From Abu Ghraib guard asks for mercy (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/04/prisonerabuse.davis.ap/index.html):
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) -- Sgt. Javal Davis said he hopes that admitting his abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison can somehow save his Army career.
...
Davis has confessed to stepping on the hands and feet of detainees and then falling with his full weight on them. Davis, who is about 6-feet-1 and weighs nearly 220 pounds, has blamed his crimes on job-related stress.

He faces a maximum 6 1/2 years in prison, but defense lawyer Paul Bergrin has said the plea deal caps Davis' sentence at 18 months.

Yet another explanation why the US is hated. If this guy intentionally fell on an American during the course of his government job, the other guy would get rich from the civil suit against the government. But the detainees have no rights. Yet more proof the US has no intention of liberating these people.

And notice it's "abuse" not "torture" to get 220 pounds dropped on you.

What do you think?

Zanket what I find supicious is the fact the torturers were abusing detainees with a photographer taking photos and another individual videoing the whole episode . Then these images are leaked by the media to the outside world , yet try and find any images of what is going on inside Guantanamo ? I say in my opinion this has been done deliberately to provoke more violence in Iraq therby forestalling any call for a US withdrawl .

There are pictures and video of Gitmo torture but the most politically damaging were successfully confiscated by Bush after the onset of the Abu Ghraib fiasco. The Pentagon is holding that evidence in secret, obstensibly to protect the rights of possible defendants at trial. Yeah right.

I dont like torture or abuse .. whatever the 3rd party wants to call it , whether their american or anyone else.. torture of prisoners is not right. and i really doubt that the video taping of the abuse was made to pro-long the war in iraq.. since it was made by soliders and didnt exactly cause the american people to yell out "ye lets stay there some more"

I dont like torture or abuse .. whatever the 3rd party wants to call it , whether their american or anyone else.. torture of prisoners is not right. and i really doubt that the video taping of the abuse was made to pro-long the war in iraq.. since it was made by soliders and didnt exactly cause the american people to yell out "ye lets stay there some more"
I dont think the perpertrators of the videotaping and photographic images were aiming for American consumption . The images of 2 white women leading Arab men around by leashes in a male dominated society . White men sexually humiliating Arab prisoners and the even more provocative photo of a guard with a tattoo of an Israeli flag on his arm . Take a logical guess and join the ends and these images were designed for a reaction within Iraq .

It's the same old logic you are always pointing out Zanket (the war isn't illegal, because we don't do illegal things, therefore..). It isn't "torture", because we are the good guys, and the good guys don't torture, so it isn't torture. But if you ask the proponents of this logic how they would feel if Iraqis were doing this sort of thing to captured American soldiers, all you'll hear are crickets in the distance.

When my father was in the army his drill sargent didn't like him so he stood on his hands while making him do push ups. It also happened to my grandfather when he was in the Navy. It seems the military does this sort of thing.

When my father was in the army his drill sargent didn't like him so he stood on his hands while making him do push ups. It also happened to my grandfather when he was in the Navy. It seems the military does this sort of thing.
There is a difference between draconian training measures and sadistic treatment of EPWs. One is intended to produce a benefcial result, the other clearly does not.

There is a difference between draconian training measures and sadistic treatment of EPWs. One is intended to produce a benefcial result, the other clearly does not.
I don't agree. If that was tried with me the idiot would soon be on the wrong side of my violent streak...

I was trying to say two things here. One, if they have no problem using violent measures towards people who join thier stupid forces willingly they will have no problem doing it to POWs or anyone else. Not that I'd be stupid enough to join the military but if they did that to me they'd be picking themselves of the floor, eventually. Two, to Stokes Pennwalt, how is standing on a recruit's hands a benifitial result? Does it make someone fire a weapon or engage in hand to hand combat better? No, it's an abuse of power whether it be towards a POW or a recuit. It's wrong to induce physical pain on a person of lower status, or any status for that matter, than you because you get a sick thrill out of it.

Two, to Stokes Pennwalt, how is standing on a recruit's hands a benifitial result? Does it make someone fire a weapon or engage in hand to hand combat better? No, it's an abuse of power whether it be towards a POW or a recuit. It's wrong to induce physical pain on a person of lower status, or any status for that matter, than you because you get a sick thrill out of it.
Arduous training conditions instill discipline, enhance unit cohesion, and strengthen the mind and body. Contrary to what you seem to believe, this is not done because the instructors "get a sick thrill out of it".

I used to teach Shao Lin Kung Fu. There was a man across the street that taught Shotokan. He was known as one of the best instructors in the area. We were both at a demo once and my students just got off stage and seen this guy drilling his students. They were kids about 7-10 years old. Shotokan is supposed to have very deep stances. If the children's stances were not deep enough he'd kick them. That only taught them to do the bare minimum to avoid being kicked again. It's a type od discipline which is less effective because it is derived from fear and not the ctual will of the individual. My students were taught to deepen their stances by balencing cups of water on their knees. This was a morwe effective way to teach deep stances because the student was physically and mentally challenged and got pride out of completing the exercise properly. They basically disciplined themselves rather than become mindless drones waiting for the next kick. Physical pain inflicted by another is not the only way to achieve discipline and strengthen one's body, mind and spirit. Were you a jarhead, Stokes? That sounds like the lot of propeganda the military gives it's drones.

Arduous training conditions instill discipline, enhance unit cohesion, and strengthen the mind and body. Contrary to what you seem to believe, this is not done because the instructors "get a sick thrill out of it".

oh get REAL. it is done so as to BREAK THE SPIRIT. to demoralize lads, men, so as they become totally under the military authority and will kill kill kill, and torture etc. oif bleedin COURSe it is

i am outraged by what the aMeriCaans have done are doing. not only is an illgegal fukin war in the first place, but they also throw in jailing people for no reason
and torturing them. then you get the people on the side of the 'white cowboy hats (versus the blaCK turbins) totally denying any wrong has been DONE. Shame on you! have you childrfen? are you learning THEM the same shit you believe? god HELP them then!

It's the same old logic you are always pointing out Zanket (the war isn't illegal, because we don't do illegal things, therefore..). It isn't "torture", because we are the good guys, and the good guys don't torture, so it isn't torture. But if you ask the proponents of this logic how they would feel if Iraqis were doing this sort of thing to captured American soldiers, all you'll hear are crickets in the distance.


Since when are you the good guys? you invaded their country.. If captured american soliders were caught and tortured by the Civilian population it would still be a right violation... If it was by iraqi soliders it would be a POW rights violation.. just like the one performed in the prisons. But hey, after what i'v heard is going on in Guantanemo Bay and in Abu Gharib I would say "Those americans got what they were asking for"

Another thing i dont get.. Is now America is complaining about iran and its un just government... Hate to break it to you bushy they have the exact same system as the one the iraqi people just elected by 70% but they unlike iran seem to be a Democratic government.

wow... poor Saddam... *sniff*...

Odin'Izm, it's called sarcasm.

Well if it is .. your not insane :) and dont deserve my lecture.

Those attitudes are the prevalent ones here in the U.S. They (being the thoughtless majority) won't listen to any talk of the war being illegal, because the U.S. did it, and we don't do illegal things (in their opinion) so the war is legal. They also won't listen to any talk of torture, because only the bad guys (Islamic terrorists as a for instance) torture, and we aren't the bad guys, so there was no torture. So it becomes "abuse", and "no worse than a fraternity prank".

I do not agree with this reasoning, I'm merely pointing it out.

Upon what authority do you declare this war as illegal? Upon what law? Where is your book? Where is your court?

Upon what authority do you declare this war as illegal? Upon what law? Where is your book? Where is your court?

yes. it's clear. the only way karmashock can seem to relate to humanity and ethics is being told so by some lawyer of court.

Yet whether to invade Iraq is precisely the question, and only Congress can answer it. The Constitution grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. The President cannot wage war legally without a congressional declaration. His status as commander-in-chief gives him authority only to execute war, not initiate it. The law in Article I, section 8, is quite clear. The undeclared wars of the 20th century may provide precedent for unilateral action by the President, but it is an illegal precedent.

It appears that most in Congress would support an invasion of Iraq, so why can’t we simply agree to follow the Constitution and vote to declare war?

The rule of law separates civilized societies from despotic societies. Unlike Iraq, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. We are blessed to live under the Constitution, rather than under a King or dictator. Yet if we blatantly violate the Constitution by pursuing an undeclared war, we violate the rule of law. We invite the President, and future Presidents, to act in an imperial manner. We damage the separation of powers that is so critical to our freedom. We act more like Iraq than the United States of America when we ignore the Constitution.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst082602.htm

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.....
....He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

It is time to set the record straight. The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.

Those members of Congress-including certain Democratic presidential candidates-who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.

Imagine this: The United States Congress passes a resolution which states: "The President is authorized to levy an income tax on the people of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to pay for subsidies to U.S. oil companies." No amount of legal wrangling could make such a resolution constitutional. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes exclusively to the United States Congress.

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_first_lie_012804.htm

yes. it's clear. the only way karmashock can seem to relate to humanity and ethics is being told so by some lawyer of court.
You didn't say the war was immoral. You said it was "illegal". As in "against the law."

I repeat, under what law and authority do you declar this war illegal? Dodge the question again and demonstrate that you do so under no law or authority. Ergo, the war is not illegal. Or at least you have NOTHING that can even allude to that effect.

If you want to claim that it was immoral, that's a different story. But then I'll just ask upon which morality you claim that and in what instances would war be moral?

UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

PART 1
Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Basically you cant point a finger at someone and declare them a dictator or change another country's regeme if the people of that country support their way of life.. (which they did in this case) unless the UN council votes on it (which they didnt in this case), or sell a countries natural resources for it (which you are doing in this case)

Basically you cant point a finger at someone and declare them a dictator or change another country's regeme if the people of that country support their way of life.. (which they did in this case) unless the UN council votes on it (which they didnt in this case), or sell a countries natural resources for it (which you are doing in this case)
There was no controversy over whether saddam was a dictator. We all knew and recognized him for what he was. As to our authority, we cited several UN resolutions that gave us authority to take military action if he didn't cooperate. Whether there were WMDs or not, he did not cooperate. He shot at our planes regularly and often refused us access.

Say what you will about the war, but you can't say it was illegal. The US and UK made it very clear that they had their legal ducks in a row and France and Russia backed down from that claim.

You may not like it, but it was legal. Furthermore, time will show that we were on the side of right.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

No resolution gave you the right to invade. Besides which YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!!!!

if a CEO made that big a mestake he would resign without question so where are the resignations from bush's cabinate????

you fucked up and it turns out that no one cares. Apathy is the biggest evil and it seems to effect your whole country. Well fine then, if your people refuse to take the corect action you deserve what you get. There is noway that if your atacked again you have a PRAY of gaining the suport that you had after 11/9. Hell most of the world will probably be cheering and i for one wouldnt fault them

There was no controversy over whether saddam was a dictator. We all knew and recognized him for what he was.

What has that to do with anything? The U.S. has supported, and continues to support, many dictators.

As to our authority, we cited several UN resolutions that gave us authority to take military action if he didn't cooperate. Whether there were WMDs or not, he did not cooperate. He shot at our planes regularly and often refused us access.

Kofi Annan said that the war was illegal per the U.N. So we can't cite U.N. resolutions as a justification for war. Going to war against the will of the U.N. means that we do not view them as a legitimate authority.

The no fly zones were on dubious legal ground: However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution....
.....But French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine has called on Washington to redefine its policy on Iraq and criticised the recent US-British airstrikes on Baghdad as having no legal basis in international law.

"We have believed for a long time that there is no basis in international law for this type of bombing," Mr Vedrine has said.

Other countries, notably China and Russia, have condemned the no-fly zones as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and they insist there is no backing for the policy under international law or UN resolutions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

What a Difference Four Years Makes

Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now



The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.

-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.

--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/

As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.

--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02

The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.

--AP, 12/16/98

Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

--AP, 9/7/02

Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98

It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.

--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
more.... http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123

Say what you will about the war, but you can't say it was illegal. The US and UK made it very clear that they had their legal ducks in a row and France and Russia backed down from that claim.

You may not like it, but it was legal. Furthermore, time will show that we were on the side of right.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Kofi Annan says it was illegal. Since Congress hasn't declared war, it is illegal.

No resolution gave you the right to invade. Besides which YOU WERE WRONG!!!!!!!!!
They gave us the right to use force. That much was obvious.


As to regime change, the UN has not called it illegal. So I'm done with this stupidity.

As to us being wrong, that doesn't change whether what we did was legal or not. No where in the code does it say we have to be right.


Apathy is the biggest evil
I agree, you'd prefer the middle east to fester... we would not. You care about some things, we care about others.
There is noway that if your atacked again you have a PRAY of gaining the suport that you had after 11/9. Hell most of the world will probably be cheering and i for one wouldnt fault them
:D Keep it up, that'll win me over. If someone murders your family and you go on a big crusade to end crime in your area... Someone later telling you that your family could get murdered again and no one would care is really going to get you to stop isn't it?


Dude, you don't want to come? Then don't. That's fine. Sit at home in your irrelevant chair and watch the world change before you eyes. We're not going to stop for anything. We love help and we'll be good to those that come along. However, if you don't then fine... Just don't expect for us to return your calls... m'kay? This is something that we need to do... you can help and have a part in it or stay out of it and be irrelevant.

The choice is yours and you're childish comments about a second attack only reaffirm our resolve.

You can ignore me Karmashock, but you cannot ignore facts and continue the discussion, not on this forum.

To review:

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.....
....He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.

And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.

When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

That is the Secretary General of the U.N. quoted by the BBC saying that the war was illegal. You may say that you don't care what the U.N. says, you may say that you don't care if it was illegal; you may not maintain that it was legal against the word of the highest authority in the U.N.

yea thats just what i expected. No one thinks of the future until its infront of them. well when the rest of the world either helps your enermy or just doesnt give a shit where will you be?

its only arogance to think you can keep fighting the whole world. Hell your country is ALREADY talking about a draft

As blunt as Asguard is, he is pretty much correct. Only the most arrogant of Americans can think that they can fight the whole world, especially since they are spread pretty thin in Iraq. Remember when that marine complained to Rumsfeld about having to scavenge to find armour for tanks? Yes, the American war machine is definitely well supplied *sarcasm off*

Karmashock

They gave us the right to use force. That much was obvious.

Bullshit. I challenge you to find a statement by the UN which justified your invasion. Put up, or shut the hell up.

Oh, and by the way, even if Saddam did break a UN resolution does not give a rogue state the right to act vigilante. Hint: It is a UN resolution, not a USA resolution.

The USA claims that it aims to enforce UN laws, but ignores the UN when it says to exercise restraint. Oh the hypocrisy!

Repo-
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
The US Constitution makes no mention of the UN.

The UN is not a sovereign entity; you're not a UN citizen.

Your rhetoric is situationally meaningless.

Your parents deserve a refund of your tuition -- assuming any actual tuitional actitivity.

yea thats just what i expected. No one thinks of the future until its infront of them. well when the rest of the world either helps your enermy or just doesnt give a shit where will you be?

its only arogance to think you can keep fighting the whole world. Hell your country is ALREADY talking about a draft
You don't think we're prepared for another attack?

Bring.it.on.

You think that will make us stop? If you do, you don't understand us. We're not stopping. Often people say “what if you get nuked?” You don’t want to know what would happen if we were nuked. That would open up entirely new possibilities… Just don’t go there.
=============================
As blunt as Asguard is
He's rude.

Only the most arrogant of Americans can think that they can fight the whole world
I never said that we could or even wanted to. We're hardily fighting anyone at this point. Just the holdouts from the old regime and some rag tag radicals from the neighboring psycho factories.

We can take care of them. And Iraq will be free to its own ends. The terrorists have no love in the people, and if they keep attacking Iraq after we leave, they'll lose the support of the arab community outside of the country.

Remember when that marine complained to Rumsfeld about having to scavenge to find armour for tanks? Yes, the American war machine is definitely well supplied *sarcasm off*
THat's a production issue, not a money issue. During peace time we manufacture things slowly because it's cheaper. It takes about two years for that to ramp up in war time. It two years in the civil war for the northern economy to transition to war, it took two years in WWI and WWII for the US economy to transition. What we need is about three times as many key factories. Those elements have been procured and we're producing them faster.



Bullshit. I challenge you to find a statement by the UN which justified your invasion. Put up, or shut the hell up.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 678
It was never taken back. ;)

Oh, and by the way, even if Saddam did break a UN resolution does not give a rogue state the right to act vigilante. Hint: It is a UN resolution, not a USA resolution.
Soft power, like the power of law, is backed up by hard power... like the power of the gun. Be careful how hard you squeeze with your soft power, when we both know full well you have no hard power to speak of.

We obey out of nothing but respect for what the UN could be... nothing more.

The USA claims that it aims to enforce UN laws, but ignores the UN when it says to exercise restraint. Oh the hypocrisy!
We ignore the UN when it ignores the reason it was created. It's being used to placate the democracies of the world into accepting the tyranny, oppression, and visible hostility of these states. It's a tool that is too easily and often turned against its purpose and so we'll gladly go against it when its wrong.

If it is within our power, then we must.

Love and Peace, Karmashock.

The US Consitution makes no mention of the UN.
The UN is not a sovereign entity; you're not a UN citizen.

No shit, sherlock.
The UN is actually an 'alliance' of soverign entities, all aimed at protecting human rights, and 'keeping the peace'. Hence, your rhetoric and wordplay here are meaningless. The USA is part of the UN, hence it is obliged to respect and follow the decisions of the UN.

By the way, have you ever heard of this thing called international law? You know, that little thing the USA was appealing to when it was bitching about American POW being broadcast on Iraqi television? You know, that little thing war criminals are prosecuted under?

Merely because internation law is not in YOUR constitution does not mean that you can disobey it. Saddam Hussein didn't have international law in his constitution either...


Your rhetoric is situationally meaningless.

Your attempts to belittle the UN are meaningless. Acknowledge that the USA disobeyed the UN, of which it is a member. Acknowledge that the USA fits the definition of a 'rogue state' (the very thing it accused Iraq of being. How amusing).


Your parents deserve a refund of your tuition -- assuming any actual tuitional actitivity.

You need to attend a History 101 lesson. Perhaps then you would have a rudimentary understanding of the nature of the UN.

No shit, sherlock.
The UN is actually an 'alliance' of soverign entities, all aimed at protecting human rights, and 'keeping the peace'.
Human rights? *laughs until he passes out*

The USA is part of the UN, hence it is obliged to respect and follow the decisions of the UN.
We're the prime founder. We envisioned the League of Nations, which failed. We thought it failed because it didn't have enough power. So designed the United Nations, which had a proscribed goal of acquiring enough power to keep the peace. This hasn't worked either. Without the threat of nuclear war, there would have been a WWIII in the 60 or 70s. The UN had nothing to do with it. So obviously we need to try something else. The UN is nice for aid missions and such, but they're otherwise a nuisance and burden.

We need something else. Perhaps something a little less morally blind and more firm on issues of human rights... also we can't have nations with little or no power taking disproportionate control of the organization. Soft power and hard power should be fairly close to each other. So voting power might be best linked to population, GDP, and perhaps military power.

These are just musing on the issue, but the UN can't take the responsibility of world peace any more then the League of Nations did.

These things are our legacy. We're truly trying to bring peace to the world and dignity to all mankind. But it's a lot harder then you'd think.

By the way, have you ever heard of this thing called international law? You know, that little thing the USA was appealing to when it was bitching about American POW being broadcast on Iraqi television? You know, that little thing war criminals are prosecuted under?
We were quoting the Geneva Convention, which predated the UN. And to my knowledge we haven't ever intentionally violated that convention.

Merely because internation law is not in YOUR constitution does not mean that you can disobey it. Saddam Hussein didn't have international law in his constitution either...The convention isn't international law, it's a treaty. If you don't sign it, you don't have to follow it.


Your attempts to belittle the UN are meaningless. Acknowledge that the USA disobeyed the UN, of which it is a member. Acknowledge that the USA fits the definition of a 'rogue state' (the very thing it accused Iraq of being. How amusing).
Actually, our actions have highlighted its impotence.


You need to attend a History 101 lesson. Perhaps then you would have a rudimentary understanding of the nature of the UN.
*sigh* this posturing is tiring... Beat your chest somewhere else... it's hollow and does nothing to advance any point.
Love and peace, Karmashock.

Karma:


He's rude.

Because you are arrogant.


You don't think we're prepared for another attack?

Exactly.


Bring.it.on.

Are American marines still scavenging for armour in Iraq?
Are the Americans still having trouble trying to quell the insurgency in Iraq?

When Saddam was in power, he didn't have much trouble with insurgents after the Gulf War. Apparently he is not as incompetent as the U.S.A.


You think that will make us stop?

Yes. Obviously even Bush has a brain in his head, because despite his tough talk, he has not attack Iran. And he has not dismantled the dozens of oppressive regimes around the world.


“what if you get nuked?”

If the Middle East ganged up and decided to nuke your ass, it would be the end of America. China has America trembling in its boots.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 678
It was never taken back

Nice try.
Please state where this Resolution states that a country may attack Iraq WITHOUT the thumbs up from the U.N. Please state where America alone gets to decide that war is necessary.

If a UN (note once again that it is UN, not U.S.A) Resolution is breached, it is for the UN to decide what punishment is required, not a rogue country.

Once again, please answer my question. What resolution gives America the permission to invade a country without the express permission of the U.N???


Soft power, like the power of law, is backed up by hard power... like the power of the gun. Be careful how hard you squeeze with your soft power, when we both know full well you have no hard power to speak of.

What the devil are you talking about? Are you saying that since the UN doesn't go bombing the shit out of countries for a minor infraction, it is 'soft power'?


We ignore the UN when it ignores the reason it was created.

Congratulations. You have just admitted that America only obeys the UN when it suits its purposes. You have just admitted that America is a rogue state.


It's being used to placate the democracies of the world into accepting the tyranny, oppression, and visible hostility of these states.

Bullshit. There are dozens of oppressive regimes around the world which America conviently ignores (or supports). For example, America continues to pour billions of dollars of aid into Israel despite it human rights abuses, and oppression of the Palestinians.


It's a tool that is too easily and often turned against its purpose and so we'll gladly go against it when its wrong.

Actually, the UN's actions regarding the Iraqi war clearly displayed that it DOES fulfill it purpose. That is, to keep the peace, and to only attack if necessary, and when all the relevant information relating to the grievances have been gathered.

Now that no stockpiles of WoMD have been found, America has egg on its face. If only it had listened to the UN, instead of going in gung-ho.


If it is within our power, then we must.

No. The UN was created to keep the peace and enforce human rights.

Karma:


Human rights? *laughs until he passes out*

Haha. I'm glad you find it humourous. What I find humourous is that America is genuinely concerned about human rights. AHAHAAH! That's why they are attempting to pass laws to legalize tortur.... errr, 'abuse' of suspected terrorists and insurgents.


We were quoting the Geneva Convention, which predated the UN. And to my knowledge we haven't ever intentionally violated that convention.

Two words. Abu Gharib.


The convention isn't international law, it's a treaty. If you don't sign it, you don't have to follow it.

Nonsense. I challenge you to support this assertion.


*sigh* this posturing is tiring... Beat your chest somewhere else... it's hollow and does nothing to advance any point.

*sighs*
In case anyone has forgotten, I was responding to this comment:
"Your parents deserve a refund of your tuition -- assuming any actual tuitional actitivity."

If Karma had bothered to read the entire thread before fanatically clicking on the reply button, he would realize that my 'chest beating' was replying to a smart ass comment from another poster.

Good posts mountainhare. Won't do any good though. Won't be long before both you and Asguard are also on his ignore list.

Good posts mountainhare. Won't do any good though. Won't be long before both you and Asguard are also on his ignore list.

Thanks, Repo Man. I try my best.
As for being on the ignore list, I couldn't care less. Let him remain in ignorance.

It really infuriates me when the U.S.A tries to justify its rogue actions because the 'UN isn't working'. How do you expect the UN to work if its own members continue to disobey it, and refuse to work with it??? It's all circular. The more you disobey the UN, the more ineffective the UN becomes.

And just because the UN isn't working doesn't give the U.S.A the right to dubb itself the 'policeman of the world'. I don't remember ever electing them for that prestigious position, and the fact that this self-elected policeman is so corrupt makes me just a little nervous.
Might does not make right.

Once you divorce yourself from nationalism, what is actually the goal in Iraq becomes crystal clear. And as Zanket said in the beginning of the thread, it isn't about liberation.
Noam Chomsky has said it best:
The idea that the Iraqis can only be freed from a regime like Saddam's through bombing is really disturbing. This seems to be the message the US is sending through Operation Iraqi Freedom.What, in your view, are alternative policies America could have pursued to help Iraqis other than resorting to a violent and destructive "liberation"?

Probably most of the population of the world regards the US as the major threat to world peace, which is a rather serious matter: a superpower threat to world peace is a threat to survival. If they're right, the world would be much better off (for example, there'd be a higher chance for the survival of the species) if the current regime were eliminated. Or maybe even the institutions of the society. Does it follow that we all ought to join al-Qaeda and try to achieve that goal?

There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one, the world's longest military occupation. There's litttle doubt that those under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?

It's easy to continue. Such questions can, perhaps, be raised by those who regard themselves as God-like, entitled to determine how to use violence to "rid the world of evil," as in fairy tales and ancient epics. Are we so exalted that we have the right to make such decisions?

We all agree that Iraqis would be better off without Hussein. Just as their subjects would have been better off without Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Mobutu,..... -- quite a long list. I've just listed those who were supported by the present incumbents in Washington, just as they supported Saddam Hussein. Some, like Ceausescu, were easily comparable to Saddam Hussein as tyrants and torturers. All were overthrown, from within. There's every reason to believe that SH would have gone the same way if the US hadn't insisted on devastating the civilian society, strengthening the tyrant, and compelling people to rely on him for survival -- the primary effect of the US-UK sanctions, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, the administrators of the UN programs, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck -- among others.

If there had been any interest in allowing Iraqis to determine their own fate, these considerations point the way. But there wasn't. Hence the call that their torturers must use violence to "liberate them." An intelligent Martian watching this would be bemused, to put it mildly.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3357

No one who watches the world stage, and has a memory longer than five minutes, believes Washington's claims to be doing this for the good of Iraq, or the world. This is a war to make the world safe for corporate oligarchy, plain and simple.

I Feel the need to bump this because Karma hasnt answered it yet(twice actually) and I am interested in his answer...........In an earlier thread he also told me that I was making !@$%$ up when I suggested to him that alot of Iraqi's were fighting because of the anger they felt from the sanctions or from losing loved ones or from just defending their homelands. That kind of ignorance is dangerous because it leaves no room for compromise.....Karma I am interested in knowing why you think that on September 12th the whole world was in America's corner but now America is the Worlds most hated......why did this happen?

Mod edit: Please dont quote full posts of other posters, if you want a responce ask use the link feature or quote the small part that you want a responce too, please rember the forum rules

(I tried to include the first part of my responses, but it wouldn’t let me. The forum might be bugged or maybe there is just something odd about that text. It won’t let me post it. It will let me post the next two segments though… but only if I take out most of the quote tags… so I’ve substituted quotation marks. Hopefully, this won’t happen again. :) )
Karma:


Haha. I'm glad you find it humourous. What I find humourous is that America is genuinely concerned about human rights. AHAHAAH! That's why they are attempting to pass laws to legalize tortur.... errr, 'abuse' of suspected terrorists and insurgents.
If we legalized the worst torture imaginable, then we'd be no worse then the UN. Torture is not forbidden by the UN, nor are their any negative consequences for practicing it.

Either way, all I want to do is put underwear on the heads of our enemies... dirty if they're extra nasty.

“Two words. Abu Gharib.”
When did we violate teh convention? Those people are neither soldiers nor civilians. Ergo they are not covered. Read up.

“Nonsense. I challenge you to support this assertion.”
http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm
--------------------------------

It really infuriates me when the U.S.A tries to justify its rogue actions because the 'UN isn't working'. How do you expect the UN to work if its own members continue to disobey it, and refuse to work with it??? It's all circular. The more you disobey the UN, the more ineffective the UN becomes.
We gave it the option to either live up to its role or become irrelevant. That ultimatum wasn't given lightly. The UN chose their own path. ;)

“And just because the UN isn't working doesn't give the U.S.A the right to dubb itself the 'policeman of the world'. I don't remember ever electing them for that prestigious position, and the fact that this self-elected policeman is so corrupt makes me just a little nervous.
Might does not make right.”
How much do you know about post WWII history? The Truman administration made the US the police of the world by making of the big stick in the UN's laws. It was our money and our blood that made any of that possible. We're the policemen because NO ONE ELSE CAN BE.

You think we like the role? We f'ing hate it. But the job MUST BE DONE. So if you don't like the way we're doing it, then you do it for us. We honestly would rather someone else do it. We're sitting our here trying keep this mess of a world that YOUR people have totally f'ed up through rough shot colonialism from devolving into all out war.

Figure it out, we have been fighting in YOUR sted. And you are MORE then welcome to take this mess back. But you must TAKE it. Build back up and take it. Because if we leave, then it'll be open to anyone and you don't want that. I know you guys think you're diplomatic geniuses over there, but the last hundred years of European diplomatic history speak strongly to the contrary.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Whether you think the UN is a good idea or not, all countries are obligated to follow it's decisions. NO decision was made to let america invade iraq, Sadam allowed the UN inspectors to look for WMD and none were found... the invasion was not allowable by the UN constitution .. which is what separates us from the acts of the nazis in the second world war, pol pot the cambodian psychopath, or pinochete the dictator put to power by the americans in chile.

As for who created the UN it wasnt america

BUT HEY! I found your idealism online... YEY!!!!!!!!! now we can all be nationalist/facist bastards

http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zgen/JustSayNoToTheUN.html
^I dont know whether to laugh or cry my head off... its just so stupid/funny

Old lady judges, watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony.

While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer's pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death's honesty
Won't fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes
Must get lonely. (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/itsalrightmaimonlybleeding.html)


Here's more (http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/kerkhoff/beatgeneration/BG-TheCourse.htm) for those who prefer words like these to less thoughtful phrasing such as "Bring 'em On".

It's alright, ma I finally found an interesting thread here in WEePee again. Because it speaks to the heart of the present American malaise. We're not busy being born, we're busy hammering every last nail in the coffins of colonialism and fascism- well, all but the nails we're leaving out for the supreme Patriot Act of jumping right in unnecessarily and with much loss of life.

Thinking Americans owe the Iraqi resistance a profound debt of gratitude. If anyone on the planet will in future be credited with the leading role in narrowly averting a horribly devastating finale to the American Century (on a scale rivaling Europe's long-running civil war / pre-unification- see 20th Century) then it will be the fighters against American occupations, even including the ruthless, mercenary, and despicable among them.

The WoT (whot?) is really coming home to roost, and many Americans will owe their lives to an Iraqi resistance that is battling a virulent and misguided American ideology that will claim many American victims along with the steady stream of petroleum/zionism-cursed foreign ones, until the neoconservative nightmare is disgraced and repudiated by the American society/societies that emerge when this is over.

From here forward, Americans who speak out about their country being (ever more conspicuously) on the wrong side of history and justice will be increasingly attacked for being traitors, terrorists, devil-worshippers, liberals, etc. This will involve not only the attempted destruction of reputations and livelihoods. This will soon involve domestic cloak-and-dagger that will not only hit much closer to home, but with far more lethal force than many Americans now suspect. Still-spawning Busheviks will begin quietly outing, routing and even snuffing "terrorist sympathizers", many of them previously just considered intelligensia (http://www.einnews.com/colorado/newsfeed-ColoradoTerrorism) in political terms, and "liberals" before the infection set in.

I'm sad that so many of the antibodies are fated to be hundreds of thousands of dead Arabs (of any or no faiths) who just wanted to live their lives in very similar ways as most of us do. We have far surpassed the horrors of Saddam's Halabja in Dubya's Fallujah, and until American troops depart the Mideast in disgrace, there will be an incessant and growing tally of "possibly innocent lives" (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2984112) potentially surpassing any war the Mideast has seen in the last century. This is the ignition of the kind of ethnic killing that feeds voraciously on itself. The neoconservatives haved knocked the props out from under several very delicate Mideast balancing-acts (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17938&page=1&pp=20), and the consequences are dire.

So I bow in gratitude to the thousands of dying foreigners, who are hastening the end of America's hellish political disease, and who are mitigating the burgeoning horror we Americans have wrought from basest ignorance and greed.

*Claps* I take it you read the link I posted, Well said

hypewaders: that link you posted has to be the most insulting and discusing thing i have ever read. To say that they were just "possably" innocent like they have to prove there innocence so that they can not have bombs droped on there heads!!!!!!!!!

as much as i hate to see us lose solders i HOPE that every american, australia, british and any other countrys troops in the middle east die. I hope the same for every govermental personage as well. I despise howard and bush for what they have done and if i could i would kill them both myself. I am apaled at the loss of innocent life overthere and the calousness that most people especially the goverments have to it. I have herd it said that the definition of evil is lack of empathy and they arnt wrong

Evil isn't the lack of empathy. It is the actual enjoyment of causing harm for its own end.

Then this man is the embodiment of evil:

"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.

"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis said. "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."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/general.shoot/

Embodiment? Evil perhaps, but I doubt embodiment.
He should be removed from his position, but not because of morality. He should be removed because he can't do his job properly. It would be fine if he enjoyed killing the people he was supposed to kill. Its when he tries to get in unnecessary firefights that we have a problem.

When did we violate teh convention? Those people are neither soldiers nor civilians. Ergo they are not covered. Read up.

People can be divided into one of two groups: those who justify actions by law, and those who justify actions by an inherent sense of justice. Liberals are in the latter group for the simple reason that law is derived from an inherent sense of justice. To a liberal, there is no question that something obviously unjust is illegal. If the law says otherwise, then the law is wrong.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

This conflicts with your other quote. Justifying actions by law leads to war for profit when laws are created to sell the war to conservatives.

As for who created the UN it wasnt america
No?
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War.

The creation of the League was a centrepiece of Wilson's Fourteen Points for Peace, specifically the final point: "A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike." Wilson was a strong advocate of including the League in the Treaty of Versailles. As a result, the League was established on January 25, 1919 by Part I of the treaty.

We fathered them both. As to their authority... they're neither democratic nor universal... so they don't mean much to me. I'll support the UN when it's doing its job... when it gets in the way, we'll over rule it.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Embodiment? Evil perhaps, but I doubt embodiment.

Yes embodiment, you see it is not the amount one kills, or the consequnces of one's actions that makes him evil, but his sheer will, and motive. That idiot, imo is no different from concentration camp generals, treating human beings enemy or not as meat and game. This shows rather well the mentalitiy of most Americans on this “war on terror” and I would imagine about dead Muslims…its all fun typical imperialist attitudes.

He should be removed from his position, but not because of morality. He should be removed because he can't do his job properly. It would be fine if he enjoyed killing the people he was supposed to kill. Its when he tries to get in unnecessary firefights that we have a problem.

I think he was saying what most American’s won’t.

clockwork: where does the ability to cause pain and hurt without remorse COME FROM???

doesnt it come from a compleate lack of empathy towards the person\s who you are harming?

apathy springs from the same base does it not?

so we have the people who are comiting the acts AND the people who dont care enough to do anything about them both showing a compleat lack of empathy

doesnt that show you that lacking empathy is the root of all evil?

Were you a jarhead, Stokes? That sounds like the lot of propeganda the military gives it's drones.
Please imbue us with your extensive knowledge of military propaganda and how it is intrinsic to training the US military. You can surely do so, as you are clearly an expert on military culture and customs. Pay special attention to the US military, while citing the highlights of my own service career, on which you are obviously well-informed.
oh get REAL. it is done so as to BREAK THE SPIRIT. to demoralize lads, men, so as they become totally under the military authority and will kill kill kill, and torture etc. oif bleedin COURSe it is

i am outraged by what the aMeriCaans have done are doing. not only is an illgegal fukin war in the first place, but they also throw in jailing people for no reason
and torturing them. then you get the people on the side of the 'white cowboy hats (versus the blaCK turbins) totally denying any wrong has been DONE. Shame on you! have you childrfen? are you learning THEM the same shit you believe? god HELP them then!
Hehe, aren't you an angsty one. RARR!

Asguard: Somebody can be evil and cause pain even with a full allotment of empathy. They just have to understand that the other guy feels pain, know what it is like, and get joy out of causing it. Some people like seeing fear and pain in another's eyes even and especially when they know what it is that they are seeing. This, in my opinion, is the only true evil.

Apathy spirngs from the belief that nothing they do will have any impact for the better. That you could try as you might and the world would by just as twisted after you die as it was before you were born. That even good intentions are as likely to spring blood as they would be to spring happyness.

As to the legality argument, the only metric the legality of OIF can be judged against is that of the US Constitution. To the United States, there is no higher authority. Whatever the UN decides doesn't mean shit, really, because their precedence is entirely subordinate to the US Constitution and is therefore irrelevant. As Repo Man already pointed out, the power to declare war is invested solely in the US Congress, and not the Presidency. When Congress unanimously voted to cede authority to Bush to commit military action in October of 2002, they did so unconstitutionally. Of course, Congress hasn't declared war since 1941 either. So the present denigration of the Constitution isn't exactly a new trend in US government, unfortunately. Not saying I agree with it, just stating a fact.

International law exists in the form of treaties (contracts) between sovereign nations, each of which otherwise exists in an independent 'state of nature" relative to the world at large. In other words, the state of law between nations is something roughly akin to anarchocapitalism. And we've all seen how well that works. The anarchical nature of international relations is a bitch.

You may argue that the war in Iraq is immoral or unethical, but that is an arbitrary benchmark, and does not apply universally.

as much as i hate to see us lose solders i HOPE that every american, australia, british and any other countrys troops in the middle east die. I hope the same for every govermental personage as well. I despise howard and bush for what they have done and if i could i would kill them both myself. I am apaled at the loss of innocent life overthere and the calousness that most people especially the goverments have to it. I have herd it said that the definition of evil is lack of empathy and they arnt wrong
I completely agree and I would add Kim Beazly as well. There is no difference between Howard & Beazley policy wise in which case Beazley has no chance of getting power, he's a liberal stooge!

kazakhan: so who SHOULD run the country?

as much as i would love to see Bob Brown or that labor leader (in the senate) who had our "distinguished" defence minister over a barrel, it just wont happen and i would rather see a labor goverment than a continuation of howard. I pray everyday that costello will challange howard just because he MIGHT be a TINY bit better than howard (at least he is a republican)

We fathered them both. As to their authority... they're neither democratic nor universal... so they don't mean much to me. I'll support the UN when it's doing its job... when it gets in the way, we'll over rule it.

(posted by Karmashock )


And it's that thinking right there that makes the US so dangerous to the rest of the world :m:

We fathered them both. As to their authority... they're neither democratic nor universal... so they don't mean much to me. I'll support the UN when it's doing its job... when it gets in the way, we'll over rule it.

(posted by Karmashock )


And it's that thinking right there that makes the US so dangerous to the rest of the world :m:
Dangerous to whom? Please... you can smell the elitist rot of the place from here. It's a debating society for people that like to placate any kind of change or positive international action what so ever.

I mean... at least Bush (even if he is the worst speaker ever) had the guts to call what's going on in Sudan "Genocide"... did anyone else? nope. The UN is less then useless... it's counter f'ing productive. There is no point in having a discussion with people that quite naturally want nothing to ever be done about anything.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

. Torture is not forbidden by the UN, nor are their any negative consequences for practicing it.

Torture is forbidden by international law, and is punishable by the UN.


“Two words. Abu Gharib.”
When did we violate teh convention? Those people are neither soldiers nor civilians. Ergo they are not covered. Read up.

I have read up. The detainees were the very definitions of either civilians or POW's.

Please, read up yourself. They were granted protection from torture and abuse by the Geneva Convention, and no amount of squirming will make you prove otherwise. Your atttempts to support torture and abuse, and to extend the middle finger to the Geneva Convention, are noted. With extreme disgust.


How much do you know about post WWII history? The Truman administration made the US the police of the world by making of the big stick in the UN's laws. It was our money and our blood that made any of that possible. We're the policemen because NO ONE ELSE CAN BE.

Not only is this incorrect, is is also insulting.

It also begs the question of who polices the police. America has been shown time and time again to act in its own interests, even when this requires corruption.


Figure it out, we have been fighting in YOUR sted. And you are MORE then welcome to take this mess back. But you must TAKE it. Build back up and take it. Because if we leave, then it'll be open to anyone and you don't want that. I know you guys think you're diplomatic geniuses over there, but the last hundred years of European diplomatic history speak strongly to the contrary.

Nobody asked for America to interfere. The Iraqi's never asked for your support. Vietnamn never asked for your meddlings. Nor did Korea. Time after time, your country refuses to realize that we WANT to deal with our own mess. Perhaps that is why your country is having so many problems with insurgents.

However, if you truly feel the way you do, then I want to make a little suggestion. Get off your ass, go over to Iraq, pick up a rifle, and actually participate. Until then, you are not fighting for me. You express your naive opinions about liberation, yet sit there while Iraqi's and Allies are murdered. How ironic.

I guess you support 'liberation' of a country you have never visited, as long as no one is trying to blow your head off.


We fathered them both.

Totally irrelevant, and factually false. Russia, Britain, France and America all fathered the United Nations.

However, let's assume that what you are saying is true. If the UN has indeed failed, then the U.S.A only has itself to blame, since it fathered it.

Torture is forbidden by international law, and is punishable by the UN.
Really? So what does that mean? Huge sections of the world do it without hiding it or apologizing. Syria does it and they're on the f'ing human rights council. :rolleyes:


I have read up. The detainees were the very definitions of either civilians or POW's.
Nope. They were soldiers out of uniform (not POWs) or foreign terrorists (not civilians).


Not only is this incorrect, is is also insulting.
Its entirely accurate. After world war two and the fall of the Iron curtain, the US was definitely called upon to counter the soviets. It started in Greece and progressed from there. We were asked to do it by the Europeans and we did our job.

To bitch about what we do today without replacing us is not only ignorant but abusive. It's like throwing eggs at a fire fighter.


Nobody asked for America to interfere. The Iraqi's never asked for your support.
Not true, the iraqi people begged us to go in and were SLAUGHTERED when we didn't kick saddam out after the first gulf war. Again, read up.
Vietnamn never asked for your meddlings.
Again, not true. First, some the Vietnamese government did ask for our assistance and the French directed them to us.

Nor did Korea.
I'm done with you. you know nothing and you're pretending to know what you're talking about.

Either read a book or have some humility. I'm not reading another word.

Love and peace, karmashock.

Really? So what does that mean? Huge sections of the world do it without hiding it or apologizing. Syria does it and they're on the f'ing human rights council

Everyone else is doing it, hence I am justified in doing it! Wow, you are starting to sound more and more like a little kid.


Nope. They were soldiers out of uniform (not POWs) or foreign terrorists (not civilians).

Cite your sources.
Provide your proof.
Did these prisoners have a fair hearing in front of a tribunal to determine their guilt/innocence?

Until you show otherwise, your statement collapses. These people are assumed innocent until proven guilty, and hence have basic human rights.


To bitch about what we do today without replacing us is not only ignorant but abusive. It's like throwing eggs at a fire fighter.

On the contrary. It is like throwing eggs at a fire. The U.S.A has caused nothing but trouble.


Not true, the iraqi people begged us to go in and were SLAUGHTERED when we didn't kick saddam out after the first gulf war. Again, read up.

Once again, I recommend that you take your own advice, and read up about the conflict. The Iraqi rebels begged for aid 10 years ago, which the Americans denied them. They were then slaughtered while the U.S.A turned a blind eye, and even destroyed their weapons.

You have failed to provide evidence that the Iraqi people as a whole were begging for America's intervention in 2003.

Invading a country 10+ years AFTER genocide has occurred is not sound justification. Try again.


Again, not true. First, some the Vietnamese government did ask for our assistance and the French directed them to us.

Wait a sec. The SOUTH Vietnamese government asked for your help. They do not constitute the entire 'Vietnamese' government, nor do they speak for the whole of Vietnam. Vietnam was not at war with another country, it was in civil war (I thought even you, with your poor knowledge of history, would understand this). It is as absurd as France siding with South America during the American Civil War.


I'm done with you. you know nothing and you're pretending to know what you're talking about.

Typical. Stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you".

Why don't you rejoin the discussion when you have read the Geneva Conventions?

Whatever dude, you lack the historical knowledge of a highschooler.

As far as Vietnam is concerned:
1955
January 1. Direct US aid to South Vietnam begins.
February 12. US advisers begin training South Vietnamese troops.
March 29 - Diem launches his successful campaign against the Binh Xuyen and the religious sects.US Ambassador Collins advises Washington to consider a change of leadership. Bao Dai, from Paris accuses President Diem of "selling the blood of Vietnamese". Diem is advised by the CIA to conduct a plebiscite and let the people decide.
Diem is warned by the Lansdale(CIA) "not to rig the elections", "... I don't want to suddenly read that you have won by 99.99%"
June. Hanoi asks for formal talks to prepare for the international supervised elections scheduled for
October. Diem holds the plebiscite and wins by 98%. CIA knows the plebiscite was rigged. President Diem places family members in key positions.
Much later, Diem's last military Chief of Staff, general Tran Van Don was to say of Diem's Government, "They resorted to arbitrary arrests, confinement in concentration camps for undetermined periods of time without judicial guarantees or restraints, and assassinations of people suspected of Communist leanings. Their use of Gestapo-like police raids and torture were known and decried everywhere. had they confined themselves to known Communists or proven Communist sympathizers, one could understand their methods. The repression, however, spread to people who simply opposed their regime, such as head or spokesmen of other political parties, and against individuals who were resisting extortion by some of the government officials".
April - Australian Prime Minister - R.G Menzies, Parliament
"...there is no country in the world more completely British than Australia, nor...more devoted to the throne and person of Her Majesty the Queen. We are a proud member of a Crown Commonwealth, and will ever continue to be so. But we would be strangely blind if we did not see that...the rise of the United States to supremacy in industrial power, her vast population, her intellectual and moral influence are all such that she has become...vital to the existence of the free world...[her]friendship and cooperation are vital to our safety".
May 10 - South Vietnam formally requests US instructors for Armed Forces.
May 16 - The United States agrees to furnish military aid to Cambodia, which becomes an independent state on 25 September.
July 20 - South Vietnam refuses to take part in the all-Vietnam elections called for by the Geneva Agreements, charging that free elections are impossible in the Communist North.
http://www.hotkey.net.au/~marshalle/chrono1/chrono1.htm

Our south Vietnamese puppet suspended the elections because they were afraid their side would lose. What faith in democracy these people had! So confident they had to rig the elections in the south!

Whatever dude, you lack the historical knowledge of a highschooler

Karmashock finally reveals his true colours. He has dropped his condescending, sarcastic, smart ass attitude (as well as the "In peace and love" pretentious crap), and has given a devastating, one line rebuttal.

Wow, I guess he can't back up his gross generalization that every Iraqi prisoner in Abu Gharib was a soldier without a uniform (Note: That doesn't change their soldier status) or a foreign terrorist (define terrorist). I guess he doesn't have much faith in the American justice system, where you are considering innocent until proven guilty. To him, it is 'guilty until proven innocent', and since you are guilty, you do not have human rights.

I have suddenly realized that the issue here is not Karma's historical knowledge (which he is lacking), but his attempts to use rhetoric, weasel wording, generalizations and any other logic fallacy in the book to justify the torture of Iraqis.

Once again, I repeat my challenge. Give me proof that the prisoners in Abu Gharib faced a competent military tribunal to determine their status, and that every one of them was a 'soldier out of uniform, and a foreign terrorist.'

Otherwise, I win by default. ;)

I'm so glad you're both on my ignore list :)

kazakhan: so who SHOULD run the country?
I don't know. I really believe it's the system that is flawed.

1. The PM should not have the power to deploy our military on his own whim. Actually I don't believe he is allowed or even cabinet for that matter, the other parties let him get away with it. I would like to know what the official mission statement was for our troops i.e were they invading\policing\defending\going to war.

2. Donations to political parties or politicians should be illegal. For example the founder of Clipsal donates a large sum to the liberal party soon found himself on the Board of Directors of our Federal Reserve Bank. There's also little johnnys ethanol scam.

3. Democracy is an illusion, how many members of our politcal parties actually get to vote for their parties leader?

4. The job of PM should be a seperate vote. If the PM loses his seat he just takes someone elses this is patently wrong and hardly democratic.

5. The power Howard has coming to him in July should not be possible, the idea of the Senate is to keep the goverment in check, I bet Howards 1st order of business will be to disolve it.

6. Politicians should be accountable for they say. Just a couple of hours ago Costello (Treasurer) was bragging about creating the lowest unemployment figures in 30 years, what he doesn't mention is Full-Time employment is at its lowest level in 30 years too.

Karma says: You're on my ignore list

Translation: I can't support my half-assed generalizations (such as that every Iraqi in Abu Gharib was a combatant not in uniform, or a terrorist) with actual evidence

Since Karma has decided to remain in ignorance, for the benefit of others, I have decided to post relevant portions of the Geneva Convention.


Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

The fact that the Iraqi prisoners status had not been decided by a competent tribunal shows that they were entitled to protection from abuse under international law.

In otherwords, Karma's rhetoric smells like a sewerage system.

Translation: I can't support my half-assed generalizations (such as that every Iraqi in Abu Gharib was a combatant not in uniform, or a terrorist) with actual evidence

Not to mention that I think all, or at least most, "terrorists" that have so far been tried had been found not guilty due to lack of evidence by the U.S. While it's not the same people as those in Iraq, it's pretty much the same thing.

- N

Not to mention that I think all, or at least most, "terrorists" that have so far been tried had been found not guilty due to lack of evidence by the U.S. While it's not the same people as those in Iraq, it's pretty much the same thing.

- N
I will give you that most of the people picked up in the US were not guilty. The most I can say for us is that we recognized this.

As to Iraq, no it's quite different. They're foriegn terrorists and exmilitary that got out of uniform. If they stayed in uniform or stopped fighting, then the worst that would happen is that they'd get POW status. Which means a nice place to stay and no questions. We'd much rather have them in uniform and pay for the POW camps, then this stupidity. After a the new government gets set up and is stable, we'll release most of these people. We just can't have them planting car bombs while we're trying to set up a democratic state. :)

I don't know. I really believe it's the system that is flawed.

1. The PM should not have the power to deploy our military on his own whim. Actually I don't believe he is allowed or even cabinet for that matter, the other parties let him get away with it. I would like to know what the official mission statement was for our troops i.e were they invading\policing\defending\going to war.

actually and unfortunatly he does have that power. This is one of the reasons there must always be someone acting with primistiral powers in the country at all times. Its once war is declared that the war cabinate comes into power and this does include by convention the oposition leader


2. Donations to political parties or politicians should be illegal. For example the founder of Clipsal donates a large sum to the liberal party soon found himself on the Board of Directors of our Federal Reserve Bank. There's also little johnnys ethanol scam.

i agree, the electrol comission should provide all the money a party needs for its campaine and at the very least all others should be declared publically or made illegal


3. Democracy is an illusion, how many members of our politcal parties actually get to vote for their parties leader?


this is hard because that vote is organised by the rules of the indervidual partys involved. Personally i do think this is a better way than the US way of electing a leader


4. The job of PM should be a seperate vote. If the PM loses his seat he just takes someone elses this is patently wrong and hardly democratic.


Um i dont think this is right. If a member loses the election they cant just take someone elses seat, at the least that member would have to resign and they would have a bi-election, with the person they want to take the seat qualifying for it in the normal way. Seats arn't transferable


5. The power Howard has coming to him in July should not be possible, the idea of the Senate is to keep the goverment in check, I bet Howards 1st order of business will be to disolve it.


i am terifide of what will happen when the senate is under the power of the librals but the one thing they CANT do is abolish the senate. That would require a change in the consitiution which unlike the states just cant happen that way. They need to hold a referendum which requires a majority of people in a majority of states.


Have you seen the list of things that are about to get passed as soon as the sentate is controled by the librals? there were something like 80 double dissalusion triggers and all those bills the labor, the democrats and the greens fought to stop are as good as passed now. God help us


6. Politicians should be accountable for they say. Just a couple of hours ago Costello (Treasurer) was bragging about creating the lowest unemployment figures in 30 years, what he doesn't mention is Full-Time employment is at its lowest level in 30 years too.
[/QUOTE]

i apsolutally agree. They should be chargable for pergery if they lie in parliment especially and probably if they lie in a press releace. Just think of the child overboard scandel. what a farse this country is where the PM can baldface lie and blame it on the ADF and the country doesnt care. Then there are the lies about iraq

Neildo: After stacking the deck against these people they STILL arnt satisfide. There was a report on here saying that plans are being made for a permident facillity for those who they dont have enough evidence to convict so they will just let them rot

As to Iraq, no it's quite different. They're foriegn terrorists and exmilitary that got out of uniform. If they stayed in uniform or stopped fighting, then the worst that would happen is that they'd get POW status. Which means a nice place to stay and no questions. We'd much rather have them in uniform and pay for the POW camps, then this stupidity. After a the new government gets set up and is stable, we'll release most of these people. We just can't have them planting car bombs while we're trying to set up a democratic state.
The Iraqi insurgency is most likely outnumbered, certainly outgunned by the "Imperial Storm Trooper" force of the "Coalition". Obviously not wearing a uniform provides a tactical benefit to the insurgency. I'm sure the "Coalition" would do the same if the positions were reversed.

Emphasis: You say we as if your personally involved in the decisions of the goverment or as if you speak for all Americans. :confused:

The Iraqi insurgency is most likely outnumbered, certainly outgunned by the "Imperial Storm Trooper" force of the "Coalition". Obviously not wearing a uniform provides a tactical benefit to the insurgency. I'm sure the "Coalition" would do the same if the positions were reversed.
... Read the Geneva Convention again. You LOSE protection if you take them off.

Spies, Sappers, and terrorists get ZERO protection. We could cut them open and EAT THEM and it would be ok via the convention.

It is NOT ok to take your uniform off. The convention was SPECIFICALLY written to encourage soldiers to NOT mix with the people and use them as SHIELDS.

No uniform; no POW status. Traditionally, you'd just shoot these guys in the head and be done with them. But we'll give them to the new Iraqi government... what they'll do with them... who can say.

A tactical advantage? Of a cowardly enemy that that resorted to hiding behind children instead of giving up.

They are totally without honor.

interesting karmashock so if US are in civi's on leave then your ok with them being hung drawn and quartered? what about if they are captured at night and they are but naked?

the geniva convention doesnt have any "illegal combatants" in its list. You will not find that term listed ONCE because its a fiction morons like bush made up

Bush didn't make the term up, that came from our lawyers. I don't know if we coined it or it came out of something else.

Obviously, not just anyone qualifies. If you're fighting and not wearing a uniform, then the convention doesn't protect you.


I don't want them 'hurt'. I don't want them to be physically abused in anyway.

However, beyond that I don't really care. They're shooting RPGs into crowds of people and detonating car bombs in busy streets... fuck them.

Dangerous to whom? Please... you can smell the elitist rot of the place from here. It's a debating society for people that like to placate any kind of change or positive international action what so ever.

I mean... at least Bush (even if he is the worst speaker ever) had the guts to call what's going on in Sudan "Genocide"... did anyone else? nope. The UN is less then useless... it's counter f'ing productive. There is no point in having a discussion with people that quite naturally want nothing to ever be done about anything.

Love and peace, Karmashock.





LOL....what a way to live life......The UN is only relevant when they agree with you and counter productive any other time.......your very own words show why America is out of control...Thank goodness other countries obey International Law

actually and unfortunatly he does have that power..... Its once war is declared that the war cabinate comes into power and this does include by convention the oposition leader
He does too the bastard. Anyways a declaration of war was not made and I would like to know under what mandate our defence forces were deployed.
this is hard because that vote is organised by the rules of the indervidual partys involved.
There are rules that apply to all parties and it doesn't explain why Pauline Hanson was berated for her undemocratic processes in the One Nation party.
Um i dont think this is right.
No not really it wasn't but of course if Howard lost his seat I believe he'd just force the bi-election in another "safe" liberal seat.
That would require a change in the consitiution which unlike the states just cant happen that way. They need to hold a referendum which requires a majority of people in a majority of states.
Which would be an easy sell for the Liberal party if there was another big terrorist incident especially if it was close to home.
God help us
Yup, we're fucked :(

Read the Geneva Convention again. You LOSE protection if you take them off
Again? I didn't mention it, I haven't even read it and I couldn't care less about it. And why bring up the bloody thing when you don't even agree with the UN's mandate?
Of a cowardly enemy that that resorted to hiding behind children instead of giving up.
Can you verify that all of the Iraqi insurgents do this? Probably not, so why the generalisation?

Please imbue us with your extensive knowledge of military propaganda and how it is intrinsic to training the US military. You can surely do so, as you are clearly an expert on military culture and customs. Pay special attention to the US military, while citing the highlights of my own service career, on which you are obviously well-informed.

Hehe, aren't you an angsty one. RARR!

First off... your name or nickname reminds me of the name of the wing of a place where the americans would incarcerate innocent people with brown skin, and torture them, or at least a prison

secondly. why are you taking the piss out of my expressed anger about what i see as utter ignorant human behaviour. why do YOU take my anger and that so fukin lightly that yu make a joke out of it

You seem to suggest you HAVe been in the army? if so hoave you seen people get killed, horror........? so why are you making light of it then?

Again? I didn't mention it, I haven't even read it and I couldn't care less about it. And why bring up the bloody thing when you don't even agree with the UN's mandate?
The convention stands INDEPENDENT OF THE UN!

Neildo: After stacking the deck against these people they STILL arnt satisfide. There was a report on here saying that plans are being made for a permident facillity for those who they dont have enough evidence to convict so they will just let them rot

Why waste the money building a new facility? May as well just keep them in the concentration camps that exist here on U.S. soil. Oh wait, maybe because those are for us.

http://www.infowars.com

- N

P.S. No idea if the site is true or not, I just had to add it in for kick. :p

we still have old POW camps from WWII... the ones we shipped the germans to... treated them real nice... gave them bear, pies, played base ball with them... all that stopped when we saw how they were treating our guys... just totally degenerate scum.

we still have old POW camps from WWII... the ones we shipped the germans to... treated them real nice... gave them bear, pies, played base ball with them... all that stopped when we saw how they were treating our guys... just totally degenerate scum.

yes. it IS a wonder why you didn't drop a hydrogen bomb on them......Musta been business interests!

Karmashock, what do you feel should be the penalty of capturing a person from an unorganized militia? They're not wearing any fatigues but are fighting to defend their country. I guess we should just toss them up to being terrorists too, eh?

Bush didn't make the term up, that came from our lawyers. I don't know if we coined it or it came out of something else.

Heh, the only point of having lawyers is because they're kings at finding loopholes. This is the only reason for the "illegal combatant" term. There is no such thing as an illegal combatant.

Obviously, not just anyone qualifies. If you're fighting and not wearing a uniform, then the convention doesn't protect you.

Shit, I guess I'm gonna be put in prison for life if ever our mainland is invaded and I get captured because you can damn well be sure that I'll be fighting to defend it for YOU. And what is your take on our fight for Independence from England? We had many militias fighting against them which the Red Coats hated. I guess they were terrorists too?

I don't want them 'hurt'. I don't want them to be physically abused in anyway. However, beyond that I don't really care.

But life in prison is okay? What about psychological torture? Hell I'd rather take my lashings for a couple months and released than have to spend life in prison.

They're shooting RPGs into crowds of people and detonating car bombs in busy streets... fuck them.

There's a ton of captured Iraqi citizens, yes, citizens, that are being held only on "suspicion" much-like most of the people in Guantanimo Bay.

secondly. why are you taking the piss out of my expressed anger about what i see as utter ignorant human behaviour. why do YOU take my anger and that so fukin lightly that yu make a joke out of it

Duendy, recruits are treated as they are to try and see how they deal under pressure and yes, even if harmed like stepping on their hands. The reason is because if a recruit can’t deal with that, they won’t be able to deal with the far worse issues and pain that happen during war.

For the person that mentioned how they train their students in martial arts through using cup balancing instead of sweeping them off their feet, while it’s nicer and I guess mentaly better for kids, it’s not for those serious about training in the arts. Using a cup to balance is going to increase their balance but not increase their balance from a kick because they still need to learn that whole thing about actually prepping for a kick. They need to apply their skill.

To train someone in the arts without having any harm to them is training a weak person. You need physical acts to be done to build up their constitution and apply more real-life experience to them. There are places that train their students without ever having been hit and that makes for a crappy fighter. The student has all this skill yet one punch knocks them out all because they’ve never been taught how to receive a hit. Even wide receivers and quarterbacks in football train themselves to be hit even though they’re all about not getting hit. However, they WILL be hit so that has to be incorporated into their training otherwise they’ll fall like a sack of potatoes on the first sign of physical contact.

If one doesn’t want any physical harm done to them, even when teaching them a skill, then don’t get involved with physical activities in the first place whether it’s the Army, martial arts, football, or whatever else. Simple as that.

- N

The convention stands INDEPENDENT OF THE UN!
oh really, and your point would be... :rolleyes:
The US was a signatory of the convention was it not also it's a member of the UN? So you still haven't explained why support one and not the other?

Karmashock, I've been reading the Geneva Convention...

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.
Emphasis mine.
It would appear the detained are still entitled to some basic human rights like not being tortured or shot in the head.

I think what Karma's saying is that if we (The US) ever get invaded we had better all go out and grab some uniforms from the military because if we get caught we dont have any rights :rolleyes:

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWO/newworld41.htm

There is your thinking in a nut shell karmashock ^
Im actually really surprised I managed to find information from the NWO
found it by accident.

What really scares me is this

"Let's celebrate American independence by freeing America from the duplicity of the United Nations and the bewildering maze of treaties, protocols and conventions that exercise control over our nation."

The facte that people can actually beleive this garbage scares me even more.

As for the founding fathers of the UN
It took many countries to form it it was not just one alone.

Bush didn't make the term up, that came from our lawyers. I don't know if we coined it or it came out of something else..

Please try READING the convention at least once, where was the international inderpendent tribunal to determine there statice?



However, beyond that I don't really care. They're shooting RPGs into crowds of people and detonating car bombs in busy streets... fuck them.

Ummm what about the "illegal combatants" who wernt even in iraq or afganistan?

and what about the iraq solders who STARTED the fight against the invasion?

HELL what about sadam even?????

how are ANY of them "They're shooting RPGs into crowds of people and detonating car bombs in busy streets."

where are the POW's????

He does too the bastard. Anyways a declaration of war was not made and I would like to know under what mandate our defence forces were deployed.



Kazakhan he has the right. he doesnt have to declare war to send out the troops here. there was no war declared for east temor either. Dont debate wether he has the right but WETHER he was right


There are rules that apply to all parties and it doesn't explain why Pauline Hanson was berated for her undemocratic processes in the One Nation party.


Pauline hanson was the worst thing this country has ever sparwned. What she was charged with was lying about the amount of people who were members of her party. The reason thats a crime is because partys get money from the electrol commision to fund there campaines and she didnt complie with the money she got


No not really it wasn't but of course if Howard lost his seat I believe he'd just force the bi-election in another "safe" liberal seat.


my honest opinion on this one is if he lost his seat in a safe libral area he would be crusifide by his own party. No i dont think there would be a bi-election


Which would be an easy sell for the Liberal party if there was another big terrorist incident especially if it was close to home.



The republic SHOULD have gone through and we couldnt even get that through, i doubt they could get through abolishing the senate

Karmashock, what do you feel should be the penalty of capturing a person from an unorganized militia? They're not wearing any fatigues but are fighting to defend their country. I guess we should just toss them up to being terrorists too, eh?
All you have to do is do SOMETHING to distiquish yourself. It's easy. Tie a rag around your left arm... keep that on at most times... unless you're done fighting.

Something basic like that is a uniform. Or lets say you only have some paint... splash a color of paint on yourself so that anyone that looks at you can see the mark.

That's a uniform. It's something that all your people wear that distinquishes them form everyone else so there will be no mistake.



There is no such thing as an illegal combatant.
Apparently there is... are you a lawyer? This is law remember... you wouldn't tell an engineer his buisness, don't presume to tell a lawyer his.



And what is your take on our fight for Independence from England? We had many militias fighting against them which the Red Coats hated. I guess they were terrorists too?
We typically wore uniforms. However, dispite that fact, the British usally executed any rebel force they captured.

The brutality of the british regulars is not to be underestimated. Choose a better analogy.



But life in prison is okay?
The people we captured in Iraq, will be turned over to the new Iraqi government. What is done with them is their call. If you just started a new country, as an Iraqi, would you let loose a whole bunch of exmilitary saddam guys? Think about it.

What about psychological torture?
Depends.


There's a ton of captured Iraqi citizens, yes, citizens, that are being held only on "suspicion" much-like most of the people in Guantanimo Bay.
This isn't some brawel at a bar. This was a war and a revolution all rolled into one. The war was easy, the revolution is hard, and the future is the prize.
============================
oh really, and your point would be... :rolleyes:
The US was a signatory of the convention was it not also it's a member of the UN? So you still haven't explained why support one and not the other?
One is a contract. Americans understand and feel comfortable with contracts. The other is government. Government that wishes to be soveriegn over all. Until it is democratic it has no right to claim that power. Americans WILL NOT be ruled by tyrants.

First off... your name or nickname reminds me of the name of the wing of a place where the americans would incarcerate innocent people with brown skin, and torture them, or at least a prisonThat is strange indeed, considering that Stokes Pennwalt (http://www.primemachinery.com/pumps/8607.htm) is the name of a manufacturer of high vacuum equipment for labs and industry. Nice try though.

secondly. why are you taking the piss out of my expressed anger about what i see as utter ignorant human behaviour. why do YOU take my anger and that so fukin lightly that yu make a joke out of it

You seem to suggest you HAVe been in the army? if so hoave you seen people get killed, horror........? so why are you making light of it then?
I made fun of your anger because it transmogrified your previous post into a priceless little gem of internet vitriol that was wholly incomprehensible. Next time a post makes you angry, go outside and run around the house a few times, have a beer, or talk to a member of the opposite sex. Come back with a clear head and enough patience to apply a modicum of grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. There's no reason to get so e-mad over an e-person that you've never met before when it makes what you have to say nigh-impossible to understand. Though I am flattered that you consider my submission so important.

I wasn't making light of anything else. I was correcting the myth that draconian training mechanisms have no function. The truth is that they do, and just a cursory glance at training regimens across the gamut of military history will show you that this isn't exactly a new thing. You might think you have something to add, but it's nothing that hasn't been tried to ill result before. We do it the way we do it now because it has worked, it does work, and it will continue to work into the future because human nature does not change with cultural fads.

Anyway, I wasn't in the Army, I was in the Navy. Yes I did see combat. And that's all I have to say about that.

My apologies, Stokes. I guessed the wrong service. Mark well and remember. I'm not often wrong. I know a great deal of all sorts of histories, including military traditions. I just don't agree with the instillment of fear to achieve results. I don't see how singling out one person could effect the unity of an entire unit. It seems a little backwards in philosophy. I've seen some old propeganda films before and they were rediculous. The WW2 ones looked like a bad B movie. There was this guy, looked like the typical pretty all american boy (pretty boy, perfect hair, smile) just flying around having a great time when all of a sudden a disgusting, scared up kamakaze pilot from Hell comes out of no where and shoots him down, smiling all the while. It was almost comical. I can't tell you how rediculous it was. In conclusion I think that draconian training methods, which yes are probably as ancient as warfare itself, are outdated and new superior methods need to be developed.

Dont debate wether he has the right but WETHER he was right
Oh come on. I already conceded he has the right and was not still debating that point.
Pauline hanson was the worst thing this country has ever sparwned. What she was charged with was lying about the amount of people who were members of her party. The reason thats a crime is because partys get money from the electrol commision to fund there campaines and she didnt complie with the money she got
How did you get the impression I was talking about that? She got berated by the Liberal party about her being elected the party leader in an undemocratic fashion long before she was charged for her fraudulent behaviour. I am NOT a supporter of Pauline Hanson but if it's good enough for the larger parties it's good enough for the smaller ones too!
The republic SHOULD have gone through and we couldnt even get that through, i doubt they could get through abolishing the senate
Indeed, loaded question :mad:
I would never underestimate my apathetic fellow aussies to let Johnny do as he pleases under the right circumstances.
Originally Posted by Karmashock
Government that wishes to be soveriegn over all. Until it is democratic it has no right to claim that power. Americans WILL NOT be ruled by tyrants.
So that is what it comes down to isn't it, will the US rule the world or will the UN? You're already being ruled by a tyrant :D

kazakhan: i totally agree with you mate. i was just trying to work out what you ment

kazakhan: i totally agree with you mate. i was just trying to work out what you ment
My mouth sometimes gets ahead of its brain :D

That is strange indeed, considering that Stokes Pennwalt (http://www.primemachinery.com/pumps/8607.htm) is the name of a manufacturer of high vacuum equipment for labs and industry. Nice try though.

d____hmmmm. i see. well it begs the question then, why would a person CHOOSE such a nickname---of a manufacturer of high vacuum equipment for labs and industry?

I made fun of your anger because it transmogrified your previous post into a priceless little gem of internet vitriol that was wholly incomprehensible.

d__not surprised. your choice of nickname is incomprehenisble to me. maybe we live in different universes?

Next time a post makes you angry, go outside and run around the house a few times, have a beer, or talk to a member of the opposite sex. Come back with a clear head and enough patience to apply a modicum of grammar, spelling, and sentence structure.

d__ don't like getting patronized. and i am not afraid of expressing passion. though you seem to be.

There's no reason to get so e-mad over an e-person that you've never met before when it makes what you have to say nigh-impossible to understand.

d__i get mad over the words and meanings i read, if i see them as ignorant, callous, and indifferent.

Though I am flattered that you consider my submission so important.

d__don't flatter yourself. I wouldnn't!

I wasn't making light of anything else. I was correcting the myth that draconian training mechanisms have no function. The truth is that they do, and just a cursory glance at training regimens across the gamut of military history will show you that this isn't exactly a new thing. You might think you have something to add, but it's nothing that hasn't been tried to ill result before. We do it the way we do it now because it has worked, it does work, and it will continue to work into the future because human nature does not change with cultural fads.

d__like i said. the role of the military is to train/de-humanize young men to be killers. THAt is the real deal. not your justifications of it.

Anyway, I wasn't in the Army, I was in the Navy. Yes I did see combat. And that's all I have to say about that.

which i intuit to mean, you are in denial about it

Apparently there is... are you a lawyer? This is law remember... you wouldn't tell an engineer his buisness, don't presume to tell a lawyer his.

Please show me the law about illegal combatants. :)

We typically wore uniforms. However, dispite that fact, the British usally executed any rebel force they captured.

The brutality of the british regulars is not to be underestimated. Choose a be