In the last two weeks, the Bush administration has been denounced by two of the world's most respected humanitarian organizations.
Calling the U.S. prison camps in Afghanistan, Irag and Cuba a modern "Gulag," Amnesty International announced investigations of George W.Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and Attorney General Gonzales. If indicted for human rights violations the four could be arrested when caught on foreign soil and/or unprotected by U.S. forces.
Coming almost on the back of AI's press conference, Physicians for Peace announced the results of its investigation. It reported that the arrests in Afghanistan and Irag and other countries by the Bush administration and subsequent torture and murder of prisoners picked up in sweeps has included thousands of innocent people and been directed from the highest echelons of our government, meaning the President's office.
The investigation specifically condemned the view that torture and murder of prisoners has been rare and the work of out-of-control individuals.
I believe our government's behaviour to be absolutely indefensible, a disgrace in perfect accord with the disgrace of lying to go to war with a people that did not attack us or threaten us, and an enormous betrayal of the American people. Further, I think this has been repeatedly proven and is obvious, obvious even without, but buttressed by, the above confirming reports.
The government is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity and should be dealt with appropriately by use of the remedies provided by the constitution.
The Bush Gulag
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
The Bush Gulag
Last edited by crazyhorse1 on Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
skins#1fan
- Hog
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 am
I dont have time to argue every point that you were wrong about so I will try and make it quick. This administration has not commited war crimes. We were attacked and we did something about it. If you gonna say Iraq wasnt a danger then you need to not only get on to our Pres about it but also mention Russia,great Britain france and the entire united nations because they all said he possesed WMDs also. Saddam killed thousands of his own people and to me that is where you need to mention that a hidious crime has took place. I didnt consider Iraq a free and peacefull place. It was a safehaven for terrorists. If you know that terrorists are in your country and you dont do anything about it then you may as well be on their side. And furthermore Obviously America doesnt agree with the crazy liberal views because we were smart enough to elect a strong good leading president along with a good administration. And doing so made us safer now and in the future.
-
Skinsfan55
- +++++++++
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 12:21 pm
- Contact:
We get it George W. Bush sucks, he's easily the worst president of the last 50 years, EASILY.
Everyone knows this but it would be a disgrace to the party for Republicans to actually admit in this day and time that they snuck in one of the worst presidents n US History in 2000. I'm sure many traditional Republicans (Something GW is CERTAINLY not) dislike the direction he's taking the party, but still believe he's a better candidate than Kerry or Gore. I think they're wrong but oh well.
I could be wrong but I find that for whatever reason Republicans have a harder time voting against party lines than Democrats, I'd almost certainly vote for John McCain in 2008 if he wins the primary election but I doubt many Republicans have a Democratic leader that they respect/admire just out of loyalty to their own party.
You're never going to get someone to change their mind on George Bush with just a couple snippets, until GW does something that effects their beliefs they'll have pretty much the same stance on him now.
Don't worry though, in time History will remember him as the failure he is.
Everyone knows this but it would be a disgrace to the party for Republicans to actually admit in this day and time that they snuck in one of the worst presidents n US History in 2000. I'm sure many traditional Republicans (Something GW is CERTAINLY not) dislike the direction he's taking the party, but still believe he's a better candidate than Kerry or Gore. I think they're wrong but oh well.
I could be wrong but I find that for whatever reason Republicans have a harder time voting against party lines than Democrats, I'd almost certainly vote for John McCain in 2008 if he wins the primary election but I doubt many Republicans have a Democratic leader that they respect/admire just out of loyalty to their own party.
You're never going to get someone to change their mind on George Bush with just a couple snippets, until GW does something that effects their beliefs they'll have pretty much the same stance on him now.
Don't worry though, in time History will remember him as the failure he is.
"Guess [Ryan Kerrigan] really does have a good motor. And is relentless. And never quits on a play. And just keeps coming. And probably eats Wheaties and drinks Apple Pie smoothies and shaves with Valvoline." -Dan Steinberg DC Sports Bog
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
I'm a McCain fan myself and a conservative on many issues, a liberal on a few. My votes for Gore and Kerry were strictly anti-Bush votes. I had no doubt in 1999 he would be a disaster for conservatives, as well as for the country. He'll end up causing wild spending, foreign adventuring, religious fanaticism, anti-science, racism, destruction of the environment, and torture and murder to be associated with the word "conservative."
Oh, by the way, Skins#1 fan, the Downing Street memo shows Britian knew there were no WMD's and the UN inspection team knew it as well. That old line about all the other country's thinking Saddam had WMD's has long ago been disproved. Try reading or listen to the news, other than Fox or O'Reilly or Russ or other morons of the non-conservative fascists. Also, Saddam didn't allow any terrorists other than his own in Iraq. You're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. We let him go to attack Saddam, who was not a terrorist and hated Bin Laden. Remember? Remember also who gave Saddam those weapons he used against his people. You do. Right! It was us.
Oh, by the way, Skins#1 fan, the Downing Street memo shows Britian knew there were no WMD's and the UN inspection team knew it as well. That old line about all the other country's thinking Saddam had WMD's has long ago been disproved. Try reading or listen to the news, other than Fox or O'Reilly or Russ or other morons of the non-conservative fascists. Also, Saddam didn't allow any terrorists other than his own in Iraq. You're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. We let him go to attack Saddam, who was not a terrorist and hated Bin Laden. Remember? Remember also who gave Saddam those weapons he used against his people. You do. Right! It was us.
crazyhorse1 wrote:I'm a McCain fan myself and a conservative on many issues, a liberal on a few. My votes for Gore and Kerry were strictly anti-Bush votes. I had no doubt in 1999 he would be a disaster for conservatives, as well as for the country. He'll end up causing wild spending, foreign adventuring, religious fanaticism, anti-science, racism, destruction of the environment, and torture and murder to be associated with the word "conservative."
Oh, by the way, Skins#1 fan, the Downing Street memo shows Britian knew there were no WMD's and the UN inspection team knew it as well. That old line about all the other country's thinking Saddam had WMD's has long ago been disproved. Try reading or listen to the news, other than Fox or O'Reilly or Russ or other morons of the non-conservative fascists. Also, Saddam didn't allow any terrorists other than his own in Iraq. You're confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. We let him go to attack Saddam, who was not a terrorist and hated Bin Laden. Remember? Remember also who gave Saddam those weapons he used against his people. You do. Right! It was us.
I can't stand people who can't tell the truth. Why do flaming libs have a problem with admitting who they are? You pull garbage up from DU, paste it here amongst the non-CommieKoolAid drinkers then proclaim yourself conservative on many issues. OK, name "many" issues that you're conservative on.
If you can't, shut your hole, put your tin foil hat back on and crawl back there and complain about BBV.
Some liberal sites hve a movement where these flamere join sites claimng to be moderates or even conservatives and post their nonsense in off topic discussions. The problem is that almost all of them aren't smart enough to pull their charade off for more than two or three posts before their socialist agendas shine through. Crazyhorse is exhibit A.
This space reserved for BTP......If he ever wins it.
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
Not that this has much to do with the discussion, or that I support the Nazi-Bush comparison, but this picture from Yahoo! news seemed very interesting...
I posted the link because the caption needs to accompany the picture...
Click here to see.
Edit: I am not a Bush supporter, nor do I agree with conservatives on, pretty much everything. Whether or not we were right to go to war, the bottom line is that we (as a nation) were initially told that we needed to fight because Iraq had WMDs. Two weeks later, the government wanted us to believe that we needed to go to war because Saddam was a bad guy. I'm not attempting to 'tell' anyone that the war was wrong; only that the initial reasons we were given were wrong. To me, that is 'flip-flopping'.
To make matters worse (speaking from my own perspective), North Korea poses a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did, and the president insists that he wants to "utilize all diplomatic options" before considering military action. It seems to me that the reason most of our allies did not help us in Iraq is because we did not follow all diplomatic options prior to our deployment. Another case of 'flip-flopping', IMO.
I have purposely restrained myself in these political threads, partly because I exhausted myself during election time, and partly because I am concerned that my views cannot be adaquately explained or presented by trying to type them on a cpu. That said, I am open to discussion from anyone, I always stand my ground for my beliefs, and I think that everyone should have their own opinion based on their own research - which involves interpreting factual information, and not listening to Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore.
To each his own.
I posted the link because the caption needs to accompany the picture...
Click here to see.
Edit: I am not a Bush supporter, nor do I agree with conservatives on, pretty much everything. Whether or not we were right to go to war, the bottom line is that we (as a nation) were initially told that we needed to fight because Iraq had WMDs. Two weeks later, the government wanted us to believe that we needed to go to war because Saddam was a bad guy. I'm not attempting to 'tell' anyone that the war was wrong; only that the initial reasons we were given were wrong. To me, that is 'flip-flopping'.
To make matters worse (speaking from my own perspective), North Korea poses a much bigger threat than Iraq ever did, and the president insists that he wants to "utilize all diplomatic options" before considering military action. It seems to me that the reason most of our allies did not help us in Iraq is because we did not follow all diplomatic options prior to our deployment. Another case of 'flip-flopping', IMO.
I have purposely restrained myself in these political threads, partly because I exhausted myself during election time, and partly because I am concerned that my views cannot be adaquately explained or presented by trying to type them on a cpu. That said, I am open to discussion from anyone, I always stand my ground for my beliefs, and I think that everyone should have their own opinion based on their own research - which involves interpreting factual information, and not listening to Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore.
To each his own.
I purposely stay well clear of most of these Iraq/Anti Iraq threads, but thought I'd jump in on this one becuase of two posts that are both wrong, in my opinion.
First, crazyhorse, your posts are so pathetically wrong that they're bordering on ludicrous. Your misperception of the whole situation in Iraq as it relates to war crimes and Amnesty International is both preposterous and outright disgracefull. Your argument, and I use that term loosely, is about as weak an argument as you'll find regarding Iraq.
Second, I'd like to comment on some of the comments made my skins#1fan, though not agreeing with them, at least being able to make more sense out of them than crazyhorses.
Skinsfan is right. The administration has not committed war crimes, as the definition of war crimes goes. Has it lied to the American People about why it went to war in Iraq? That's debatable. First, it was WMD. Then it was the threat to the United States. Then it was the terrorists that it was harboring, and finally, when all those excuses failed to materialize, the ol' relialbe liberation of a people ruled by a brutal dictator came to be the most often heard reasoning. If only Bush had used that reasoning in his infamous "I'm giving Sadaam Hussein 24 hours to leave the country" speech, the American people wouldn't be as divided as they are now. And, before anyone calls me a liberal, a commie, a Michael Moore fan, please realize that I am neither. I am merely a person who feels that the real reasons for going to war in Iraq are not for the reasons stated to the American People. If anyone in this board, or in this country for that matter, ever felt threatened by Sadaam Hussein, I would like to hear the reasons why. Yes, he paid terrorists to commit atrocities, but only to commit acts of "jihad" against the people of Israel, and not of the United States. Sadaam Husseins forces NEVER killed an American Citizen in an Offensive attack. Was he the threat to the United States that North Korea is? North Korea have stood on the world stage and declared "Yes, we have Nuclear Weapons, and not only that, we'll show you where they are" and yet we don't do a damn thing about it? Why? Because, as I've said before there's no oil there, and we're not dumb enough to get the Chinese involved. I find it strange how in an interview with Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice three months before we invaded Iraq, they both said that Sadaam Husseins ability to wage war with WMD has been eliminated, and yet, three months later, the agrument is there that we need to invade Iraq to rid them of weapons that did not exist. If, as many people seem to use the argument that France, Russia, Germany, etc... all had the same intelligence, then why were THEY saying not to invade? They had the same intelligence, and they told us we needed time before we can confirm the existance. When ten people tell us not to invade, based on the same intelligence, then why do we invade? If it looks like a dog, and smells like a dog, it probably is a dog. There's legitimate arguments that say why wait? Why wait until another 9/11? But, did Hussein have anything to do with 9/11? In fact, Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaeda are sworn enemies, and Al-Qaeda had in fact drawn up plans to assasinate Sadaam Hussein. Al-Zaqarwi is not Iraqi, nor has he been resident in Iraq for the last twenty years. Him being in Iraq is no different than 20 hijackers being in the U.S. before 9/11. He was there, but he was not wanted there. He had supporters there, but so did the 20 hijackers having support in the United States. Does that make the U.S. a terrorist nation? Most of the "insurgents" or "terrorists" in Iraq today have come there to fight the United States after we invaded them. Most, though not all, were not even there when we invaded Iraq. They are Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Turkish, etc... So, using the theorom that the insurgents are terrorists, and we'll strike terrorists anywhere they are, we'd better get ready for a rough couple of years cuz it looks like we'll have to invade Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Jordan, and more and more countries who harbor terrorists.
Actually, and this is just my opinion, the reason we got rid of Saddaam this time around, is simply because his Father failed to get him the first time. As General H. Norman Schwarzkopf said in his book "Not going all the way to Baghdad to get Hussein out of power was one of the most, if not THE most catastrophic failure in modern military warfare". So, 12 years later, the elder Bush's son is back to finish the job. Too bad so many people have to die just because one man made a mistake. Reagan would never have made such a mistake.
So, the fact that there are terrorists in the United States doesn't make us a terrorist supporter does it? In fact, did we not train and supply Sadaam Hussein back in the 80's? Arguments can go on back and forth for days, months, years, but it boils down to one thing. Why did we go into Iraq? Did we go in there because of 9/11? I think you'd have to be naive to think that 9/11 had any part to do with us going into Iraq? Did we go into Iraq for WMD? We went in there hoping we'd find them, and ultimately be able to set up a military base somewhere in the middle east. Low and Behold, that's what we're getting. If you don't think that oil is a factor in this whole thing, then ask yourself when was the last time you heard a bombing of an Iraqi oil supply line. The reason you haven't, is because they are the morst fortified areas in Iraq, with the one exception of the Green Zone. These "insurgents" are not idiots, they are trained in terror. They are not street thugs, and they know what thye're doing. Their campaign is wrong, and sooner or later, the U.S. push for Democracy will hopefully prevail. It's just unfortunate that so many young men, women, and children have to die to allow a people that don't even like us to vote.
First, crazyhorse, your posts are so pathetically wrong that they're bordering on ludicrous. Your misperception of the whole situation in Iraq as it relates to war crimes and Amnesty International is both preposterous and outright disgracefull. Your argument, and I use that term loosely, is about as weak an argument as you'll find regarding Iraq.
Second, I'd like to comment on some of the comments made my skins#1fan, though not agreeing with them, at least being able to make more sense out of them than crazyhorses.
Skinsfan is right. The administration has not committed war crimes, as the definition of war crimes goes. Has it lied to the American People about why it went to war in Iraq? That's debatable. First, it was WMD. Then it was the threat to the United States. Then it was the terrorists that it was harboring, and finally, when all those excuses failed to materialize, the ol' relialbe liberation of a people ruled by a brutal dictator came to be the most often heard reasoning. If only Bush had used that reasoning in his infamous "I'm giving Sadaam Hussein 24 hours to leave the country" speech, the American people wouldn't be as divided as they are now. And, before anyone calls me a liberal, a commie, a Michael Moore fan, please realize that I am neither. I am merely a person who feels that the real reasons for going to war in Iraq are not for the reasons stated to the American People. If anyone in this board, or in this country for that matter, ever felt threatened by Sadaam Hussein, I would like to hear the reasons why. Yes, he paid terrorists to commit atrocities, but only to commit acts of "jihad" against the people of Israel, and not of the United States. Sadaam Husseins forces NEVER killed an American Citizen in an Offensive attack. Was he the threat to the United States that North Korea is? North Korea have stood on the world stage and declared "Yes, we have Nuclear Weapons, and not only that, we'll show you where they are" and yet we don't do a damn thing about it? Why? Because, as I've said before there's no oil there, and we're not dumb enough to get the Chinese involved. I find it strange how in an interview with Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice three months before we invaded Iraq, they both said that Sadaam Husseins ability to wage war with WMD has been eliminated, and yet, three months later, the agrument is there that we need to invade Iraq to rid them of weapons that did not exist. If, as many people seem to use the argument that France, Russia, Germany, etc... all had the same intelligence, then why were THEY saying not to invade? They had the same intelligence, and they told us we needed time before we can confirm the existance. When ten people tell us not to invade, based on the same intelligence, then why do we invade? If it looks like a dog, and smells like a dog, it probably is a dog. There's legitimate arguments that say why wait? Why wait until another 9/11? But, did Hussein have anything to do with 9/11? In fact, Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaeda are sworn enemies, and Al-Qaeda had in fact drawn up plans to assasinate Sadaam Hussein. Al-Zaqarwi is not Iraqi, nor has he been resident in Iraq for the last twenty years. Him being in Iraq is no different than 20 hijackers being in the U.S. before 9/11. He was there, but he was not wanted there. He had supporters there, but so did the 20 hijackers having support in the United States. Does that make the U.S. a terrorist nation? Most of the "insurgents" or "terrorists" in Iraq today have come there to fight the United States after we invaded them. Most, though not all, were not even there when we invaded Iraq. They are Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Pakistanis, Turkish, etc... So, using the theorom that the insurgents are terrorists, and we'll strike terrorists anywhere they are, we'd better get ready for a rough couple of years cuz it looks like we'll have to invade Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Jordan, and more and more countries who harbor terrorists.
Actually, and this is just my opinion, the reason we got rid of Saddaam this time around, is simply because his Father failed to get him the first time. As General H. Norman Schwarzkopf said in his book "Not going all the way to Baghdad to get Hussein out of power was one of the most, if not THE most catastrophic failure in modern military warfare". So, 12 years later, the elder Bush's son is back to finish the job. Too bad so many people have to die just because one man made a mistake. Reagan would never have made such a mistake.
It was a safehaven for terrorists. If you know that terrorists are in your country and you dont do anything about it then you may as well be on their side.
So, the fact that there are terrorists in the United States doesn't make us a terrorist supporter does it? In fact, did we not train and supply Sadaam Hussein back in the 80's? Arguments can go on back and forth for days, months, years, but it boils down to one thing. Why did we go into Iraq? Did we go in there because of 9/11? I think you'd have to be naive to think that 9/11 had any part to do with us going into Iraq? Did we go into Iraq for WMD? We went in there hoping we'd find them, and ultimately be able to set up a military base somewhere in the middle east. Low and Behold, that's what we're getting. If you don't think that oil is a factor in this whole thing, then ask yourself when was the last time you heard a bombing of an Iraqi oil supply line. The reason you haven't, is because they are the morst fortified areas in Iraq, with the one exception of the Green Zone. These "insurgents" are not idiots, they are trained in terror. They are not street thugs, and they know what thye're doing. Their campaign is wrong, and sooner or later, the U.S. push for Democracy will hopefully prevail. It's just unfortunate that so many young men, women, and children have to die to allow a people that don't even like us to vote.
Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
I think that everyone should have their own opinion based on their own research - which involves interpreting factual information, and not listening to Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore.
This is a very important comment! And, I can say that I've formed my opinions by iterpreting information, preparing responses to opinions, and disseminating factual information. None of my opinions came from Bill O'Reilly or Michael Moore. I have no respect for either of them, as they are quietly making millions of dollars simply by rallying Americans behind them and stirring the pot, so to speak. I make my decisions based on facts. It's my job!
Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
-
Redskin in Canada
- ~~~~~~
- Posts: 10323
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:59 am
- Location: Canada
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
I can't stand people who can't tell the truth. Why do flaming libs have a problem with admitting who they are? You pull garbage up from DU, paste it here amongst the non-CommieKoolAid drinkers then proclaim yourself conservative on many issues. OK, name "many" issues that you're conservative on.
If you can't, shut your hole, put your tin foil hat back on and crawl back there and complain about BBV.
Some liberal sites hve a movement where these flamere join sites claimng to be moderates or even conservatives and post their nonsense in off topic discussions. The problem is that almost all of them aren't smart enough to pull their charade off for more than two or three posts before their socialist agendas shine through. Crazyhorse is exhibit A.
Ok, I will.
I am against entanglement in foreign wars and adventurism abroad.
I am against abortion.
I am against government spending at current levels and government support of one group or class over the other.
I uphold the constitution and am reluctant to make amendments.
I am against weakening separation of church and state.
I am against centralizing of power in one office: the presidency.
I am against the current ascendency of federal power.
I am against the use of federal lands for private enterprise.
I am against favortism in government contracts.
I am for fiscal responsibility.
I do not advocate gay marriage.
I do not support separating Americans from their right to bear arms.
I am against any weakening of the bill of rights and traditional constitutional guarantees.
I am against all search and seizure laws.
I could go on and on and will if you insist. Were you aware that all of these are conservative positions, or did you think that the present administration is conservative?
_________________
If you can't, shut your hole, put your tin foil hat back on and crawl back there and complain about BBV.
Some liberal sites hve a movement where these flamere join sites claimng to be moderates or even conservatives and post their nonsense in off topic discussions. The problem is that almost all of them aren't smart enough to pull their charade off for more than two or three posts before their socialist agendas shine through. Crazyhorse is exhibit A.
Ok, I will.
I am against entanglement in foreign wars and adventurism abroad.
I am against abortion.
I am against government spending at current levels and government support of one group or class over the other.
I uphold the constitution and am reluctant to make amendments.
I am against weakening separation of church and state.
I am against centralizing of power in one office: the presidency.
I am against the current ascendency of federal power.
I am against the use of federal lands for private enterprise.
I am against favortism in government contracts.
I am for fiscal responsibility.
I do not advocate gay marriage.
I do not support separating Americans from their right to bear arms.
I am against any weakening of the bill of rights and traditional constitutional guarantees.
I am against all search and seizure laws.
I could go on and on and will if you insist. Were you aware that all of these are conservative positions, or did you think that the present administration is conservative?
_________________
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
I dont have time to argue every point that you were wrong about so I will try and make it quick. This administration has not commited war crimes. We were attacked and we did something about it. Quote from No#1 SkinsFan.
Torturing and killing Iraqi prisoners is a war crime. Conducting blind sweeps leading to detention, torture, execution of members of a civilian population is a war crime. Further, both acts are violations of the Geneva Conventions and do not involve armies or uniforms or classifications of enemies. Nazis were sentenced to death for detaining, torturing, and shooting Polish civilians, for instance, which is exactly analogous to our mistreatment of Iraqi civilians. Also, we are in violation of many more international agreements than just the Geneva Conventions.
Our being attacked by Al Qaida does not justify our treatment of Iraqis; nor do Saddam's crimes justify our treatment of Iraqis, who also suffered at the hands of Saddam.
The inhumanity of some of the people on this site absolutely astounds me. Apparently, they believe its perfectly alright to torture and kill innocent people on the slightest suspicion. It's very discouraging to an older man like me...after the Japanese death camps,Korea, Nam...to see the same old monster still clawing away at the hearts of the people. Not a damn thing learned. The nation's young men turning into the same old evil bastards.
Torturing and killing Iraqi prisoners is a war crime. Conducting blind sweeps leading to detention, torture, execution of members of a civilian population is a war crime. Further, both acts are violations of the Geneva Conventions and do not involve armies or uniforms or classifications of enemies. Nazis were sentenced to death for detaining, torturing, and shooting Polish civilians, for instance, which is exactly analogous to our mistreatment of Iraqi civilians. Also, we are in violation of many more international agreements than just the Geneva Conventions.
Our being attacked by Al Qaida does not justify our treatment of Iraqis; nor do Saddam's crimes justify our treatment of Iraqis, who also suffered at the hands of Saddam.
The inhumanity of some of the people on this site absolutely astounds me. Apparently, they believe its perfectly alright to torture and kill innocent people on the slightest suspicion. It's very discouraging to an older man like me...after the Japanese death camps,Korea, Nam...to see the same old monster still clawing away at the hearts of the people. Not a damn thing learned. The nation's young men turning into the same old evil bastards.
-
skins#1fan
- Hog
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 am
why dont you libs ever bring up what happens to us for heaven sakes! Those terrorists are sawing off inocent peoples heads. Just civilians like me and you. I think its time you stand up for our Country for a change. You dont here us murdering people for no aparent reason and if you do there ass is in court in no time because we are civil. Why dont you get mad at the terrorists for riding into coffeeshops or schools and blowing up innocent kids? And as far as torture...Im all for certain types of torture"meaning humilation and some other tactics ect..." if it can get information out of them about where many terrorists are hiding or what there planning because that will save the innocent people in our country from getting attacked again by these insane people.
Here we go down THIS road again. You actually have the nerve to compare us to Nazi Germany and their door to door executions...??? Are you serious...??? There is HUGE difference between casualties of war and genocide. I believe your hatred of the current admin is causing you make accusations that are utterly ridiculous. I, for one, while Army Recon, trained meticulously for door to door sweeps...and I can assure you that "shoot first, ask ? later" was not our policy! You can drone on and on if you wish about WMD/DU/Downing Memo/etc...I'm not going to speak unintelligently about that which I do not know. But you shouldn't either... 
<~~~~~Runs with scissors X
(_E=mc2_)
“This is where I'm most comfortable, ... This is my life, where I work. I'm definitely glad to be back.” #21
(_E=mc2_)
“This is where I'm most comfortable, ... This is my life, where I work. I'm definitely glad to be back.” #21
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
crazyhorse1 wrote:I do not advocate gay marriage.
Does that mean you support it, but don't 'advocate' it? Or does it mean that you are avidly against it?
I will never understand the most ignorant people (not necessarily you, crazyhorse) who have such a problem with this issue. Who cares? It has almost zero effect on the homophobes, as they have the ability to distance themselves from gay people if they desire.
Yeah, "...marriage is between a man and a woman." We (our government, our president) preach the spread of freedom around the world, yet this kind of discrimination is still supported by our chief-in-command to this day. I only have one or two gay friends, so I am not really a gay rights activist. However, I think everybody should have the right to be happy and comfortable in life; and suppressing that right from a select amount of people is not only prejudiced, it just doesn't make sense.
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
skins#1fan wrote:why dont you libs ever bring up what happens to us for heaven sakes! Those terrorists are sawing off inocent peoples heads. Just civilians like me and you. I think its time you stand up for our Country for a change. You dont here us murdering people for no aparent reason and if you do there ass is in court in no time because we are civil. Why dont you get mad at the terrorists for riding into coffeeshops or schools and blowing up innocent kids? And as far as torture...Im all for certain types of torture"meaning humilation and some other tactics ect..." if it can get information out of them about where many terrorists are hiding or what there planning because that will save the innocent people in our country from getting attacked again by these insane people.
This makes no sense.
First of all, Iraq was not the source of 9/11 - I thought we had already established that fact. That means that fighting a war in Iraq has nothing to do with preventing another attack in the U.S. Edit: I am not implying that people in Iraq are not capable of attacking in the U.S., espesially now; rather, the war in Iraq was not a retaliatory effort by the U.S.
Secondly, I think you should differentiate terrorists from insurgents. IMO, the insurgents are the ones I believe you are referring to with regards to the kidnapping/murdering. Yes, they can also be considered terrorists; but the entire reason they are attacking us is because we invaded their country. They are very bad people indeed, but in reality, the old cliche of "he started it" applies directly to this issue. Terrorists, on the other hand, are those that have had it in for our country for a much longer time than 2 or 3 years. It has been established that most of these terrorists took shelter in Afghanistan - and I think most people would agree that fighting/retaliation in Afghanistan was necessary.
All in all, both terrorists and insurgents are terrible people, and they need to be dealt with. The problem is that we created the situation in Iraq - which has only boosted recruitment for the insurgency.
-
Redskin Don
- Hog
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 4:56 pm
- Location: Hopewell, VA
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
Redskin Don wrote:"That old line about all the other country's thinking Saddam had WMD's has long ago been disproved."
He didn't have WMDs? What did he use to slaughter the Iranians and the Kurds then? spitballs?
Uhhh, it's already been proven that Saddam had chemical weapons 15 years ago.
What was disproved was the thought that he had WMDs as recently as 2 years ago, when we went to war.
Not many people ever said that Iraq never had WMDs. The conclusion was that no WMDs have been identified in Iraq in nearly 15 years, and that the threat of Iraq using them against us was proven to be nonexistent.
He didn't have WMDs? What did he use to slaughter the Iranians and the Kurds then? spitballs?
We need to seperarte the 80's from the 90's, and the 90's from the 00's. Yes, he "HAD" WMD. Did he have them in March of 03 when we invaded Iraq, is the question that needs to be asked. If what you say is true about what he used to slaughter the Kurds, then I would say what did he use to fight the Americans? Theoretically, if you have WMD, what better time to use them than when your country is invaded? Did he use them when we invaded Iraq? No, he didn't, because he didn't have them. It doesn't matter what country said he had them and who said he didn't, 90% of the world wanted Hussein out of there, but 90% of the world said that the U.S. should wait for a while before acting. France, Germany, Russia, everyone had the same intelligence and they all said the same thing "DON'T INVADE YET". What did we do? We invaded!!! Now we're paying the price by having to deal with an insurgent uprising because we invaded a sovereign nation. Those thugs are not terrorists in the true sense of the word (if you use the hijackers on 9/11 as a definition of a terrorist). These are people who are chopping our heads off simply because we are there. If we weren't there, then these thugs would be nothing more than scum living on the streets of Baghdad or Syria.
Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
Colin Powell himself, the former Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that the threat of WMD posed by Iraq was nil. He said that approx four months before we invaded Iraq, and it turns out he was right. Do you think Colin Powell resigned as Secretary of State to take up a better job? While he might publicly state otherwise, I fully believe that he resigned because Bush laid Powells head on the line by sending him to the UN to talk about WMD and Powell ended up looking like a liar.
Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!
-
skins#1fan
- Hog
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2004 11:09 am
How damn long do you want to wait. He never truly gave our inspectors full rain to search. He was always playing his games. We warned him time and time again. Put urself in Bush shoes. 9/11 happens. we invade afghanistan. Next a lot of the leaders around the world and your own inteligence is telling u Saddam has wmds. Repeat not just our inteligence who we trust the most but other leading nations. How long do you wait. Wait till another 9/11 happens or do u not take a chance. Either way very tough decision considering how Bush saw the worst attack ever on our soil on his watch a few months ago. Even if he didnt have Wmds he was a murdering dicator. Killed his own people. No one can speak up to him, the woman had no rights at all. He needed to be taken out!
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
Apparently you cannot get it through your head that Iraq and Saddam did not attack New York, or that insurgents are not terrorists, must less Al Qaida. Further, you seem incapable of grasping the fact that we are frequently torturing Saddam's victims because of the nature of the sweeps and our non-existent need for proof.
Central to your thinking seems to be your inability to separate one middel easterner from the other. All of them are quilty, right?
Central to your thinking seems to be your inability to separate one middel easterner from the other. All of them are quilty, right?
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
Here is where I see the partisanship over initiating the Iraq war.
Republican view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; no matter who else (as in foreign allies) agreed with us.
War initiated because:
Saddam is evil, and posed a threat to the U.S.
Democratic view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; only, with support from foreign allies, solid evidence of stockpiling WMDs, and solid evidence showing that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
War initiated because:
False evidence of current WMD stockpile, false claim that Saddam was linked to Bin Ladin, false threat of Iraq attacking the U.S.
Reasons for democrats' objections to the way the war was initiated:
WMD, Al Qaeda link, and imminent threat of attack from Iraq claims were all proven to be false. Oil, oil, oil. Not enough support from foreign allies and the U.N. Revenge for Bush Sr.?
Personally speaking, I believe Saddam Hussein was evil. I believe he needed to be removed from power. But we needed more support from our allies, and if war was necessary, we needed to base it on reasons that the rest of the world could agree on (i.e. Saddam terrorizing his own people, Saddam unashamedly suppressing the Kurds, etc.).
Hindsight is 20/20, but the fact is, when we started this war, we had about 20/30. I will never agree with the reasons for which we went to war in Iraq (Afghanistan's a different story), and I hold the current administration accountable for creating this mess for us. But we are still at war now, and I will continue to support our troops and pray for their safety and conviction in bringing this conflict to an end.
Republican view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; no matter who else (as in foreign allies) agreed with us.
War initiated because:
Saddam is evil, and posed a threat to the U.S.
Democratic view:
Saddam = evil dictator that terrorized his own people and needed to be removed from power; only, with support from foreign allies, solid evidence of stockpiling WMDs, and solid evidence showing that he was linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
War initiated because:
False evidence of current WMD stockpile, false claim that Saddam was linked to Bin Ladin, false threat of Iraq attacking the U.S.
Reasons for democrats' objections to the way the war was initiated:
WMD, Al Qaeda link, and imminent threat of attack from Iraq claims were all proven to be false. Oil, oil, oil. Not enough support from foreign allies and the U.N. Revenge for Bush Sr.?
Personally speaking, I believe Saddam Hussein was evil. I believe he needed to be removed from power. But we needed more support from our allies, and if war was necessary, we needed to base it on reasons that the rest of the world could agree on (i.e. Saddam terrorizing his own people, Saddam unashamedly suppressing the Kurds, etc.).
Hindsight is 20/20, but the fact is, when we started this war, we had about 20/30. I will never agree with the reasons for which we went to war in Iraq (Afghanistan's a different story), and I hold the current administration accountable for creating this mess for us. But we are still at war now, and I will continue to support our troops and pray for their safety and conviction in bringing this conflict to an end.
-
crazyhorse1
- ch1
- Posts: 3634
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01 pm
- Location: virginia beach
In Matthew 25:31-46, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus proclaims that how you treat the hungry, the thirsty, the sick, PRISONERS and other "least of these," is how you treat Jesus himself:
"Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.
If you have failed to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to "eternal punishment".
Looks like you Bush apologists are in for some hot weather.
"Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' 45. Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.
If you have failed to help the "least of these," Jesus promises, he will send you to "eternal punishment".
Looks like you Bush apologists are in for some hot weather.