http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050128/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith

Are these valid tactics? Any one with military back ground may want to shed some light please?

Valid? Are you crazy?

Heh, that's gotta be some job for that chick. I wonder what her pay is. I hope American terrorism doesn't increase in hopes of getting sent to Guantanimo for interrogation and claiming they are loyal to their wives too.

Instead of trying to make the prisoners crack, they outta just try and reward them. Rather than stripping, put on even more layers of clothes, and maybe bring in a goat as well.

I don't mean to make a joke out of all this but it's hard not to. It's just amusing how certain cultures can differ so much. I personally think it's a bad thing to be doing to those prisoners, but it's most likely within the rules of not going overboard to torture. This is just another example of differing cultures. What isn't bad to us is bad to others. What isn't bad to others is bad to us. Ironic how when it comes to applying those laws, it's the capturer's culture using their laws vs the prisoner as opposed to using the prisoner's laws being used against themselves.

In that regards, it could probably be torture even though there's no physical violence, but since the "more civilized" and "more powerful" people wrote the laws, obviously their set of laws is the right one (sarcasm). I say we just continue to beat and torture the inmates as the prisoner's feel that's more honorable than being humiliated. That'd be us using their laws but that conflicts with ours, heh.

- N

Heh, that's gotta be some job for that chick.
thats what i was thinking
what serious woman would degrade herself like that?

It probably is true. It's just mind games to make them feel on edge and uncomfortable. I wonder if it got any results?

Rather than stripping... maybe bring in a goat as well.

Sounds like a Guantanamo Bay frat party.

Take your choice: a lap dance or your throat slit............

Hey, this is progress: now women are sexually exploiting themselves in order to feel there's some sense of purpose.

This represents a great step forward compared to forty, or even twenty years ago, at which times a woman choosing to degrade herself ... well, folks were mighty upset they couldn't still burn the witches or haul them through town in carts.

Finally proof mankind didn't descend from apes. Obviously we descended from reptiles.

Technically, as they're not protected by the Convention... you can do anything to them.

If they wanted the protection of the convention, all they had to do was wear a distinguishing uniform or not fight. A uniform could be something as simple as a bandana that they all wear or a 10-dollar t-shirt.

However, if you don't distinguish yourself and still fight... then you have the same status that spies have. That is... the enemy can do anything to you. Typically, that means getting shot in the head upon discovery.



Am I proud of the things we've been doing to these guys?... a different question.

Is it a valid tactic? It isn't illegal.

Its wierd. If at all the captives are hard enough to talk no secrets then using such sexual tactics would make them harder in their faith with full conviction that they are really fighting 'jihad' against what they believe 'evil'.
No wonder FBI objected to such tactics by private/military interrogaters with faint knowledge about islamic extremists' psychology.

I think the notion is to humiliate them... they're very proud and righteous... putting underwear on their heads seems to be what just occurred to the investigators...

Furthermore, they were specifically not allowed to 'hurt' or 'damage' the prisoners. So all this stuff has to be psychological.

There is legally right as defined by law or even worse, by lawyers. And then there is simple morality. What is morally right or wrong. Torture is morally wrong whether physical or psychology regardless of whatever laws are passed by a government.

Just because governements can make torture technically "legal" doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong.

We didn't accept the following "legal" orders defense from germans after WWII. Why do we think it is OK today?

Technically, as they're not protected by the Convention... you can do anything to them.
Not true, the United States has it's own laws that forbid torture, not just the Geneva Conventions. I think it was actually George Bush Sr. that pushed for that during his administration.

here it is-

http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

We didn't accept the following "legal" orders defense from germans after WWII. Why do we think it is OK today?

Of course it's okay. The excuse didn't work for Germans because we were able to topple the Germans. The excuse works for us because right now nobody is able to topple us. Easy, eh? Gotta love the corrupt exemptions power grants. ;)

- N

Technically, as they're not protected by the Convention... you can do anything to them.

I don't read it the same way. See Geneva Conventions, IV.4.6 (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm):

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.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Fourth Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

Additionally, Article 5 indicates that any doubt as to the status of enemy personnel automatically defers POW status until otherwise determined by a competent tribunal.

The United States wishes to treat the Geneva Conventions as if they define who can be tortured and abused. This is the wrong way of looking at it. Theoretically, such distinctions assert who doesn't get refugee status, not who can be abused.

Maybe the weather is too nice.

Stalin used to send people to Siberia. Maybe they should move the Camp to Alaska.

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.


well that right there makes not pow's, attacking civilans, chopping off there heads and such is not respecting the laws and customs of war... not to mention the fact at the time this all started we where not invading them.


So this is what we do feed them all pork and wash everthing they use with a little pigs blood.... for good masure.... the pig is considered a filtiie and if you eat it or touch it you are seen as unclean in the eyes of there god. Also they are forbiden to drink any fermented drink from grape or grain... so give them only beer to drink mooohahaha... If they wan't a holy war might as well give them something to think about.

well that right there makes not pow's, attacking civilans, chopping off there heads and such is not respecting the laws and customs of war... not to mention the fact at the time this all started we where not invading them.
Do you mean the Iraqis were not respecting the laws and customs of war...before we invaded them? And what if we torture an Iraqi arrested for stealing? ..what does that have to do with the customs of war?

Isn't it part of respecting the laws and customs of war to have a good reason for going to war?

well that right there makes not pow's, attacking civilans, chopping off there heads and such is not respecting the laws and customs of war... not to mention the fact at the time this all started we where not invading them.

There's an argument to be made for the customs of wars. And I don't know if you've ever seen the image of the idiot sitting in the middle of the street with an RPG on his shoulder, but how open do we demand?

I tend to agree with your interpretation; nonetheless, the question exists. That "civilian" contractors are beheaded and such is, in the legalistic sense, nothing more than what has happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere. Perhaps the orange jumpsuits weren't ironic enough?

The contractors, at least, are covered under IV.4.4 (see prior citation). Beheading one of them is only different from murdering a prisoner of war at Abu Ghraib or elsewhere in terms of aesthetics.

Besides, as the administration has it, this is a new war, and the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "outdated". At least they agree with the terrorists on that.

How should we treat this insurgency, much of which is described as similar to gang warfare? Military or law-enforcement? Either way, replacing one human rights nightmare with another only undermines our standing when we complain about the terrorists. As the adage goes, "All's fair in love and war".

It's all rude, but both sides get the same consideration. What's fair is fair in war, and that's why war is such a stupid and inefficient solution.

I see nothing more wrong with "torturing" detainees in this manner than a female soldier choosing to degrade herself by using these tactics. Using a muslim's second hand treatment of woman as a tactic, however, I do find amusing. Since his belief that woman are inferior is wrong anyway, do we really have to respect that belief during interrogation? Is that really torture?

Should we respect the people we are pretending to liberate? That might be a good idea, unless the increased wrath of millions of moderate muslims all over the middle east is a good thing for us. Actually, I think that's what Bush wants- inciting hatred deliberately for no other reason than to provide an excuse to dominate the region as outlined by the Project for a New American Century.

Should we respect the people we are pretending to liberate? That might be a good idea, unless the increased wrath of millions of moderate muslims all over the middle east is a good thing for us. Actually, I think that's what Bush wants- inciting hatred deliberately for no other reason than to provide an excuse to dominate the region as outlined by the Project for a New American Century.
Ok...
ex-saddam soldiers not in uniform but still fighting (less then 20 percent of the population wants them to win).
foreign terrorists not in uniform but still fighting (less then 20 percent of the population wants them to win - not the same group though).

Which of those do you want us to respect? Cus they're both getting underwear put on their heads. Over 60 percent wants the new government to work and that was before the last election which has crushed the rebel moral.


Don't compare this to vietnam. Compare it to the US election of 1864. Lincoln was reelected and the confederate hold outs lost all their remaining moral.

It's a smooth trick to make it seem that everyone who voted is against the insurgency.......Most Iraqi's see voting as another way of getting Americans outta Iraq faster....Shia's are definatly gonna vote because they are gonna finally have a say in Iraqi goverment......same with Kurds (although Turkey is gonna be a problem for them) :m:

Don't compare this to vietnam.



Hit and Run Gorilla tatics make it exactly like Vietnam. a Superpower fighting a war against people without a single airplane or tank makes it exactly like Vietnam fighting a Superpower that invades on a false premise makes it exactly like Vietnam(Gulf of Tonkin) etc etc etc.....

Karmashock,
The insurgents who we arrest are unable to fight back anymore. These are people who are willing to commit suicide for their cause, do you think torture will do anything but incite hatred for the US in those who might have supported us? Because they see our actions not as anti-insurgent, but as anti-Islamic. That's bad. Not everyone we arrest and torture was caught fighting, some were caught stealing wood. Some were small boys that were raped, but the 6 people controlling the US media don't want you to know about that. We are not just talking about underwear on the head, but torture which is illegal under US law. Republicans complain all the time about big goverment, what about one that feels free to detain people without due process and torture them, how are we better than the former USSR, again? 'Cause that sounds like tyranny to me.

Besides, who are the insurgents if not the population, very few are foriegn.

I think you mean morale, but anyway, if their morale is crushed by this farce of an election, the you would expect the violence to diminish now.

It's a smooth trick to make it seem that everyone who voted is against the insurgency.......Most Iraqi's see voting as another way of getting Americans outta Iraq faster....Shia's are definatly gonna vote because they are gonna finally have a say in Iraqi goverment......same with Kurds (although Turkey is gonna be a problem for them) :m:
if we left, the country would devolve into civil war.

they know that and so don't want us to leave until they're stable.


We don't want to stay any longer then that anyway.
Hit and Run Gorilla tatics make it exactly like Vietnam. a Superpower fighting a war against people without a single airplane or tank makes it exactly like Vietnam fighting a Superpower that invades on a false premise makes it exactly like Vietnam(Gulf of Tonkin) etc etc etc.....
Nope, they had two big powers backing them up. China and the USSR.
these guys have Iran... which doesn't compare... especially since the US is stronger then it was during nam and the weapons being used against us aren't any more sophisticated.
=======================
Karmashock,
The insurgents who we arrest are unable to fight back anymore. These are people who are willing to commit suicide for their cause, do you think torture will do anything but incite hatred for the US in those who might have supported us? Because they see our actions not as anti-insurgent, but as anti-Islamic.
I disagree.

Republicans complain all the time about big goverment, what about one that feels free to detain people without due process and torture them, how are we better than the former USSR, again? 'Cause that sounds like tyranny to me.
It's been explained enough times for you to get it. If you haven't, then I'm not going to waste my time trying again.

Besides, who are the insurgents if not the population, very few are foriegn.
Not true. Many are. Those guys that shot a rocket into the US embassy weren't Iraqis. We tracked their truck back to house in south bagdad with one of our drones. Not one was Iraqi.

The other people fighting us are almost all ex-Saddam military.

Neither group is protected by any international law. Traditionally, such people are just shot on detection. We're holding them and trying to break them with underwear on the head.

We don't want to stay any longer then that anyway.


Then please explain the permante(sp?) bases being built




Not true. Many are. Those guys that shot a rocket into the US embassy weren't Iraqis. We tracked their truck back to house in south bagdad with one of our drones. Not one was Iraqi.



Dude even the US admits that most of the fighters are Iraqi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6583-2004Jun25.html

From the article:

Wolfowitz said he believes most of the insurgency is made up of people who did not surrender after the U.S. invasion on April 9, members of Hussein's regime who quietly melted away from the military and security forces. For example, he said, had U.S. forces concentrated earlier on the buildup of forces in Najaf, cleric Moqtada Sadr "might not have gotten out of control the way he did."





Neither group is protected by any international law. Traditionally, such people are just shot on detection. We're holding them and trying to break them with underwear on the head.


You forgot about rape, dogs, sodemy,forced masturbation, lack of food(when not giving them pork) physical abuse and murder etc........

We're holding them and trying to break them with underwear on the head.
Why? What useful information could they possibly have? The leadership doesn't fight, and even if some leaders were found, which is unlikely, they can hide anywhere, there are plenty more to replace them. It never addresses the core problem, the situation that creates insurgents in the first place. It turns the population against us, and creates more insurgents. It has the added negative effect of distancing our few allies, not to mention the hypocracy of Bush claiming to be a moral person.

It's been explained enough times for you to get it. If you haven't, then I'm not going to waste my time trying again.
I don't get it, why are we so great again? What makes us so damn superior to Saddam? Haven't we become what we hate the most?

Then please explain the permante(sp?) bases being built

The US will not leave Iraq before the oil runs out...unless forced out.

Then please explain the permante(sp?) bases being built
We have those in Poland too... are we occupying poland? Get real.








Dude even the US admits that most of the fighters are Iraqi
yep, ex-saddam military and foreign islamic radicals... mostly the puppets of Iran.

The forces of tyranny want Iraq and we're ensuring that it's free.

You forgot about rape, dogs, sodemy,forced masturbation, lack of food(when not giving them pork) physical abuse and murder etc........
Oh, I'm not saying there wasn't stuff that those soldiers should be punished for. I'm saying that most of the stuff is fine and it isn't as big a problem as people have made it out to be.
======================================
Why? What useful information could they possibly have? The leadership doesn't fight, and even if some leaders were found, which is unlikely, they can hide anywhere, there are plenty more to replace them. It never addresses the core problem, the situation that creates insurgents in the first place. It turns the population against us, and creates more insurgents. It has the added negative effect of distancing our few allies, not to mention the hypocracy of Bush claiming to be a moral person.
Most of the population is with us and the car bombs and firing into crowds that the enemy does only makes that stronger. Iraq will be free and will not need US security in about 2 to 3 years. At that point we'll back out.

I don't get it, why are we so great again? What makes us so damn superior to Saddam? Haven't we become what we hate the most?
I'm not wasting my time proving the obvious. If you're asking that question then you're well beyond anything I feel like messing with.

Just accept that the US = the great satan... join a rally or something... I'll change the channel and the world will roll on...

this way we can both be happy with ourselves. ;)
Love and Peace, Karmashock.

We have those in Poland too... are we occupying poland? Get real



LOL......If someone moves into your house and tells you that they are leaving in a week but continues to buy new furnature would you believe them? Why are we still in Arabia then? We were suppose to be there to protect them from Sadaam (which was another lie he wasnt going to invade them) So now that he is gone we can leave there also right?



yep, ex-saddam military and foreign islamic radicals... mostly the puppets of Iran.


and people defending their homes...victims of the sanctions......citizens who lost loved ones(100k+)... are they puppets too?...yea Iraqi's have no reason to hate the US :rolleyes:



Iraq will be free and will not need US security in about 2 to 3 years. At that point we'll back out.


Well after we deal with Iran right? I mean we need to use those pretty new bases we are building in Iraq to launch another pre-emptive strike

I think that it is the time for the US to taste a pre-emptive strike on it, but, sadly, nobody is going to do it.
The USA behaves like a madman with a rocket launcher destabilizing the whole planet.

LOL......If someone moves into your house and tells you that they are leaving in a week but continues to buy new furnature would you believe them? Why are we still in Arabia then? We were suppose to be there to protect them from Sadaam (which was another lie he wasnt going to invade them) So now that he is gone we can leave there also right?
If they want us to go, we'll go. If you doubt our hearts, then know that the political situtation wouldn't allow us to stay. If Iraqis want us out, then we're gone. They don't... we stabilize things and keep the sunnis from running amok.

and people defending their homes...victims of the sanctions......citizens who lost loved ones(100k+)... are they puppets too?...yea Iraqi's have no reason to hate the US :rolleyes:
Nope. Not true. Show me some evidence that shows that or admit that you're just making shit up.


Well after we deal with Iran right? I mean we need to use those pretty new bases we are building in Iraq to launch another pre-emptive strike
Perhaps we will. :)
==========================
I think that it is the time for the US to taste a pre-emptive strike on it, but, sadly, nobody is going to do it.
The USA behaves like a madman with a rocket launcher destabilizing the whole planet.
We already did... 9/11. We destroyed Osama's pathetic forces a few month's there after.

Currently we're making sure that Islamic radicalism doesn't become a long term threat.

We're giving these people freedom and a new future... what we get in return is peace of mind. It's a bargin for both sides. The only side that loses are the tyrants.

Of course it's okay. The excuse didn't work for Germans because we were able to topple the Germans. The excuse works for us because right now nobody is able to topple us. Easy, eh? Gotta love the corrupt exemptions power grants. ;)

- N
Actually, that excuse did work for many lower level German SS. The prosecutors at Nuremburg chose to go after the high level purps, unlike the United States, which is doing just the opposite.

Karmashock : why dont you provide some of this evidence you keep sprouting about???

We already did... 9/11. We destroyed Osama's pathetic forces a few month's there after.

Currently we're making sure that Islamic radicalism doesn't become a long term threat.

One cannot destroy radical Islam who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. It only takes ONE person to build an explosive device and blow themselves up. We may capture or kill lots of people from Al Qaeda, but not all, and that's just not good enough when it comes to guerilla or suicide bombing warfare.

Then please explain the permante(sp?) bases being built

Yeah, and for those that say it's no problem us having established permanent bases in Iraq, do I even need to mention this is one of the reasons why Osama bin Laden turned his back on Saudi Arabia and became a huge "terrorist"? After the first Gulf War, our American presence never left Saudi Arabia and many people in that region didn't like it. Are we going to remain in Iraq to create even more "terrorists" to come bomb the U.S. mainland yet again? Nice logic. Yep, I'd say this whole war is in vain. We're just repeating our mistakes. Round and round we go..

Of course it's okay. The excuse didn't work for Germans because we were able to topple the Germans. The excuse works for us because right now nobody is able to topple us. Easy, eh? Gotta love the corrupt exemptions power grants.

Actually, that excuse did work for many lower level German SS. The prosecutors at Nuremburg chose to go after the high level purps, unlike the United States, which is doing just the opposite.

Oh, I know, I just tend to use someone's exact words against them. My main point was basically that those in power that reign on top can get away with anything. That's why the defeated Germans were held on trial whereas the not defeated U.S. people who are in power don't have to go on trial for any war crimes.

- N

[QUOTE=Karmashock]If they want us to go, we'll go. If you doubt our hearts, then know that the political situtation wouldn't allow us to stay. If Iraqis want us out, then we're gone. They don't... we stabilize things and keep the sunnis from running amok.




Uh Huh.....same thing we said after the first Gulf War to the Saudi's.....guess you dont realize that the attacks arent dimmishing the longer the US is there......they are growing




Nope. Not true. Show me some evidence that shows that or admit that you're just making shit up.




Cuss words?....Wow no peace and love for me huh? ;) thats ok i get mad to when i lose arguments sometimes....but tell me this what am I making up? the 100k+ dead?.....victims from the sanctions?......people taking up arms because their love ones are now dead? are you denying any of this?




Currently we're making sure that Islamic radicalism doesn't become a long term threat



By adding fuel to it's fire? If that was really the intention then the US would look at it's one sided relationship with Israel and remove it's troops from where they arent wanted...

The US is where it wants to be, not the other way around.
Fortune and glory through death and disrespect.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050128/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_sex_vs_faith

Are these valid tactics? Any one with military back ground may want to shed some light please?

it is the typical behaviour of a power that has lost all SELf respect, never mind DISrepscting. let's not forget that BushCo are fukin WAR CRIMINAL imperialists. what they have blatantly shown with the Iraq war is the top of the iceberg

all those who love yer smirkin 'just me and th decent folks' luvin president Bush, and believe him, and put yer trust in that imbecile, then there's no hope FOR ya. period. you need SOMe big shock to wake you outta the ignorance your're in

I caught a couple moments of CNN's declining Crossfire yesterday; the guest conservative host played the role of the hack, but a Democratic strategist drew applause when he pointed out that while, as his conservative counterparts pointed out, the enemy "knows no bounds", we do, and that's part of what separates "us" from "them".

Somebody ought to remind the president.

by the US general Lt. Gen. James Mattis:

"Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling.". . . "You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."

see:
http://prorev.com/2005/02/our-man-in-iraq-its-hell-of-lot-fun-to.htm
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html#

So that's what americans are doing there. Shooting for fun. :bugeye:

Karmashock : why dont you provide some of this evidence you keep sprouting about???
I didn't understand the intention of this post. Were you talking to me or repeating my statement for the benifit of someone else?
============================
One cannot destroy radical Islam
I didn't say we did, I said we destroy Osama's forces. We have. We have turned Afganistan into a very hostile place for foreign terrorists to work.

THe larger problem of radical islamic terrorism is also being dealt with, but that will take over 30 years to deal with entirely.



do I even need to mention this is one of the reasons why Osama bin Laden turned his back on Saudi Arabia and became a huge "terrorist"? After the first Gulf War, our American presence never left Saudi Arabia and many people in that region didn't like it.
I don't think you understand what Osama ultimately wants. He wants shria law all throughout the muslim world. Everything he does is an effort to establish that goal.
==================================
Uh Huh.....same thing we said after the first Gulf War to the Saudi's.....guess you dont realize that the attacks arent dimmishing the longer the US is there......they are growing
No, there was just a bunch of attacks around the election. The election hurt the terrorists more then their terrorism can hurt the new government.

There wasn’t anything else worth commenting on in that post.
====================================
The US is where it wants to be, not the other way around.
Fortune and glory through death and disrespect.
Not at all, we have all the fortune and glory we need. And nothing hurts us more then guilt. Ergo, I assure you we’re doing this because we truly see it as the right thing to do. You may well disagree, but that is aside from the point that we believe the actions to be virtuous in and of themselves.
====================================
by the US general Lt. Gen. James Mattis:



see:
http://prorev.com/2005/02/our-man-in-iraq-its-hell-of-lot-fun-to.htm
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/4153541/detail.html#

So that's what americans are doing there. Shooting for fun. :bugeye:
That line was taken out of context. It truly does sound bad and I expect every cheap member of the opposition to use it to the fullest. However, if you’re fair, you’ll see that the man was just saying that the people they were fighting were scumbags. In that sense, he got moral satisfaction from fighting them. It wasn’t the pleasure of driving a fast car or going to an amusement park, but the satisfaction of knowing that you’re fighting wrong in the world. His words were very poorly chosen and taken out of context they’re excellent ammo to use against the Americans in the field. But they’re ultimately baseless and cheap.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Karmashock

no i was talking TO you. Just because you or anyone else claims something as a "proven fact" doesnt make it so. If you want to make claims like that try providing inderpendent evidence to back up your claims.

Karmashock

no i was talking TO you. Just because you or anyone else claims something as a "proven fact" doesnt make it so. If you want to make claims like that try providing inderpendent evidence to back up your claims.
I'd be happy to, though in any serious discussion there are likely thousands of facts that infulence a discussion, most of which are not challenged because they're either common knowledge or generally assumed.

If there are one or two facts that you found to be questionable on my part, then I'd be happy to go and give you some good sources to that effect. However, no one can be expected to present full sources essays on a continious basis... at least not within this specific forum.

So again, if there are one or two facts that you felt needed a source, I'd be happy to source them for you. In my experence that's generally about 2 minutes on google.


Love and Peace, Karmashock.