons cache is, well Clintondamn it, let them! Quote: j-balls430: First topic: One of the stupidest things I've ever heard. The vast majority of the populace probably never once wrote a complaint to their officials, because they just don't care that much. You're kidding, right? Did you just completely miss the multitudes of protests, both anti- and pro-war, going on around the country when the first tomahawks were landing in Baghdad? You do realize that protests are one way of letting your elected officials know where you stand on a particular issue, right? If they're willing to go out on a weekend and protest, they're probably motivated enough to write a simple letter to their elected politicians. See, this is that "common sense" thing I told you about. You wouldn't know what exactly common sense is, though, since Ted Kennedy never said you could have any. Quote: And those in positions of public office aren't going to vote against any more money for our troops, they're going to vote against our troops being in active combat if the populace demands it. If the citizens of the United States believe our soldiers are in an unjust war, then they can bring them out of the unjust war. Although, since a big chunk of voters on election day were voting on "moral values," your group obviously doesn't care. No, you only believe that the majority of voters voted on moral values because that's what you've been told to believe. The majority of voters actually voted because of the War on Terror. Nice try pinning the blame on those bastard Christians who still carry some amount of morals, though. Quote: Terrorists and soldiers aren't the same thing. And that still doesn't justify torture. Are you saying it does? You're wrong. Read the article. You actually think we're torturing people in Iraq? Look at what Saddam did to his own people in the underground rape rooms. That's torture. You're comparing that to sleep deprivation? Where the hell is your common fucking sense? Quote: Nope, still wrong. The United States does not torture anyone. Well, until "President" Bush, we didn't. Yet, you believed John Kerry when he said we were torturing civilians in Vietnam. :rolleyes: Hypocrisy just naturally rolls right off of your fingertips onto your keyboard, doesn't it? Quote: No, I got this tidbit from a blog site independent of the ACLU. And you say Fox News isn't a reliable source.... :rolleyes: Quote: Oh, so we should go to their land and then kill them before we can kill us because in your eyes it's the best thing to do? How quaint. I'm assuming you meant to say, "they can kill us...." Typos aside, this could be one of the most outrageous remarks you have ever made. Are you saying you want our troops to wait to be shot at first before they can get off the first shot? You do realize an American soldier can be killed by that first shot, right? How far away from reality can your mind possibly be??? And you say you care about our troops.... Quote: Also, this article is implying that Bush lied about whether or not he knew about torture in the Middle East. The key word here is "implying." You're taking an article, published by a biased source about a ridiculous case, that makes an accusation of the Bush administration and making it into an absolute truth. I certainly hope I don't have to point your error here; it's hopefully obvious enough for even you. Quote: If we're going to be doing to them what Saddam did to them, shouldn't we at least know about it? I thought your other comments were outrageous, but this remark certainly takes the cake. I'll post that USA Today article for you again. For you to even think for one second that what we're doing to interrogate the captured terrorists is even comparable to the torture Saddam forced upon his own people that is plainly exemplified in that report is completely out-of-line and utterly stupid. Quote: Icedog, read this ACLU article. Then read the documents if you want to. Then think for yourself. Reading and then thinking is the recipe for success. That's funny. You're telling someone to think for himself when not a single original political thought that might run counter to the goals of the Democratic Party. Most Republicans here can give an example of at least one issue on which they disagree with George W. Bush, whereas you, even when directly challenged by myself, have not ever given one single example of any issue with which you disagree with the general stance of the Democratic Party. It is you who needs to try thinking for yourself once in a while. Quote: What situation? The situation of having an opinion? Am I stupid for holding one contrary to an "elected" offical, namely "President" Bush? Are you so pro-Republican that you can't stand to see anyone doubt their candidates? The situation of not having a single independent political thought in your entire body. See? There you go again, putting "President" in quotation marks again. Are you so pro-Democrat that you can't stand to see anyone disagree with any holy decree Pope Al Gore makes about George W. Bush? Thank you for proving my point for me! That makes my job so much easier! Quote: And keep your slanderous forked tongue within the confines of your oral cavity. Ah, slandering him while accusing him of slandering you, are we? Isn't that something a hypocrite would do, generally? Quote: warranto: Well, this is only the tip of a potential iceberg. Right now the ACLU has a big stack of documents [availible for review at the bottom of that article] that they presented to a judge to see whether or not an executive order has to be released and whether or not it must be determined if there was one. Don't be mistaken, this story hasn't resolved yet, but there is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest what is about to come. This all goes back to the ACLU's, and your, definition of "torture." Like I said earlier, you have a very pussified definition. You actually believe keeping the terrorists up all night listening to the Barney song is actually torture. What the hell do you want us to do, put lounge chairs in their jail cells and feed them fucking filet mignon for dinner each day? Do you think that will convince any one of them to talk? If we can't make them (gasp!) uncomfortable, how the hell do you expect us to get any information out of them? Ask them nicely? Get down on our knees and beg for the information? These were fuckers who, just a day ago, were trying to kill us! How can you not understand that these terrorists could hold vital information to weapons cache locations, locations of terrorist leaders, and anything else that might prevent the loss of an American soldier's life? Why the hell aren't you willing to make these bastards "uncomfortable" in order to get them to spill their guts with information? You want torture? Go back two years to one of those torture rooms in Baghdad described in that USA Today article. THAT is torture. This staying up all night bullshit? Not even comparable. Just out of curiosity, where was your outrage when Ali Kaddam Kardom was being beaten, refrigerated naked and held underground for being a Shiite? Quote: I find it quite comforting to myself that I use bigger words than most of you while being of a younger age. Also, technically, you aren't hearing me, but merely seeing the text I print. Ooo, you can use big words and take what he said literally! You're so much smarter than the rest of us! All bow down to the incredible intellect of SuperFlyingLiberalTool!!! Typical liberal elitism; coming from this guy, is anyone surprised? Quote: The ACLU's objective is to assure that the Bill of Rights is upheld HA! You actually believe that bullshit??? After their assault on Christianity, protection of the "rights" of NAMBLA, and loads of other ridiculous stories, you can honestly say they're trying to uphold the Bill of Rights??? How the hell do you sleep at night??? Quote: not install a new economic system into the United States. Is this about those court cases where government offices are putting on Christmas displays? Because that and banning Christianity aren't exactly the same thing, you know. DarkDemin, I ask you, what good is it if we go into a country claiming to end the regime of a torturer, and then start torturing people while saying we're not? How much better are we than Saddam then? Once again, we are not torturing people in the more logical sense the term is usually used (not the sense in which you use it, mind you, since, by your definition, the only way we have to interrogate terrorists is begging). Look at Saddam's regime to see real torture. Abu Ghraib hardly measures up to the shit Saddam did. Quote: Not all Arabs are terrorists, you know. Once again, assuming all conservatives are white-supremacists. How open-minded of you! Quote: And here we go again with your Republican "Americans are more important than other races..." talk. I can't stand it. You have the most narrow-minded view of Republicans I have ever seen. For your own sake, do not ever claim you are more open-minded than Republicans, or you will only cement yourself as a hypocrite. Quote: We invaded their country, and dropped so many bombs more or less all of them know someone personal that we have killed. That's why they hate us and our soldiers and our people, not because of our "freedoms" or any stupid reason like that. There are so many things wrong with those two sentences, I don't know where to begin. Okay, in response to the first sentence: there are 26 million Iraqis living in Iraq. It's absurd to think that each and every one of them knew someone killed by U.S. forces when a.) we didn't even invade each and every square inch of the entire country and b.) civillian casualties were minimal at the start and are still minimal with the continuing operations. I find it funny how you spout how supportive of our troops you say you are when here you're accusing them, the most well-trained soldiers in the entire world, of accidentally or deliberately killing millions of innocent Iraqi civillians. You support our soldiers while calling them baby-killers. Yeah, and you're not a hypocrite. :rolleyes: In response to the second sentence: firstly, you have a grossly overstated view of just how many Iraqis are really fighting us in Iraq right now. As of now, major fighting is occurring in only four of the fourteen total provinces in Iraq. In all, about 5% of the total Iraqi population never wanted us in there to remove Saddam in the first place and are currently aiding the terrorists in their efforts to get us out of there now. Secondly, if they hadn't hated us for our freedoms and other "stupid" reasons like that, they wouldn't have flown two jets into the World Trade Center twin towers (no, asshole, I'm not saying Saddam had anything to do with that attack) in the first place. We weren't invading any countries before 9/11. How do you explain those attacks? Oh, wait, that's right, it was caused by the U.S.'s presence on Middle Eastern sand and George W. Bush's refusal to do anything about them before they happened, so sayeth the almighty Howard Dean, the soon-to-be Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. A Democratic politician says it, so it must be true. My mistake. Quote: When did a thesaurus come into play? When you substitute short words with longer words in a failed effort to make yourself appear more intelligent as a result of your massive superiority complex. Quote: "Listening to dogs" is one way of putting being attacked by them. Listening to doggies barking! *Gasp* The horror! Quote: Those are all torture methods designed to make people lose their minds. It is still torture, don't pretend it's not. We'll muzzle the dogs when the terrorists start talking. Until then, they can keep on barkin'. To a common sensical person, that's not torture, and you're being too overprotective of the terrorists' well-being. They're fucking terrorists! They deserve to be hung up by their balls and burned with sodering irons, but you know what? We don't use interrogation tactics like those. We're better than that. However, there are still some methods that must be employed in order to make the bastards talk, but we have never gone as far as Saddam's torture methods have gone. Quote: I'm sure you saw those pictures from Abu Gharib. Do you believe it counts as humane action? Not a single person here is saying we should employ the methods used at Abu Ghraib to interrogate the captured terrorists. Though putting women's panties on the heads of captured Iraqi terrorists doesn't amount to shoving rats up the anuses of Iraqi prisoners to have them die from internal bleeding (yes, that was an actual torture method employed by Saddam's regime), it was certainly over-the-line, excessive, and completely unnecessary. I still don't know where your outrage over those rats being shoved up people's asses is, though. Quote: We went into Iraq first under false claims of weapons of mass destruction which we now KNOW are not there Stop talking before you embarass yourself more. What, exactly, was all that, um, whatchacallit, oh yeah, sarin stuff the Polish troops found a few months ago? Isn't that sarin stuff a weapon of mass destruction? Didn't they also just recently find some more of that stuff in the trunk of a car in Fallujah? Oh, wait, that must've been a new flavor of jell-o or something. Silly me. I should tell my mom to buy me some sarin jell-o next time she's at the grocery store. Quote: and then started pretending we went in for humanitarian reasons, which is not at all how war was justified, where we claim to be removing a torturer. But now, we're torturing people and pretending we're not. Not very humanitarian, if you ask me. I warned you about embarassing yourself.... Quote: Yes, it is a coverup. These documents were all leaked. Right now, the ACLU is suing to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order condoning torture, of which the administration is apparently trying to cover up. Condoning your pussified version of torture, probably, yes. In the common sensical version of the word, no. Quote: Well, no, it doesn't surprise me either, because that was the reason stated by so many during the exit polls. Um, no, it was actually the War on Terror/the war in Iraq. As I said before, you're just trying to pin Bush's win on those evil Christians and their "morals" going out in droves to vote against the "rights of the sexually-challenged man." Well, hey, that's what Ted Kennedy said, at least, and Mr. Kennedy is always right, remember? Quote: So, I should blindly follow our leaders? You already do, unless you don't consider nearly half of both houses of Congress to be considered leaders. Quote: No, I'm afraid that's entirely wrong. There must always remain the question in a democracy. I'm not perverting Mr. Jefferson's statement in the least. It's exactly what he meant, and the point remains. This blind "patriotism", if you can call it that, emanating from the Republican party disgusts me. Yeah, because loving one's country and willing to do whatever it takes to defend it is such a foreign concept to you. This blind anti-everything-Bush-does-since-he-can't-do-anything-right sentiment eminating from you and the Democratic Party disgusts me. Quote: Why am I a bad American? Because I chance a look at what our President does? Should I believe in what he does because you do? ... If censorship of ideas comes, democracy leaves. Who the hell is trying to censor you? He wasn't saying you couldn't disagree with the actions taken by the head-of-state, just that in your blind hatred of every little thing done by George W. Bush, you begin hating your own country, which is the opposite of patriotism. Quote: You obviously don't understand our political system in the least. Don't make me laugh. The same can be said of you. Quote: You have seen pictures from Abu Gharib of people being attacked by dogs, haven't you? That's what I would be led to believe is the most likely avenue. And torture is not just limited to being hit with a real big stick. Dictionary.com defines it as Excruciating physical or mental pain. That's what we were subjecting people at Abu Gharib to, and that wasn't the only incident, apparently. Geez, again with the pussified version of "torture!" Why is your definition of the word so watered down? Once again, we'll muzzle the mutt when he spills his guts. Going by your ridiculous definition, a parent spanking his child or putting him in time-out because he did something bad amounts to fucking torture!!! Be sure to ask Santa for some common sense this Christmas (that is, if you celebrate Christmas; I wouldn't be surprised if you became an atheist just to make sure you don't offend anyone by celebrating the birth of your lord and saviour, Jesus Christ (well, to normal people it'd be Jesus Christ; to you, it'd be Bill Clinton)). Quote: How do you know what's in the executive order if you haven't seen it? How do you know there's an executive order when there is no evidence to prove the existence of one? Quote: That's the whole point of this article, some people in the FBI leaked documents to the ACLU, and the ACLU went to court suing under the Free Information Act or whatever to ascertain whether or not there was an executive order, because all the evidence seems to point to there being one. No, not really. Did you even read the documents attached to the article? Out of the 15 I read, they make no references to any executive order whatsoever! Don't you understand that it's all speculation in an attempt to tarnish Bush's reputation? Oh, wait, that's right, a prominent Democratic "public interest" group says it, so it must be true. I'm sorry, I forgot to blindly accept everything the ACLU puts out. Quote: Why, yes, Crimson, that's why the Vietnam war was a bad war as well and we should never have sent our troops into it. You recognize your own hypocrisy! Good job! :thumbsup: Quote: We really need a new thread to contest the 2000 Florida election, of which could not have been a very clean election, since they never counted all the ballots. And this year, just a couple days ago some anarchist hacker guy testified on the floor of Congress that a Representative [R] from Florida had paid him to back into the electronic voting machines. You've embarassed yourself enough in this post. I don't really need to help you embarass yourself any further. Quote: Gbull, are you really saying that playing music incredibly loudly 24/7 doesn't amount to torture You know Clintondamn well it doesn't! Quote: Also, how do you know the people we are questioning have terrorist ties? ...Do you HONESTLY have to ask that question????? You're more a tool than I thought!!! Quote: You went 4 days in a row without sleeping? Somehow I feel to believe that. At all. And why do you bet the "people in question" didn't have to go that long? Why? WHYYYYYYYYYYYY?! Because maybe after three days they decided to spill their guts about where to find their terror cell leader. Did it ever occur to you that sleep deprivation might actually WORK? Quote: Alright, it's time for you all to shut up about the "He-Doesn't-Agree-With-Us-So-He's-Bad" There will always be a place for the questioner in American politics, and it will never, NEVER, be a wrong one. And I must continue with the most obvious shard of all for my beliefs, the one which you apparently are bluntly ignorant of, that Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. No one is saying you can't question the actions of the President; you just happen to disagree with every little thing he does, and your arguments are making us believe you hate your own country since you're so quick to blame America first in any foreign conflict. Quote: Whoa, you need to stop watching FOX news if you believe Iraqis are sissies. Until you can prove that these people were detained because they had reasonable terrorist ties, you can't go around trumpeting that they did. ...Again, do you HONESTLY have to ask this question??? They were captured on the field of battle fighting for the terrorists!!! IS THAT NOT "REASONABLE" ENOUGH FOR YOU???????? Quote: I love this country, you fool. Like hell you do. Why can't you ever admit that America is in the right for once? Why does America always have to be the first one blamed to you? Quote: George Bush is just the worst "President" certainly since Hoover. And yes, I do make a point of stating my opinions on something if I believe it to be wrong, because that's what people do in this democracy. Quite frankly, I would be much happier if Nixon weren't a puppet, Reagan hadn't gone senile in office, Bush Sr. hadn't barfed in the lap of the Japanese ambassador, and if Bush Jr. hadn't gotten our soldiers into this war Typical. You name four Republican presidents and point out one bad quality in each. Nevermind that Nixon negotiated the end of the Vietnam War. Nevermind that Reagan brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nevermind that Bush Sr. oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union (though it began during Reagan's term). And, of course, nevermind that Bush Jr. freed at least 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis and is leading the War on Terror in the best way possible. Can't name a single bad thing Clinton did in office, can you? Lord Kennedy wouldn't approve! Quote: and created an economic situation where the U.S. in a couple years is going to be slaughtered by inflation. You know nothing about economics. Stop acting like you do. Quote: Out of the whole bunch, Bush Sr. was probably the best. Oh, and if I may, what is hypocritical about believing the actions of others are incorrect? No, the military is in fact not supposed to subject people to torture, either physical or mental, since we signed the Geneva Convention. The Constitution defines all signed treaties as the Law of the Land, and Geneva is no exception. As I said before, terrorists get no coverage under the Geneva Convention. We can technically do whatever the hell we want with them. Quote: No, I would not be disgruntled if a soldier died because we did not torture people enough. Yeah, because the well-being of the terrorists is so much more important than the lives of our soldiers. Either stop complaining about how badly we're "torturing" the FUCKING TERRORISTS to prevent the loss of troop lives or stop saying you care about our troops' well-being, you hypocrite. Quote: I would be disgruntled if a soldier died in a war started with lies, lies lies. [Clue for the clueless: Weapons of Mass Destruction] Clue for the fucking blind: WE FOUND WEAPONS OF FUCKING MASS DESTRUCTION!!! We did NOT start the war with "lies, lies, lies" like Lord Ted Kennedy will have to you believe. Now that we're there, we cannot leave! Get that through your thick skull!!! Quote: Also, what substantial proof do you have to determine that we are really getting good information out of these people? Do you honestly think civillians would have access to most likely classified information obtained from those interrogations? You're gettin desperate, aren't you? Quote: Finally, cursing doesn't make you seem any smarter. Neither does acting like you're better than everyone else. My Clinton, I have never seen someone with a superiority complex as big as yours. Quote: The one picture from Abu Gharib I've seen with a dog in it is where the dog is practically leaping on the guy and snapping at him. Your point? Quote: But Gore had more of a popular vote in 2000... You say Gbull doesn't know anything about our political proces.... We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed. Quote: And it can't be proven that he convinved enough people because he got the conservative Supreme Court to not recount the ballots. But, please, let's stop this now and save it for another thread. CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court? At THAT point in time? What reality are you living in, boy? You are such a tool! Quote: It amounts to mental torture. That's how you mentally torture people. Once... again... use the common sensical definition of "torture," not your, "Ouch! He thumped me on the head with his finger! TORTURE!!!!" Quote: Please, take a magnifying glass to all of Clinton's wars. Reagan too. Like how he MINED Nicaragua's harbor and sold weapons to al Qaeda and trained Osama. All those stinger missiles and stuff in Afghanistan right now? Reagan put them there. Well, he more or less didn't do much wrong except have an affair with some lady which had no reflection WHATSOEVER on his performance in the office of president, but was merely something the press, desperate for some news to attack him on, picked up like crazy animals. And the Republicans in Congress were no better. And now we get news that George Bush may well have lied about TORTURING PEOPLE, and the media is dead silent. Yes, very liberal of them. Yeah, you keep believing that. I wouldn't want to tarnish the image of your god, William Clinton. It's obvious that you can't deviate away from the mainstream Democratic Party's platform at all, can you, SuperFlyingLiberalTool? You've shown yourself to be nothing but a hypocrite and a tool of the Democratic Party. I honestly cannot understand why you persist in posting anything political in this forum at all since it just turns out to be the same mindless hypocritical dribble we've heard time and again from you. What's more, you profess to have this open-minded view of the world when your view of conservatives is more narrow-minded than Osama Bin Laden's view of the United States. You're always willing to blame the United States before anyone else, even when it's in the right! I find it funny how you call upon others to think for themselves when you yourself have not a single independent thought in your entire body. You come in here with your superiority complex and act better than the rest of us, and you don't hesitate to point out just how much better when the opportunity presents itself, as you have done in this thread alone. Have you no class? Every single post you have made in this single thread alone is nothing but a repeat of the same crap we hear from Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, etc. and quite frankly, I'm tired of it all. Learn to think for yourself, kid, or you'll only continue to embarass yourself with your hypocrisy.
/me applauds loudly. Bravo, hydra! I read that whole thing, it was a brilliant dissection of the stereotypical liberal. It's kinda nice to have a perfect example of a Democrat soldier right here in our own forums to play with, isn't it?
hydra1945 > SuperFlyingEngi damn dude......geez.....o man.....hey...Super?.....how does it feel to be proven wrong over and over and over and damn....I dont know how to describe this...O YEA! OWNED
Quote: You obviously never read the Geneva Convention before, or you'd know that terrorists get absolutely no protection under it whatsoever. Except, of course for this provision... Quote: PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. and... Quote: Clue for the fucking blind: WE FOUND WEAPONS OF FUCKING MASS DESTRUCTION!!! We did NOT start the war with "lies, lies, lies" like Lord Ted Kennedy will have to you believe. Now that we're there, we cannot leave! Get that through your thick skull!!! WMDs were found prior to the war starting? As well, I thought the war was to free Iraq, and the "found" WMDs were simply a bonus that could be used to justify an illegal invasion.
The fact that you belittle the successes of the war is disgusting warranto. He makes a point that we found WMDs and you try to make that into a bad thing...bravo, take a seat next to the other Mindless Drone. Geneva Conventions ARTICLE 13 Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. You fail to see that ensuring Mental Stability is in no place in this article. And lack of sleep, playing music, barking dogs, and sitting on the floor can hardly be deemed: "seriously endangering the health of the prisoner."
warranto Except, of course for this provision... Quote: PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. Not really. The incredibly flawed Geneva Convention doesn't even address the proper treatment for captured terrorists. Hell, it doesn't even address terrorists in general! They certainly don't count as prisoners of war, as you should know, because they don't meet the requirements explicitly put forth in article 4 quoted here (I highlighted key points of the article): Quote: Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model. 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law. 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment. 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties. As you can well see, these captured terrorists hardly count for prisoners of war. How does the almighty Geneva Convention tell use we should treat captured terrorists, then? If it has the answer to all possible circumstances, how can it be applied in this situation? The answer is it can't since it doesn't even mention the proper treatment of terrorists. SuperFlyingLiberalTool was saying the terrorists get coverage under the Geneva Convention, when upon examination of the actual document, they don't. Way to nitpick at a specific point of my post while completely ignoring the general point I was trying to make, though. Quote: Quote: Clue for the fucking blind: WE FOUND WEAPONS OF FUCKING MASS DESTRUCTION!!! We did NOT start the war with "lies, lies, lies" like Lord Ted Kennedy will have to you believe. Now that we're there, we cannot leave! Get that through your thick skull!!! WMDs were found prior to the war starting? As well, I thought the war was to free Iraq, and the "found" WMDs were simply a bonus that could be used to justify an illegal invasion. Sarin-flavored jell-o, anyone? I found some over in Iraq; it's mighty tastey! It was in a box with wrapping paper around it with a card on it that says, "To Osama; Love, Saddam; Happy Ramadan!" WMDs were found; there is no denying it, Warranto. They were found in Iraq and date back to years before Saddam's regime ever fell. One of the reasons the war was waged was because Saddam did not freely hand over his weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had, not because we couldn't find any. It was partly in an effort to enforce the flawed international law that you so closely cling to. Javaxcx *insert smartass smiley post here* Laugh all you want. It doesn't change the fact he was nitpicking at specific points of my post while seeming to ignore the general point of it. =[DT =gbull=[L]=]bravo, take a seat next to the other Mindless Drone. On the contrary, Warranto is one of the liberals here that I can actually respect. Though we may differ in our views on a great many subjects, he is an independent thinker and not married to one party or the other (he's not even American, so why should he be married to an American political party?). Unlike SuperFlyingLiberalTool, he can actually think for himself and doesn't need to be told how to think. That's why I respect his views more than SuperFlyingLiberalTool.
I suppose....perhaps i was a little too hasty to judge him like i do "Mr. Left" himself. Prolly cuz I have been hearing nothing but the most extreme of liberal bullshit for the last 2 days. I owe you an apology warranto, Im Sorry I called you a mindless Drone. I dont take back what I said to SuperFlyingEni tho, he represents the Democratic party like the Taliban does to Islam.
Nice Hydra! SuperFlyingFungi == pwned.
Rather than requote all that, I'll just point out the parts. In regards to this whole terrorists and prisoners of war bit. If Iraqi insurgents aren't being held as prisoners of war, what are they being held as? Even normal prisoners have certain rights that must be upheald. Quote: WMDs were found; there is no denying it, Warranto. They were found in Iraq and date back to years before Saddam's regime ever fell. One of the reasons the war was waged was because Saddam did not freely hand over his weapons of mass destruction that we knew he had, not because we couldn't find any. It was partly in an effort to enforce the flawed international law that you so closely cling to. Not according to the UN just prior to war being delcared. And that is all that really matters, regardless of what you may happen to think about the UN. Quote: It doesn't change the fact he was nitpicking at specific points of my post while seeming to ignore the general point of it. That is true, I was nitpicking. This is only because, while those in captivity have done unspeakable things (I'm assuming this as people are lableing them terrorists) and deserve what they are getting, the point is that it is still not the "right" thing to do, to which you appear to be arguing the alternative. Quote: The fact that you belittle the successes of the war is disgusting warranto. I'm not belittleing the success of the war, I support the war (the timing of the war is another thing though, but that is beside the point), that doesn;t make it any less than I have stated it as such. Quote: And lack of sleep, playing music, barking dogs, and sitting on the floor can hardly be deemed: "seriously endangering the health of the prisoner." Take a psychology course, and perhaps you'll think differently. These seemingly menial things can have a profound impact on a prisoners health. Both mental and physical. Over the short term, not so much, but over a period of time, most definatly. Of course, the context as to how these methods are being enacted upon them must also be taken into account. A simple dog barking won't do a thing bad, however, a dog sounding like it will attack, while it's beeing held on a leash infront of your face, will. Edit: Quote: On the contrary, Warranto is one of the liberals here that I can actually respect. Though we may differ in our views on a great many subjects, he is an independent thinker and not married to one party or the other (he's not even American, so why should he be married to an American political party?). Unlike SuperFlyingLiberalTool, he can actually think for himself and doesn't need to be told how to think. That's why I respect his views more than SuperFlyingLiberalTool. Thanks, I think. Though I'm not a "liberal" as is usually defined by people here. I'm more along the lines of "ensure what's right is understood prior to arguing for the wrong reasons". If "what's right" happens to be a liberal view, so be it. But if it happens to be a left or right view, well then, so be it.
I want to make sure u see this warranto, cuz i feel pretty bad about it. gbull I owe you an apology warranto, Im Sorry I called you a mindless Drone
meh, no harm no foul. I'm quite easy on the insults unless they're persistant.
Javaxcx
SFE = pwnt on a forum, thats pretty bad.
No, I've actually been playing with a great fluid simulator for the past two days, other people have semi-stood in for me, and quite frankly I don't have all the time that I used to have to post on these forums. Note how hydra's post up there was about 6 pages long. Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax?
SuperFlyingEngi Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax? Don't matter, he won't win. Swift Boat was just telling everyone the truth , and convinced at least a few people not to vote for that anti-american fool.
SuperFlyingEngi No, I've actually been playing with a great fluid simulator for the past two days, other people have semi-stood in for me, and quite frankly I don't have all the time that I used to have to post on these forums. Note how hydra's post up there was about 6 pages long. Ah, okay, so now you're implying that I have no life? Just because I took about an hour and a half out of my life to write that to put you where you belong? Do you think I was just spontaneously driven to tear your pathetic excuses of arguments apart? Do you think I wrote that as a result of your posts in this thread alone? If your hypocrisy and mindlessness had been contained in this thread alone, I would never have gone through all the trouble I did in writing that harsh appraisal of your posts. The problem goes much further back than this. The problem goes all the way back to the first post you ever wrote in the Politics/Hot Issues forum. The problem is that you have posted nothing but the same propaganda that's been force-fed to you by the mainstream media since day fucking one!!! Each and every time you would make a post as mind-numbingly ridiculous and hypocritical as all the others you have posted, we have called you on it ("we" being the dedicated conservatives of the forum). Time and again, your hypocrisy would be proven and exposed, yet you would continue in bombarding us with your outrageous propaganda and mindless crap, while in the process accusing us Republicans of "blindly following 'President' Bush" simply because we disagree with the utter bullshit you spew out of the asshole you call a mouth! I don't think you've ever made a single post recognizing anything good that George W. Bush has done ever since he first took office. Hell, even I am willing to admit that Clinton made some correct decisions in office! No, the Democratic Party has told you hate anything and everything Bush does in office because he "stole" the 2000 election, so like a sheep you will blindly follow their orders no questions asked and hate George W. Bush with every ounce of your being. Every single post you have ever made in this forum reflects that sentiment, and I, as well as probably many others, am absolutely fed up with it! We have put up with your crap for long enough, and it's time you finally put an end to your spreading around of Democratic propaganda that we've heard thousands of times over!!! THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR ONCE!!! Quote: Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax? What the hell does that have to do with anything written in this entire thread? I can't even understand why you would decide to put that here when it has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're discussing in this thread whatsoever! The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you're trying to change the subject to something completely unrelated in order to escape the web of hypocrisy and mindlessness that you have woven for yourself and that I have just exposed.
It wouldn't be the first time he's changed the subject when he can't win. It's either that or "I need to talk to my dad some more." I wonder if his dad is the mindless drone and SFE doesn't want to disappoint him by thinking about what we say.
hydra1945 Ah, okay, so now you're implying that I have no life? Just because I took about an hour and a half out of my life to write that to put you where you belong? No, I'm not implying that you're a loser at all. I'm just saying that I've been busy working on film projects and I need to hurry up. Crimson It wouldn't be the first time he's changed the subject when he can't win. It's either that or "I need to talk to my dad some more." Oh, honestly. I haven't changed the subject. It's not like there is much more to be debated here anyways, it's come down to a "You're a sucky American!" What needs to be done is more or less to wait and see what the ACLU finds. And Crimson, I've only ever said that I need to have a word with my dad twice, on issues I don't entirely comprehend. Would you prefer that I just make things up on the fly? And if I truly did agree that torturing soldiers outside the U.S. was ok, yeah, I probably would side with you all. Also, The Washington Post War Crimes Thursday, December 23, 2004; Page A22 THANKS TO a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights groups, thousands of pages of government documents released this month have confirmed some of the painful truths about the abuse of foreign detainees by the U.S. military and the CIA -- truths the Bush administration implacably has refused to acknowledge. Since the publication of photographs of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in the spring the administration's whitewashers -- led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld -- have contended that the crimes were carried out by a few low-ranking reservists, that they were limited to the night shift during a few chaotic months at Abu Ghraib in 2003, that they were unrelated to the interrogation of prisoners and that no torture occurred at the Guantanamo Bay prison where hundreds of terrorism suspects are held. The new documents establish beyond any doubt that every part of this cover story is false. Though they represent only part of the record that lies in government files, the documents show that the abuse of prisoners was already occurring at Guantanamo in 2002 and continued in Iraq even after the outcry over the Abu Ghraib photographs. FBI agents reported in internal e-mails and memos about systematic abuses by military interrogators at the base in Cuba, including beatings, chokings, prolonged sleep deprivation and humiliations such as being wrapped in an Israeli flag. "On a couple of occasions I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," an unidentified FBI agent wrote on Aug. 2, 2004. "Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18 to 24 hours or more." Two defense intelligence officials reported seeing prisoners severely beaten in Baghdad by members of a special operations unit, Task Force 6-26, in June. When they protested they were threatened and pictures they took were confiscated. Other documents detail abuses by Marines in Iraq, including mock executions and the torture of detainees by burning and electric shock. Several dozen detainees have died in U.S. custody. In many cases, Army investigations of these crimes were shockingly shoddy: Officials lost records, failed to conduct autopsies after suspicious deaths and allowed evidence to be contaminated. Soldiers found to have committed war crimes were excused with noncriminal punishments. The summary of one suspicious death of a detainee at the Abu Ghraib prison reads: "No crime scene exam was conducted, no autopsy conducted, no copy of medical file obtained for investigation because copy machine broken in medical office." Some of the abuses can be attributed to lack of discipline in some military units -- though the broad extent of the problem suggests, at best, that senior commanders made little effort to prevent or control wrongdoing. But the documents also confirm that interrogators at Guantanamo believed they were following orders from Mr. Rumsfeld. One FBI agent reported on May 10 about a conversation he had with Guantanamo's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, who defended the use of interrogation techniques the FBI regarded as illegal on the grounds that the military "has their marching orders from the Sec Def." Gen. Miller has testified under oath that dogs were never used to intimidate prisoners at Guantanamo, as authorized by Mr. Rumsfeld in December 2002; the FBI papers show otherwise. The Bush administration refused to release these records to the human rights groups under the Freedom of Information Act until it was ordered to do so by a judge. Now it has responded to their publication with bland promises by spokesmen that any wrongdoing will be investigated. The record of the past few months suggests that the administration will neither hold any senior official accountable nor change the policies that have produced this shameful record. Congress, too, has abdicated its responsibility under its Republican leadership: It has been nearly four months since the last hearing on prisoner abuse. Perhaps intervention by the courts will eventually stem the violations of human rights that appear to be ongoing in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan. For now the appalling truth is that there has been no remedy for the documented torture and killing of foreign prisoners by this American government. EDIT: Once I get time, hydra, I'll get back to your post.
You see, your going to a moron to try and understand the issue, your father is only going to fill you with more hatred for America and its soilders, and basicly he's only mis-informing you. GO FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO TALK POLOTICS WITH, YOUR FATHER IS OBVIOUSLY A NUT CASE WHEN IT COMES TO THEM.
SuperFlyingEngi And Crimson, I've only ever said that I need to have a word with my dad twice, on issues I don't entirely comprehend. So look it up yourself. IF you cannot think for yourself then you are the tool everyone says you are. Your problem is that your father has force-fed you all this liberal bullshit and hasn't allowed you to think for yourself long enough to say....damn, this doesnt make any fucking sense, why am I still following someone who will never be president? Take this as constructive critisism because its not meant to be an attack on your character.
Crimson I have told you like 493 times that I don't watch FOX news... I read CNN.com for my news and nothing more. Sorry for any confusion, but I was referring to the guy above you, who called Iraqis sissies. Aright, hydra, here you go... hydra1945 Why do you have "President" in quotation marks? Oh, wait, that's right, since Michael Moore told you to believe that the 2000 election wasn't legitimate, that's the honest-to-God... oh, wait, I'm sorry, I forgot I can't say "God" for fear of offending an atheist... honest-to-Clinton (because he's the closest thing to a "god" you Democrats have) truth, and there is no other way it can possibly be. Lord Moore said it, so it must be so. Bush stole the election, and that's just the way it is. No, Moore's movie came out quite a while after the election. Quite a while after I had thought this through and seen events unfold. Also, I think you're typecasting Christmas-bashing with Democrats a bit too much here. It's not exactly a stated goal of the DNC. I actually didn't get all that much out of F 9/11. Just another movie. hydra1945 Now that Lord Moore and the Infallible Church of the ACLU have told you to believe that Bush authorized "torture" (of which, by the way, you have a very pussified definition, but I'll get to that later), it must be true, and there is no contesting it. Well, you and your "crew" certainly flat out deny any possibility of it and that's the way it must be. Don't pretend that you're leaning over the fence and I'm not. hydra1945 You obviously never read the Geneva Convention before, or you'd know that terrorists get absolutely no protection under it whatsoever. I believe warranto touched on this one. hydra1945 I'm amazed how you have claimed in the past to be more "open-minded" than conservatives, then you imply that all conservatives are white-supremacists. Not very open-minded, is it? You really showed those racist Republicans how open-minded you are! Great job in showing just how much of a hypocrite you are! I have claimed to be more open-minded on issues of race? And also, speech never comes out very well if you end two sentences, one right after the other, with "you are!" Just a tidbit of advice. hydra1945 Proof, ladies and gentlemen, that you can be incredibly book-smart but at the same time have no common sense. I think you mean booksmart and yet not agree with the ideals of others. Didn't you just earlier imply that you were more open about the ideas of others than I am? hydra1945 The reason we all say you hate America is you're always willing to blame America first for its problems. Before the war ever started, you said it was America's fault for Saddam being there in the first place. You said it was America's fault for giving weapons to the terrorists to fight the Soviets twenty years ago. You said it was America's fault for pissing the terrorists off in the first place. You do realize that Reagan did indeed give enormous amounts of arms to the Afghans and pretend to the American people that it wasn't happening? Did I indeed say it was some president's fault that Saddam was in power? Was that back when I was 11 or something? hydra1945 It's always America that's the belligerent country, isn't it, SuperFlyingLiberalTool? It's never the other side that is actually causing the problem, is it? It's America's fault that more than a thousand soldiers died in Iraq. It can't possibly be the terrorists' fault, even though they were the ones who were setting off the bombs and firing the AK-47s. America is not the infallible entity you would like it to be. Yes, there are more than a handful of people in Iraq and Afghanistan out to kill our soldiers. Some of it is because of all of the hate propaganda over there. But you have to open your eyes, hydra. Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that we have killed with bombs and such. They take that pretty seriously over there. And we've killed a LOT of civilians. It's not just because they're evil satanists, it's because they have genuine reasons to be mad at the U.S. These things need to be recognized if we're to bring peace back to Iraq, which isn't going to happen at a snap of the fingers. hydra1945 Oh, wait, Ted Kennedy says it's America's fault for the war. I forgot; Lord Kennedy of the Kennedy dynasty is always right. My apologies. He's actually getting pretty old. I haven't seen him speak in a while. hydra1945 That wasn't his point, and you know it. His "point," if you could call it that, was that I was somehow empowering Arabs to shoot our men. Not many of them are going to hear what I have to say. Are you suggesting that we should cover up everything bad the government does and portray a better picture of ourselves, like in 1984? hydra1945 No, you don't. You care more about the well-being of the terrorists than you do our own soldiers. This thread is a perfect example. So I should be more gung-ho and not care about how harshly we deal with soldiers we capture when it's AGAINST OUR LAWS? hydra1945 Here you are, bitching about how we're keeping the terrorists up all night to obtain information from them that can be vital to the survival of an entire squad of soldiers (I'll delve deeper into this issue later on). If you truly cared about the well-being of our soldiers, you would step back and let the interrogators do their job and get every little bit of information out of the captured terrorists as possible. Are you really so befuddled in your mind as to believe that all Iraqis are terrorists? Terrorists flew planes into our buildings. Guerilla soldiers are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. And keeping people up all night is one way to describe the torture going on. [See Washington Post editorial] hydra1945 In case you haven't noticed, WE'RE IN THERE ALREADY, and now that we're in there, WE CAN'T JUST UP AND LEAVE, OR THE IRAQI PEOPLE WOULD BE ROYALLY FUCKED OVER!!! Why, yes, you're right. However, that doesn't suddenly make this war a just cause, and what do you propose we do from here on? Shoot them all until there's no one to fight us? Well, that is kind of against the point of this humanitarian war the Republicans have turned WMDs into. hydra1945 We can't leave now that we're in, and if you actually did care about our soldiers, you'd stop being such a hypocrite and let the interrogators do their job. If they have to keep terrorists up all night listening to the fucking Barney song in order to get them to spill their guts about where a terrorist weapons cache is, well Clintondamn it, let them! So the ends justify the means? We should break our own rules all we want to get information that we can't even prove is truly helpful? One of the discoveries of the 20th century is that people subjected to torture are going to tell the torturers what they want to hear, not what they know. It's not a truly effective technique for coaxing information out of someone. hydra1945 You're kidding, right? Did you just completely miss the multitudes of protests, both anti- and pro-war, going on around the country when the first tomahawks were landing in Baghdad? You do realize that protests are one way of letting your elected officials know where you stand on a particular issue, right? If they're willing to go out on a weekend and protest, they're probably motivated enough to write a simple letter to their elected politicians. There were pro-war rallies? Didn't see many of those on any large scale. And even then, that's still only a very small majority. One of the biggest demonstrations probably ever witnessed in the U.S. was the protest outside the Republican Convention this year, which only made up a quarter of one percent or less of the population. hydra1945 No, you only believe that the majority of voters voted on moral values because that's what you've been told to believe. The majority of voters actually voted because of the War on Terror. Nice try pinning the blame on those bastard Christians who still carry some amount of morals, though. I suppose that'll teach me to ever turn on FOX NEWS, because that's where I heard about all this "voting your morals" business. hydra1945 You actually think we're torturing people in Iraq? Look at what Saddam did to his own people in the underground rape rooms. That's torture. You're comparing that to sleep deprivation? Where the hell is your common fucking sense? Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people here? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killed from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up. hydra1945 Yet, you believed John Kerry when he said we were torturing civilians in Vietnam. icon_rolleyes.gif Hypocrisy just naturally rolls right off of your fingertips onto your keyboard, doesn't it? Why, yes, that was a bad war as well. The point I was trying to get across, which I perhaps could have been clearer on, is that the U.S. has laws that we don't torture people. We should not have been in Vietnam, and we should not be in Iraq now. An occupation of a Middle Eastern country is almost a joke. hydra1945 And you say Fox News isn't a reliable source... Why, yes, I do. I triangulate a lot of my news from different blog sites. Generally, they're run by Washington insiders who'll print better and more accurate stories than major media. They also run all stories, not pick & choose like FOX news. hydra1945 I'm assuming you meant to say, "they can kill us...." Typos aside, this could be one of the most outrageous remarks you have ever made. Are you saying you want our troops to wait to be shot at first before they can get off the first shot? You do realize an American soldier can be killed by that first shot, right? How far away from reality can your mind possibly be??? And you say you care about our troops.... I'm assuming you meant to say, "Typo aside," Typo aside, that was in reponse to a remark that more or less stated that we should kill any opposing people in the way of our arbitrary goals. You may have missed that one. hydra1945 The key word here is "implying." You're taking an article, published by a biased source about a ridiculous case, that makes an accusation of the Bush administration and making it into an absolute truth. The ACLU is suing right now under Freedom of Information for an executive order that leaked documents are pointing straight to an executive order, and they want to see it. I'm not saying this is an absolute truth. I'm posting this as a "here's-where-we-are-know." 'Sides, if you want to read an unbiased source, just read all those documents they have. hydra1945 For you to even think for one second that what we're doing to interrogate the captured terrorists is even comparable to the torture Saddam forced upon his own people that is plainly exemplified in that report is completely out-of-line and utterly stupid. Read the Washington Post editorial. hydra1945 That's funny. You're telling someone to think for himself when not a single original political thought that might run counter to the goals of the Democratic Party. Most Republicans here can give an example of at least one issue on which they disagree with George W. Bush, whereas you, even when directly challenged by myself, have not ever given one single example of any issue with which you disagree with the general stance of the Democratic Party. It is you who needs to try thinking for yourself once in a while. But you all almost exclusively disagree with the Republican party on issues of religious zealotism, not actual political issues. If I entirely re-wrote the DNC's stand on everything, it wouldn't be the same, but I agree with their general ideals. hydra1945 The situation of not having a single independent political thought in your entire body. See? There you go again, putting "President" in quotation marks again. Are you so pro-Democrat that you can't stand to see anyone disagree with any holy decree Pope Al Gore makes about George W. Bush? I don't think Al Gore ever said the election was stolen. hydra1945 Ah, slandering him while accusing him of slandering you, are we? Isn't that something a hypocrite would do, generally? I don't think that statement is entirely comperable to him calling me a "fuck." hydra1945 This all goes back to the ACLU's, and your, definition of "torture." Like I said earlier, you have a very pussified definition. You actually believe keeping the terrorists up all night listening to the Barney song is actually torture. What the hell do you want us to do, put lounge chairs in their jail cells and feed them fucking filet mignon for dinner each day? Do you think that will convince any one of them to talk? If we can't make them (gasp!) uncomfortable, how the hell do you expect us to get any information out of them? Ask them nicely? Get down on our knees and beg for the information? These were fuckers who, just a day ago, were trying to kill us! How can you not understand that these terrorists could hold vital information to weapons cache locations, locations of terrorist leaders, and anything else that might prevent the loss of an American soldier's life? Why the hell aren't you willing to make these bastards "uncomfortable" in order to get them to spill their guts with information? You want torture? Go back two years to one of those torture rooms in Baghdad described in that USA Today article. THAT is torture. This staying up all night bullshit? Not even comparable. Just out of curiosity, where was your outrage when Ali Kaddam Kardom was being beaten, refrigerated naked and held underground for being a Shiite? When was that ever the ACLU's definiton of torture? Again, read the Washington Post editorial and LOOK at the ACLU documents! Those will outline what kinds of torture they think were authorized. Yes, Saddam was a minor league dictator, but the U.S. is not an international police force. And we went in claiming an imminent threat from WMDs, which was a bald-faced lie. Then you all tried to change the pretext to a humanitarian issue, because otherwise Georgio would look bad. NOTE: Okay, this thing is too long. I'm going to pick and choose major topics out of your mile-long post. Hydra1945 Secondly, if they hadn't hated us for our freedoms and other "stupid" reasons like that, they wouldn't have flown two jets into the World Trade Center twin towers Either that or because we killed those terrorist's families when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with the U.S.S. North Carolina's battle cannons. These issues aren't one-sided. You have to look at them from everyone's points of view. hydra1945 When you substitute short words with longer words in a failed effort to make yourself appear more intelligent as a result of your massive superiority complex. I still don't engage in the use of a thesaurus. hydra1945 Stop talking before you embarass yourself more. What, exactly, was all that, um, whatchacallit, oh yeah, sarin stuff the Polish troops found a few months ago? Isn't that sarin stuff a weapon of mass destruction? Didn't they also just recently find some more of that stuff in the trunk of a car in Fallujah? Oh, wait, that must've been a new flavor of jell-o or something. Silly me. I should tell my mom to buy me some sarin jell-o next time she's at the grocery store. Didn't the Duelfer report say that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction? The Bushies have been so lax about border control that it's a small wonder there are nerve agents in the country now. Found them a few months ago? That doesn't mean anything. It's been so long since we've invaded that these could have come from any neighbouring country. hydra1945 You already do, unless you don't consider nearly half of both houses of Congress to be considered leaders. Democrats in Congress aren't exactly the leaders right now. And if they had gotten into this Iraq mess, I would have been just as mad. You don't notice many Democrats getting into mass bloodshed battles, do you? [Come on, say something about Clinton.] hydra1945 Who the hell is trying to censor you? He wasn't saying you couldn't disagree with the actions taken by the head-of-state, just that in your blind hatred of every little thing done by George W. Bush, you begin hating your own country, which is the opposite of patriotism. There's actually a bill on the floor of the Congress right now trying to ban liberal viewpoints on the internet. hydra1945 Don't make me laugh. The same can be said of you. Kindly don't compare me to cowmisfit, or whoever I was talking to there. hydra1945 Be sure to ask Santa for some common sense this Christmas (that is, if you celebrate Christmas; I wouldn't be surprised if you became an atheist just to make sure you don't offend anyone by celebrating the birth of your lord and saviour, Jesus Christ (well, to normal people it'd be Jesus Christ; to you, it'd be Bill Clinton)). Stop typecasting Democrats with a couple ACLU suits. hydra1945 How do you know there's an executive order when there is no evidence to prove the existence of one? Because so many leaked FBI documents point to one. And right now, the ACLU is suing to see if there is one. Time will tell. hydra1945 No one is saying you can't question the actions of the President; you just happen to disagree with every little thing he does, and your arguments are making us believe you hate your own country since you're so quick to blame America first in any foreign conflict. No, conflicts that stop genocides are pretty good, like if Bush invaded Sudan to stop what's going on in there. That would be pretty good. And also, the invasion of Afghanstan was most certainly a good move, although elections aren't going very well over there. hydra1945 Typical. You name four Republican presidents and point out one bad quality in each. Nevermind that Nixon negotiated the end of the Vietnam War. Nevermind that Reagan brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nevermind that Bush Sr. oversaw the fall of the Soviet Union (though it began during Reagan's term). And, of course, nevermind that Bush Jr. freed at least 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis and is leading the War on Terror in the best way possible. Nixon was too early for me to talk about the Vietnam war. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't do much to end the Soviet Union, it collapsed from its own internal problems with its economic system. Bush Jr. is fighting the war on Iraq in a terrible way, namely putting soldiers in Iraq and telling them to shoot people who shoot at them. There hasn't been much news from Afghanistan. hydra1945 You know nothing about economics. Stop acting like you do. Gold is at 434+ right now and the Euro is worth 1.3 dollars. Those are horrible signs of inflation. hydra1945 Neither does acting like you're better than everyone else. My Clinton, I have never seen someone with a superiority complex as big as yours. Tell me, how am I supposed to state a differing opinion from someone else and yet not act better than them, in your eyes? hydra1945 We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed. Crimson didn't make much sense when she touched on the popular vote. I didn't quite understand what she meant, and I'm not sure you did, either. When did I say we elected officials based on the popular vote? No, I really didn't. Well, there you go. After the bold, the rest of those points I had already touched on or where too stupid for me to care about, statements like "You are such a tool!" Have fun.
cowmisfit SuperFlyingEngi Also, have you all heard about the defamation of character and libel suit that John Kerry has against the Swift Boat Hoax? Don't matter, he won't win. Swift Boat was just telling everyone the truth , and convinced at least a few people not to vote for that anti-american fool. You really need to stop calling everything you don't agree with anti-american.
Quote: You really need to stop calling everything you don't agree with anti-american. This is the most valuable thing you've ever said.
Gah, I'm trying to take that as a compliment.
SuperFlyingEngi hydra1945 We use the electoral college to elect our presidents. The popular vote is literally meaningless. Crimson just mentioned the popular vote to make a point that you obviously missed. Crimson didn't make much sense when she touched on the popular vote. I didn't quite understand what she meant, and I'm not sure you did, either. Crimson Oh PLEASE... this is so straightforward. You think "hmm it wasn't a legit election" in 2000, well, Bush managed to convince enough people he could do the job and being a Republican rules to WIN, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote which Clinton couldn't accomplish. LET IT GO ALREADY. Bush managed to convince enough people that he could do that job, and the Republican party convinced enough people that Repuiblican is the way to be. He won, completely, even with over 50% of the popular vote. Clinton couldn't manage 50% of the popular vote. I do not agree with my fellow Republicans who say that the war is for humanitarian reasons. I will stick by the WMD reasoning that's been there since day 1. I will use the Duelfer report outlining the vast corruption in the United Nations that prevented more countries from supporting action against the guy who gave them lots of money as the reasoning why all countries in the UN weren't with us. I would say that if my grandma died, not one of you would truly care about it, though you might feel bad for me for like a few minutes. I don't really honestly give a shit about a couple prisoners being kept awake. It's retarded. They need to send Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Phoenix over there.
Quote: Either that or because we killed those terrorist's families when we shelled the Bekaa Valley with the U.S.S. North Carolina's battle cannons. Engi, check your facts before you post please. the USS North Carolina was decomissioned on June 27 1947. You are either making things up, or you have the wrong battleship. Quote: Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people heere? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killd from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up. Come back when you have the REAL numbers, will you? And if you truely believe that the US military, as professional and well-trained as it is, has killed 100,000 civilians, you need to re-aquaint yourself with reality. People holding weapons do not count as civilians. What, you want our troops to stand there while some goon with an AK-47 blasts them, just because he isn't wearing a uniform? Come on. Anyone who poses a threat to our soldiers is NOT a civilian. I really wish people would stop trying to paint the US as a gang of baby-killing thugs to get an anti-war message across... anyone who knows someone in the military, or anyone who IS in the military, will tell you that our soldiers would NEVER intentionally attack unarmed civilians. Every effort is made to cut down the possibility of civilian casualties.
warranto In regards to this whole terrorists and prisoners of war bit. If Iraqi insurgents aren't being held as prisoners of war, what are they being held as? Even normal prisoners have certain rights that must be upheald. They're being held as captured terrorists; that's what they are, at least. As has been established, they cannot be held as prisoners of war since they do not meet the requirements to be considered as such according to the Geneva Convention, which is the legal document to which we are relating. The proper treatment or "rights" of captured terrorists (or the existence of, for that matter) is not outlined in the Geneva Convention, so they receive no coverage under said document. To my knowledge, there is actually no document whatsoever that really dictates how we're supposed to treat these captured terrorists (if there is, please let me know and show it to me), and it seems that we're not drilling holes into their ankles, pulling their teeth out with pliers, and gouging their eyes out (three examples of types of torture Saddam's interrogators used on their prisoners (THAT'S real torture)) out of our good grace, even though the bastards certainly deserve it. Quote: Not according to the UN just prior to war being delcared. And that is all that really matters, regardless of what you may happen to think about the UN. Not really since all that really matters is the truth; whether or not they were found before or after the war is irrelevant. The truth is he had them, and the programs for their development were just waiting to be restarted as soon as enough people in the U.N. were paid off through the Oil-for-Food program and sanctions were lifted. Quote: That is true, I was nitpicking. This is only because, while those in captivity have done unspeakable things (I'm assuming this as people are lableing them terrorists) and deserve what they are getting, the point is that it is still not the "right" thing to do, to which you appear to be arguing the alternative. The "right" thing to do is to get them to divulge any information that may be helpful to U.S. troops out on the battlefield; an example that I have given before of one such piece of information could possibly be the location of a large terrorist weapons cache. Get the captured terrorist to spill his guts about this weapons cache, and that's a boatload of weapons that the soldiers don't have to worry about since they'd be able to use that information given by the captured terrorist to go to that location and secure the weapons. We are not gouging their eyes out; we are not shoving rats up their asses through metal pipes to eat them from the inside out; we're not forcing them to sit on broken Pepsi bottles to fill it up with their blood. Quote: Take a psychology course, and perhaps you'll think differently. These seemingly menial things can have a profound impact on a prisoners health. Both mental and physical... A simple dog barking won't do a thing bad, however, a dog sounding like it will attack, while it's beeing held on a leash infront of your face, will. Who gives a shit about the terrorists' well-being? When U.S. soldiers' lives are on the line, every measure possible should be taken to ensure their survival. If that means scaring a few captured terrorists with some german shepards to get them to divulge whatever helpful information they may have, so be it. Like I said before, we'll muzzle the mutts when they spill their guts. Until they get to talkin', they can keep on barkin'. SuperFlyingLiberalTool No, Moore's movie came out quite a while after the election. Quite a while after I had thought this through and seen events unfold. Also, I think you're typecasting Christmas-bashing with Democrats a bit too much here. It's not exactly a stated goal of the DNC. I actually didn't get all that much out of F 9/11. Just another movie. The Democratic Party's platform shares the same goals that the ACLU and most other organizations that are pitching such a huge fit about Christmas's, and religion's in general, presence in the public venue have in relation to that issue. In fact, they're nearly identical. If you don't want to be "typecasted," don't associate yourself so closely to the party. Quote: Well, you and your "crew" certainly flat out deny any possibility of it and that's the way it must be. Don't pretend that you're leaning over the fence and I'm not. You seem to forget from whom this story is originating: the ACLU, which is, at best, nothing more than a liberal think tank. You're taking this small (and probably wrong) allegation and turning it into some scandal as big as the Oil-for-Food scandal. You're blindly accepting it as fact since the ACLU published it and it appears to hurt Bush. I'm not saying there's no possibility of "torture" in the sense that you mean it. According to your definition, thumping someone on the head with your middle finger is "torture." In that case, I hope we're "torturing" the captured terrorists. I reiterate: if they have to listen to doggies yip each day and receive daily thumpings on the head to get them to talk, so be it. I certainly hope you didn't imply you were "leaning over the fence" at any time in this thread; such a move would be very uncharacteristic of you. Quote: I think you mean booksmart and yet not agree with the ideals of others. I meant exactly what I said. Quote: I have claimed to be more open-minded on issues of race? And also, speech never comes out very well if you end two sentences, one right after the other, with "you are!" Just a tidbit of advice. I wasn't even referring to a race issue. Besides, you incriminate yourself later on in your post: Quote: These issues aren't one-sided. You have to look at them from everyone's points of view. You essentially call me closed-minded while basically proclaiming you have an open-minded view. Yet, you seemingly have a very closed-minded view on conservatives. By the way, people generally find it offensive when you're correcting their minor grammar mistakes, so unless you want to make a name for yourself as an asshole, you might want to keep from pointing out minor errors like that. Just a tidbit of advice. Quote: Didn't you just earlier imply that you were more open about the ideas of others than I am? I didn't imply anything. I said bluntly that you were on a moral power-trip to prove yourself somehow better than conservatives. I guess it's the superiority complex talking. Quote: You do realize that Reagan did indeed give enormous amounts of arms to the Afghans and pretend to the American people that it wasn't happening? You just proved the point I was making. Quote: Did I indeed say it was some president's fault that Saddam was in power? Was that back when I was 11 or something? You know what I meant and what my point was. Stop nitpicking at details. Quote: America is not the infallible entity you would like it to be. Too bad I've never said or even implied that America is infallible. Quote: Yes, there are more than a handful of people in Iraq and Afghanistan out to kill our soldiers. Some of it is because of all of the hate propaganda over there. But you have to open your eyes, hydra. Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that we have killed with bombs and such. You make a statement like that right after telling me to open my eyes? First of all, it's not even mathematically plausible. Later on in your post, you claim 100,000 civilians have been killed by coalition forces. That's 0.38% of the total Iraqi population. Tell me, please, how mathematically 99.62% of the rest of the population can know at least one person of that 0.38%. Like NukeIt15 said, if you honestly think the best-trained and most-sophisticated military in the entire fucking world has killed 100,000 civilians, whether intentionally or unintentionally, you need to open your eyes to reality. Your statement would have been more correct to reality had you said, "Right now, almost everyone in Iraq knows someone personal that Saddam has killed with torture methods." Need I repost that USA Today article for you so you can read it again (based on your comment, something tells me you didn't)? Quote: They take that pretty seriously over there. And we've killed a LOT of civilians. It's not just because they're evil satanists, it's because they have genuine reasons to be mad at the U.S. These things need to be recognized if we're to bring peace back to Iraq, which isn't going to happen at a snap of the fingers. We haven't killed as many people as Saddam has during his reign of terror. I again cite the USA Today article I previously posted. The true number of people tortured to death by Saddam may never be known since they're making new discoveries of the horrific torment placed on thousands, if not millions, of Iraqi citizens during Saddam's reign. You also greatly overestimate the numbers of Iraqis that are truly resistant to America's presence in Iraq. According to an interview with an Army general on Fox News (I might as well stop here since you won't believe for a second anything Fox News says), about 95% of the Iraqi population is truly grateful for their liberation, are truly satisfied with how things are going, and wish the United States to stay as long as needed to get the job done. That leaves only 5% that is angered at our presence there, and most of that 5% is peaceful resistance. Now what the hell kind of statement is "they have genuine reasons to be mad at the US"? You're going to pull that "we killed their babies!" argument on me now, aren't you? As I said before, anyone believing that argument for a second needs a jolt of reality. They're mad because they're told to be mad by their oppressive government. I don't know where you're getting this "genuine reasons to be mad" bullshit from. By the way, I have never implied the Iraq war would be a short one. Stop trying to imply that I, any other Republican on this message board, or George W. Bush has ever said it would be. Quote: Are you suggesting that we should cover up everything bad the government does and portray a better picture of ourselves, like in 1984? We shouldn't act so damn surprised when something bad does happen; it's a war for Clinton's sake! Quite frankly, the public doesn't need to know about every little bad thing that might happen during the war until all the facts are known about it. Quote: So I should be more gung-ho and not care about how harshly we deal with soldiers we capture when it's AGAINST OUR LAWS? "Soldiers" isn't the right term to describe them; "human pieces of shit" would be more fitting. You do know just who these people are, right? These were terrorists who were trying to kill our own soldiers. I can't believe you would actually put their well-being above that of the American soldier. Oh, and exactly against what law is making the captured terrorists listen to dogs bark? Quote: Are you really so befuddled in your mind as to believe that all Iraqis are terrorists? Sometimes I wonder if you even read what I write.... I cannot BELIEVE that you actually thought that I was saying all Iraqis are terrorists. WHEN did I EVER say ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT????? Don't you see that I'm the only one here who actually cares about the well-being of the Iraqis?? You're the one who didn't want the war waged in the first place! You're the one who would rather have Saddam back in power than to see George W. Bush succeed! YOU'RE THE ONE WHO WANTS THE RAPE ROOMS AND TORTURE ROOMS TO BE FILLED WITH SCREAMS AND CRIES OF HORRIBLE PAIN AND TERROR!!!!!!! Can't you see just how much good this war did to the Iraqi people?? Can't you see that Saddam was no "small-scale dictator" as you labeled him later on?? Can you not see past your Democratic indoctrination to realize anything good that came out of this war????? Quote: Terrorists flew planes into our buildings. Guerilla soldiers are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. And keeping people up all night is one way to describe the torture going on. [See Washington Post editorial] No, TERRORISTS are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. Not "insurgents" or "Iraqi militants" or "resistance fighters" or any other prettied-up term the anti-war media might play up. These are TERRORISTS. Keeping people up all night is NOT torture IN ANY NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!!! Find something other than a damn editorial to back up your arguments. I might as well post one of the articles Neal Boortz wrote on his webpage and call it "evidence supporting my viewpoint." How about an actual news article instead of a damn editorial? Quote: and what do you propose we do from here on? Help the Iraqis become self-sufficient (the rest of your post was too stupid to reply to). Quote: So the ends justify the means? We should break our own rules all we want to get information that we can't even prove is truly helpful? One of the discoveries of the 20th century is that people subjected to torture are going to tell the torturers what they want to hear, not what they know. It's not a truly effective technique for coaxing information out of someone. You keep referring to some set of "rules" that somehow dictates how we're supposed to treat captured terrorists. Show me these rules. Do you honestly think we as civilians would have access to any information that may have been gathered during interrogations when these "torture" methods were employed? One of the discoveries made by common sense is that the prisoners, no matter what the situation, will always portray the conditions of his prison far worse than how they really are in order to garner support from the public in an ultimate goal of being released. It is therefore not possible to go solely by what the captured terrorists are claiming about their conditions since they are more likely than not lying about the extreme of their conditions. Some people will even injure themselves to make it look like they have suffered daily beatings. Quote: Yeah, Saddam was a small-scale dictator. One what size did he kill people here? Surely not 100,000 civilians or more, like the number we've probably killed from bombing and fighting, although the President won't release any numbers, because whenever he does they make him look bad. Again, read the Post Editorial I C&P'ed a couple posts up. Like I said before, Saddam was no "small-scale dictator." I can't believe you would insult the thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis who have suffered in his torture chambers. Since you seem like you never actually read that USA Today article, I'll link you to it again (this time, actually read it): http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm Like I said before, the true number of the people tortured and killed by Saddam's regime may never be known. New, horrifying discoveries are made every day that reveal just how badly Saddam tortured his own people. How can you sit back and call that "small-scale?" Also, again, like NukeIt15 said and like I said earlier in this post, how can you possibly believe the best military in the world accidentally killed 100,000 civilians? Take Nuke's advice and come back with the real numbers before you start throwing false statistics around. I thought you said you cared about our soldiers; why, then, would you proceed to insult them in such a way? You damn hypocrite. Quote: The ACLU is suing right now under Freedom of Information for an executive order that leaked documents are pointing straight to an executive order, and they want to see it... 'Sides, if you want to read an unbiased source, just read all those documents they have. I've read the documents, and no, they do not. Quote: I'm not saying this is an absolute truth. I'm posting this as a "here's-where-we-are-know." Let's look at your very first post in this thread, shall we? Quote: Yes, that's right. Seems as if "President" Bush authorized torture and this wasn't just a small isolated thing. But anyone who reads news already knew that. The contradiction is obvious. I rest my case. Quote: Read the Washington Post editorial. First, you read the USA Today news article, then find me an unbiased news article that substantiates your argument. Quote: But you all almost exclusively disagree with the Republican party on issues of religious zealotism, not actual political issues. If I entirely re-wrote the DNC's stand on everything, it wouldn't be the same, but I agree with their general ideals. Please, for the love of all things sacred and holy, tell us where they would differ at all, even if it's in regard to only one issue. Give us just one issue where you disagree with the Democratic Party's stance. Take note of how I'm not talking about "general ideals;" I'm talking a specific issue where your view differs from the Democratic Party to any degree. More to come later. I leave you with that challenge.
hydra1945 ...and the programs for their development were just waiting to be restarted as soon as enough people in the U.N. were paid off through the Oil-for-Food program and sanctions were lifted. Just a note on this... Those sanctions and the sanctions of the NPT are the only "legal" stipulations holding Iraq back from producing nuclear WMDs. (The NPT only deals with nuclear weapons, as far as I've read). Technically, Iraq is ALLOWED to have restarted those programs after sanctions were up if and ONLY if they declare their arsonals to the United Nations. Something that we can debate forever, but can never conclude upon. I could go into the technicalities on why it isn't the United State's authority to call any state on that issue, but that is another discussion.
Quote: Who gives a shit about the terrorists' well-being? When U.S. soldiers' lives are on the line, every measure possible should be taken to ensure their survival. If that means scaring a few captured terrorists with some german shepards to get them to divulge whatever helpful information they may have, so be it. Quite interesting, considering I believe America is up in arms about people being taken hostage by the Iraqi "terrorists". I guess this falls under the "It's ok, as long as it doesn't happen to me" category. If you're not willing to admit that this is the exact same reasoning that the other side uses, and accept that it is ok, your arguement holds no strength. Quote: Not really since all that really matters is the truth; whether or not they were found before or after the war is irrelevant. The truth is he had them, and the programs for their development were just waiting to be restarted as soon as enough people in the U.N. were paid off through the Oil-for-Food program and sanctions were lifted. And the truth is that the ends to not justify the means. The war was entered into illegally, no way around that. Whether or not something incrimminating was found as a result does not matter. After all, if the police force their way into a home and perform an illegal seach, what usually happens? Quote: No, TERRORISTS are what we're fighting right now in Iraq. Not "insurgents" or "Iraqi militants" or "resistance fighters" or any other prettied-up term the anti-war media might play up. These are TERRORISTS. Keeping people up all night is NOT torture IN ANY NORMAL SENSE OF THE WORD!!!! Gasp! A country's people are defending themselves from an invading force by any means available to them! Terrorists!
warranto If you're not willing to admit that this is the exact same reasoning that the other side uses, and accept that it is ok, your arguement holds no strength. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to recognize that they are utilizing a double standard for American or coalition forces when in fact there is none.
how is there no double standard? France gets praise for utilizing similar tactices during their occupation in WWII, but when Iraq does it, it's the ultimate evil? Note: I said similar, not same.
Ah, but you're looking at it from the die-hard war supporter's view. Objectively, there is none.
warranto Gasp! A country's people are defending themselves from an invading force by any means available to them! Terrorists! No shit. If someone invaded my country I'd respond in the same way as the Iraqis have.
That's interesting- considering that the majority of insurgents that have been killed or captured so far weren't from Iraq. They even found several French citizens in the pile. Defending their own country, my ass. It isn't their own country any more than China is mine. Tell me, how many soldiers have you talked to before blabbering on about "how bad" it is over there? Any at all? I know a few who are close family friends who have served/are serving in Iraq, and they don't paint so dark a picture as you do. I keep hearing stories of towns getting runningw ater for the first time, schools being re-opened for the first time in years...funny how you never mention anything good. It's almost as if you don't want to believe anything good is happening at all. Funny, that.
NukeIt15 That's interesting- considering that the majority of insurgents that have been killed or captured so far weren't from Iraq. They even found several French citizens in the pile. Defending their own country, my ass. It isn't their own country any more than China is mine. Except the problem you people have is you view them as one solid terrorist army. There are rebels involved, Iraqi fundamentalists, terrorists, and the like among the "insurgent" force. An insurgent in this war isn't necessarily a terrorist, especially if they fall into the Iraqi fundamentalist category, and it is extremely uninformed and prejudice to think that they are. Remember, it was YOUR coalition that lept head first into this invasion illegally, fucked up the standing recognized sovereignty, and established YOUR ideal representative government to be recognized as legit until this election happens-- whenever it happens. As far as those rebels and fundamentalists are concerned, Iraq is still their nation and do not recognize the government established by this coup d'etats. That does NOT make them terrorists by any reasoning. Quote: Tell me, how many soldiers have you talked to before blabbering on about "how bad" it is over there? Any at all? I know a few who are close family friends who have served/are serving in Iraq, and they don't paint so dark a picture as you do. I keep hearing stories of towns getting runningw ater for the first time, schools being re-opened for the first time in years...funny how you never mention anything good. It's almost as if you don't want to believe anything good is happening at all. Funny, that. This isn't even remotely on topic to what we were discussing. No one denies the improvement of life in Iraq, and nor do we want it to stop. However, when you look at the larger picture, past, present, and future, the basis of that improvement stemmed from grounds that couldn't possibly justify it legally.
Javaxcx No one denies the improvement of life in Iraq, and nor do we want it to stop. However, when you look at the larger picture, past, present, and future, the basis of that improvement stemmed from grounds that couldn't possibly justify it legally. who says it was illegal? the UN? that corrupt mob that hordes money in exchange for peoples happiness, health, and freedom? If thats what you mean by illegal then call me a criminal. In the end, The Iraqi people wont care how it came to pass, only that they can now embrace freedom. A right that should have been theirs at birth.
=[DT =gbull=[L]=]who says it was illegal? the UN? that corrupt mob that hordes money in exchange for peoples happiness, health, and freedom? If thats what you mean by illegal then call me a criminal. In the end, The Iraqi people wont care how it came to pass, only that they can now embrace freedom. A right that should have been theirs at birth. This is sheer hypocrisy. How can you support the actions of the coalition, a coalition comprised of countries that have done the very thing you're accusing the U.N. of doing throughout their histories. And while it is likely true that the U.N. has done what you've stated, that does not mean that the U.N. prioritizes what you've mentioned over people all of the time. Who do you think plays the critical role in humanitarian organization and deployment and multilateral diplomatic negotiations worldwide? Here's a hint, it's not the United States alone. As for the war being illegal. As a matter of fact it is. Another thing that amazes me is that you people tend to forget that YOU ALL SIGNED THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS. YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS WITHIN IT. Not only that, you've signed AND ratified them. That means, when Resolution 687 says "Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq..." and the charter says "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations," you are NOT legally allowed to violate Iraqi government or territory no matter how evil you believe it to be. Does that mean I don't wish for the Iraqi people to be given the right to the same liberties that I supposedly have? Of course not. They, as far as "I" am concerned deserve the same rights and benefits as I do. The law doesn't work that way. What more, you've gone one over and affirmed that law. But does that mean I support this war? I can't make the leap and support an illegal war. But that certainly doesn't mean the results of the war are bad. It simply means that the ends cannot justify the means.
Javaxcx Ah, but you're looking at it from the die-hard war supporter's view. Objectively, there is none. erm, I thought the die-hard war supporter view would be that Iraqi fighters ARE terrorists...
Very off topic, but... Quote: Osama Bin Laden is offering 25000 for anyone willing to be a suicide bomber. So far none of those four people that took the offer have appeared to collect their cash.