Soldiers horrifically abuse Iraqis

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Yeah - thanks to Clinton for cutting back on all the budgets and things -

Oh yeah, the poor republican congress had no control oveer the budget. :....(

Too bad she has absolutely no respect for Americans who don't believe the same that she does - which is the majority of Americans.

By what measure and what difference does it make? Foreigners must agree with the majority or..??? Can you really say your any less contemptuous of others? Don't bother trying, it was rhetorical.

Oh - but people such as you and BoP and Fenir can talk in absolutes and be so confident of your beliefs.

Oh and what sorts of people are those? I speak my own opinion and don't see this this as us and them like you. I think my views are different than theirs. Basically then anyone who dosagrees with you on anything would fit the bill. Yes, I absolutely speak of *my* opinions.

Soi out of MILLIONS of soldiers - there was never ONCE any abuse. I highly doubt that was the case. Also - we didn't RESORT to torturing them - you see there you go - as well as the others - implying that this was a military wide abuse - and so far nothing indicates that this was.

That's convenient. Torture is justifable to you but it wasn't approved because other than the CIA program at the prison employing these techniques last fall, and the fact that higher ups were aware of the abuse and dismissed it until it was bad publicity, they didn't RESORT to torture. (You said we but I'm sure you wefre still in NJ at the time.) Yes, no one can prove that everyone in the military was torturing people.

Only the ignorant ever felt it was for oil.

EDIT: Oh, that's right. Only mods can flamebait.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

the military leadership however, is responsible for their subordinates... whether they knew what they were doing or not... i have yet to see anyone of real authority accept this fact

The ones in question are being dealt with-maybe not as quickly or in the way everyone may like -but they are dealing dealt with.Do people that want to hold the whole U.S. military responsible think that the whole U.S. military should be court marshalled,imprisoned,or what?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because it is not a fact. If they have no idea of what is going on - how do you expect them to be responsible and do something about it? It depends on if they knew what was going on there and if they chose not to do anything. But when Rumsfeld KNEW about it - he issued a press release - said that an investigation was underway. It wasn't just swept under the rug.

If a soldier rapes a citizen in a foreign land - the president - nor people in the chain of command is responsible for that. If the higher ups were responsible for every wrong doing of the soldiers in their command - whether they kenw it or not - there would be no US armed forces. That is why we are having an investigation - to find out how far and how wide this is.

the military is a very structured organization... sure, individuals can go off on their own, but the extent of this atrocity, and the comments by some of those involved, point to the possibility of this being a intentional method of interrogation by military intelligence... time will tell, but the jury is still out whether you care to admit it or not

in terms of responsibility, i manage a group of people... i expect them to do a good job, and keep the ones i know will do a good job... that said, if one of them makes a mistake that costs us a customer it is my responsibility, and i deal with the consequences... and if it seemed that the problem could have been prevented if i had better trained or better choosen the people under me, my own position might be in question... that's what leadership is all about... without it, the idea of responsibility ceases to exist

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Gee, that seems like disputing with a moderator in open forum....
Funnily enough, thats the very same thing I got spanked for some threads ago...

Perhaps, ohhh just perhaps, the rules should apply to all of us with equal wrath.

They do. Some are just worse than others. Btw, since you brought it up, that was not all you got spanked for, and you also had prior warnings, so stop acting like your spanking was undeserved.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
the military is a very structured organization... sure, individuals can go off on their own, but the extent of this atrocity, and the comments by some of those involved, point to the possibility of this being a intentional method of interrogation by military intelligence... time will tell, but the jury is still out whether you care to admit it or not

in terms of responsibility, i manage a group of people... i expect them to do a good job, and keep the ones i know will do a good job... that said, if one of them makes a mistake that costs us a customer it is my responsibility, and i deal with the consequences... and if it seemed that the problem could have been prevented if i had better trained or better choosen the people under me, my own position might be in question... that's what leadership is all about... without it, the idea of responsibility ceases to exist

I get what you are trying to say, but even with your company if someone under you is at fault,its not the fault of the company.But I also know who will take the heat from the customers.Therefore the employee responsible should either correct his mistakes if possible or be canned.The company can't do anymore than try to investigate the problem from the source of the problem,and do thier best to resolve the problem.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
The ones in question are being dealt with-maybe not as quickly or in the way everyone may like -but they are dealing dealt with.Do people that want to hold the whole U.S. military responsible think that the whole U.S. military should be court marshalled,imprisoned,or what?

It's not the military that's the problem, it's the policy of skirting around the Geneva Convention however possible.

WHen your commander-in-chief is on record as saying that the GC is irrelevant and/or anachronistic and your organisation employs an explicit policy of "softening up" (I'll use that Orwellian euphemism rather than the more prosaic "torture") then there's an in-built justification for stepping over the line. Which is exactly what these soldier are coming out with.

All this has been discussed before on this thread...

Let me ask you directly, QAL, do you think this is a war situation or not?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Now...if...I...can....just....claw.....my....way.. ..through.....the.....giant.....American...flags.. ..waving....


I wonder how Americans think the Muslims feel after seeing the brutal and sadistic treatment of their own in prison? Does the US think that it was a public relations success?

One cannot compare torture to murder, (the bloke who got his throat cut on TV), but both are incredibly wrong. I get the feeling that Americans are happy that there is now something to show that the nasty muslims are still nastier than you.

Whats that saying I am trying to remember....something about two wrongs dont make a right? Or was it an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? The musilms were just reacting to the cultured and enlightened Americans abusing their helpless Iraqi prisoners while they lay in chains. The only way for America to win is to be morally better than they are. Hearts and minds, and so forth...(because that worked so well in Vietnam )

And your all of to a smashing start

And you are nothing but condescending and arrogant sir. The people that killed Nick Berg, hardly give a rat's ass about the prisoners that were abused by the American soldiers. They are terrorists. They do not care about Iraq, its people, you, me, or anything else. All they care about is their hate for the west and their fanatical cause to destroy it.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
If the entire US army cannot be held accountable for the actions of a deranged few, then it follows that the entire musilm world cannot be held to the same account.

Another brilliant observation. Do you have any idea how many muslims live in this country? The US has never held the muslim world responsible, so what do you base your remarks on other than your anti-American feelings?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan

Oh yeah, the poor republican congress had no control oveer the budget. :....(
[/b]

Clinton put together the Budget. Yeah - Congress could have given money to the CIA - but then Clinton would not have signed it.

By what measure and what difference does it make? Foreigners must agree with the majority or..??? Can you really say your any less contemptuous of others? Don't bother trying, it was rhetorical.

Yeah - the contempt of your statement is great. Actually - I have no problems with any countries - as long as they don't try ruling America. They don't live here - they have no idea about hal;f the news - they get it only fitered throiugh their own news. How many anti-country threads have I started? How many threads have I started to just bitch about a particular country. Don't bother - it was rhetorical.

Oh and what sorts of people are those? I speak my own opinion and don't see this this as us and them like you. I think my views are different than theirs. Basically then anyone who dosagrees with you on anything would fit the bill. Yes, I absolutely speak of *my* opinions.

I speak my opinions. And your commments and BoP's comments indicate that you do look at this as an us versus them.

That's convenient. Torture is justifable to you but it wasn't approved because other than the CIA program at the prison employing these techniques last fall, and the fact that higher ups were aware of the abuse and dismissed it until it was bad publicity, they didn't RESORT to torture. (You said we but I'm sure you wefre still in NJ at the time.) Yes, no one can prove that everyone in the military was torturing people.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said that torture was justifiable - there you go again putting words in my mouth and saying I said something which I didn't. This seems to be your usual tactic.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
in terms of responsibility, i manage a group of people... i expect them to do a good job, and keep the ones i know will do a good job... that said, if one of them makes a mistake that costs us a customer it is my responsibility, and i deal with the consequences... and if it seemed that the problem could have been prevented if i had better trained or better choosen the people under me, my own position might be in question... that's what leadership is all about... without it, the idea of responsibility ceases to exist

Oh yeah - right. But what YOU are saying isn't the same thing. Yeah it IS your responsibility for YOUR subordinates. But you aren't talking about the DIRECT command - you are referring to Rumsfeld. Which basically means that you feel that if YOUR people **** up - that you should get fired and then the CEO should also be fired.

The thing is - the person in charge of the group of soldiers is ALSO currently in trouble - even though they may not have had a direct role. If you are going to use a comparison - at least make it correspond to your opinion - which is that you think that RUMSFELD should pay - which as I said is similarl to a mistake of your subordinates costing the CEO his job. I'd like to see if you think that should happen in your business or if you think it would.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
morons holding up signs - "No war for oil".

* holds up sign *

Well, it's too late for that, they've already nabbed it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It's not the military that's the problem, it's the policy of skirting around the Geneva Convention however possible.

WHen your commander-in-chief is on record as saying that the GC is irrelevant and/or anachronistic and your organisation employs an explicit policy of "softening up" (I'll use that Orwellian euphemism rather than the more prosaic "torture") then there's an in-built justification for stepping over the line. Which is exactly what these soldier are coming out with.

So where is the proof that anyone said to "soften up" the detainees? Also- cna you provide quotes where Bush is on record saying that the Geneva Convention is irrelevant and anachronistic. I believe he was using it in the context of dealing with Al Qaeda.

Let me ask you directly, QAL, do you think this is a war situation or not?

I think this is a different kind of war - and not one that the old rules can be so easily applied. This isn't against a country - but against terrorists.

[QueenAnnesLace]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
It's not the military that's the problem, it's the policy of skirting around the Geneva Convention however possible.

WHen your commander-in-chief is on record as saying that the GC is irrelevant and/or anachronistic and your organisation employs an explicit policy of "softening up" (I'll use that Orwellian euphemism rather than the more prosaic "torture") then there's an in-built justification for stepping over the line. Which is exactly what these soldier are coming out with.

All this has been discussed before on this thread...

Let me ask you directly, QAL, do you think this is a war situation or not?

Yes it is.But when you are dealing with people that are not part of the GC, the rules of it by all means should be softened.We are dealing with either terrorists or bodies of government that are not part of,lack consideration of,and even against what the GC stands for.These people just plain and simply have thier own sets of rules.If we were to play by their set of rules all hell would break loose.I just think that if they want to go by the GC-great,and it would be a lot easier for the U.S. to stick to it.But if not,thats thier tuff luck.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
* holds up sign *

It would make sense if the war was actually about oil. But I guess at least it makes a nice little slogan to have people who don't read or anything rally behind. It's a simple concept that even a two year old can understand - and doesn't require any difficult thinking to search for the facts or whether the statement even makes sense.

BTW - I find it funny how with the US going to war it was ALL about oil - while with France, Germany and Russia who were KNOWN to have lucrative oil deals with Hussien concerning the oil wells and the oil - it wasn't about oil - it was about the morality of going in there. Screw that the people were being tortured and executed by him - but hell - France, Germany and Russia had no issue with oil right? What about signs - "No Appeasement for Oil" instead - because it's costing us a hell of a lot more than we are going to get from that oil any time soon.

[The Gaffer]

If you think I'm wasting my time finding references for you, you've got another thing coming.

The oil men are playing the long game; they remember the 1970s and they loathe the Saudis with a passion. Saddam's real crime was to start selling oil in Euros, potentially undermining the dollar. Nailing him not only gets it traded in dollars for US companies, but also gets you lot to throw billions of your tax dollars into Bush's cronies' retirement funds AND scares the hell out of the Saudis. And you run right out and start cheering for them! Ye gods.

Stopping Saddam's torture was WAY down the list of arguments put up for the war. You, and Bush et al, know fine well that you would never have got public support for that without the WMD and War on Terror pretexts, both of which have been proven fallacious.

OK, so you both agree that it IS a war. Now, the GC applies to OUR conduct in a war, not the other side's. It does not say "if the enemy hasn't signed up for it, then we all get to ignore it". So it applies to these people. Progress.

But then, who is it a war against? By your own admission, it's an unknown foe. Such a war is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have a war against an abstraction.

And that's your big mistake, IMO. By parading this "War on Terror" slogan all the time you create a justification for their actions. In war, almost anything goes as long as you win. You can nuke cities because it saves lives in the long run. Turn that around and it makes it infinitely easier for potential terrorists to justify killing innocent people.

The only way to beat terrorists is to treat them as CRIMINALS.

It's such a shame because after 9/11 the international community would have swung into line right behind the US if they had pursued an international solution to the problem.

[Sister Golden Hair]

ADMINISTRATIVE WARNING- After observing some flamebaiting and personal attacks, and after receiving some PMs from members complaining about conduct in this thread, I am going to issue a final warning. I am not going to mention names, I am not going to argue with any of you about who is responsible. This is a loaded thread as many of the political threads at Entmoot are. You are at liberty to express your opinions and debate the topic in a civil, intelligent manner. You are not at liberty to FLAME, FLAMEBAIT, LAUNCH PERSONAL ATTACKS, or MAKE INSULTING REMARKS TO OTHERS Please observe the rules at the top of the General Messages forum. Any further violation of the rules will result in the closing of this thread, and possible bannings issued to those responsible. There will be no futher warnings before further action is taken. Do I make myself clear?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
If you think I'm wasting my time finding references for you, you've got another thing coming.

That's only because you can't find anything to back it up. Otherwise you would.

The oil men are playing the long game; they remember the 1970s and they loathe the Saudis with a passion. Saddam's real crime was to start selling oil in Euros, potentially undermining the dollar. Nailing him not only gets it traded in dollars for US companies, but also gets you lot to throw billions of your tax dollars into Bush's cronies' retirement funds AND scares the hell out of the Saudis. And you run right out and start cheering for them! Ye gods.

The worlds currency is still the US dollar. There was even a thing in Time I believe on why the world can not change over to Euros from dollars.

BTW - Hussein using Euro's is the most stupid argument I have heard yet. It's funny - bushles of Euro's weren't found in Iraq - BUT AMERICAN Dollars were.

Stopping Saddam's torture was WAY down the list of arguments put up for the war. You, and Bush et al, know fine well that you would never have got public support for that without the WMD and War on Terror pretexts, both of which have been proven fallacious.

The WMD was only used on the international stage - there were many reasons presented. Why do you think most americans didn't care about whether we found them or not. Because the war for us wasn't abotu WMD. Sorry your news doesn't cover the US very well - other than to water down what they want you to hear - but there was much more to the war than WMD - right from the start.

As for both being proved fallacious - that isn't the case at all. There hasn't been a full inspection of Iraq yet and as I have said - Hussein didn't have doctor death in his government for medical reasons. You want to ignore the facts and ignore the past of what EVERYONE'S intelligence said and make it seem like it was Bush's intelligence information that was incorrect or flawed. First there is still fighting throughout Iraq - we haven't really been able to search the entire country - who knows - maybe Hussein had it trucked out - we don't know right now. But the WMD wasn't the only reason.

OK, so you both agree that it IS a war. Now, the GC applies to OUR conduct in a war, not the other side's. It does not say "if the enemy hasn't signed up for it, then we all get to ignore it". So it applies to these people. Progress.

No - it actually doesn't. It does not apply against terrorists of no nation. It is an agreement between nations.

But then, who is it a war against? By your own admission, it's an unknown foe. Such a war is a contradiction in terms. You cannot have a war against an abstraction.

Yes you can. That is why Europe can't grasp the concept of this war. this is why the US needs to lead - because we can't let the welfare of the US in the hands of Europeans or the UN or the rest of the world.

And that's your big mistake, IMO. By parading this "War on Terror" slogan all the time you create a justification for their actions. In war, almost anything goes as long as you win. You can nuke cities because it saves lives in the long run. Turn that around and it makes it infinitely easier for potential terrorists to justify killing innocent people.

They don't care about justifying their actions - all they are trying to do coe up with excuses. And yes - I think that with Al Qaeda - almost anything does go to win this war. If we don't win this war - we will be destroyed.

The only way to beat terrorists is to treat them as CRIMINALS.

Oh - and have them tried in a court of law? We did that during the clinton adminstration - a lot of good that did. Even in the 9/11 commission they said one of the big problems that caused 9/11 was they were fighting the terrorists as criminals - while they were busy fighting a war. We well we ARE fighting a war now. I'm just gald it's the US leading it.

It's such a shame because after 9/11 the international community would have swung into line right behind the US if they had pursued an international solution to the problem.

It's a shame people have such short term memories - we did try the international route. The problem is - international means - you do it as we say. In other words - we tried working very hard with France and Germany and Russia - Colin Powel was over there constantly - France gave us their word that there would be only one more resolution - that this was NOT going to be dragged on for 17 more resolutions. That time was up - but then France turned around and did the exact opposite. Seeking international cooperation and then going alone when that doesn't come forth as promised is NOT the same thing as not ever seeking and international solution. Look at when the first threads on iraq started to appear on Entmoot - I believe it was June or october BEFORE the war. During the time was all this endless diplomacy you claim never took place.

[QueenAnnesLace]

You know I don't like this war myself, or any war,or people no matter what country,religion,race etc. to be hurt or killed.It's too bad everyone can't agree and get along.That's a world that none of us will be seeing anytime soon.It takes a lot of sacrifice and understanding for any situation to come to a solution.The people we are against over there have done very horrible things and someone finally stepped up to the plate.

Everytime something goes bad in other countries and they can't help themselves,they ask the U.S. We have helped our allies in many different wars.But that doesn't seem to matter as long as it's not benefitting them.

Everthing is not black and white.There is a very large gray area.That area is what seperates everyone,starts wars,and causes so much grief.Too bad you can't just wish it away.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by QueenAnnesLace
Everytime something goes bad in other countries and they can't help themselves,they ask the U.S. We have helped our allies in many different wars.But that doesn't seem to matter as long as it's not benefitting them.

That is very true. No one in Europe was bitching about us leading the way in Bosnia - they begged us to go in there. We wanted them to deal with it themselves - but they couldn't. So we had to lead the way. let's see now - Meloshevic - wmd? Nope. Meloshevic - attacked any outside country? Nope. Meloshevic - a danger to the US? Nope.

Amazing - seems like we should have told Europe to go screw themselves when it came to the problems of Bosnia.

[Ultimatejoe]

No - it actually doesn't. It does not apply against terrorists of no nation. It is an agreement between nations.

This is true. One of those nations is Iraq. As a signatory every Iraqi is protected under the Geneva Conventions. Foreign nationals on the other hand are not afforded the same protections. Now, can you honestly say that no Iraqis are among those being mistreated?