Torture

[spidergoat]

I agree ....we should torture them all equally!...

So if torture is OK, why did we invade Iraq again? You can't claim humanitarian reasons. You can't claim WMD's. You can't claim Al Quida. All there is is oil and army bases and Americans would not have bought that reason.

 

[Baron Max]

Because we could and we wanted to. Don't need no other reason (except to appease the liberal, doo-gooder, hypocrits who are able to enjoy the death of thousands every day without batting an eye!).

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

 

[wesmorris]

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

Yes, basing your opinion on a world event on the 'admission' of someone on a random forum with no actual involvement in the process you criticize is very very valid. Justification for war as presented to the public will always be skewed at least to some degree in order to maximize support.

First of all, that doesn't mean there are/were any lies involved. These people are generally very careful with parsing their statements because they must withstand massive strutiny by every asshat with a keyboard.

Further, you, nor any of your "I hate bush" compadres have been able to show a "lie". You simply bury yourselves in that montra, sticking to the most hateful interpretation of anything that comes from the administration.

Lastly, there are two far more important questions at hand:

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

Some people are so caught up in their superiority complex (feeling that they are smarter than the president, so fuck that moron) that they fail to remember the duty the President of the US is charged with, and to attempt to funnel events through the idea that the president was attempting to perform that duty - even if they disagree with the decisions.

Bah, like you give a damn about it. You seem only to care to promote that the adminstration is corrupt... or evil, or whatever as long as it's bad, and to bastardize any piece of information pertaining to them to justify that assumption.

How utterly corrupt.

 

[Baron Max]

Thanks for admitting that. Now we all know the justification for Iraq was a big lie.

Oooh, yeah, ...from now on, just call me the KING OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! Thanks for the promotion, Spidergoat! ...LOL!

Baron Max, King of America!

 

[spidergoat]

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

Which war are you talking about? Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No.

This administration is corrupt, that is the main reason I'm so much against it. When Bush decided to invade Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter), I was all for it. But the lie was Bush saying that all evidence points to Saddam having scary weapons that can threaten the United States. It turns out, anyone with a differing opinion about it was fired or smeared. Another lie is that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Another lie is that Saddam did not let UN weapons inspectors in. Another recent lie is that anyone involved in outing a CIA agent would be fired.

The president has revealed to me that he no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. I really give a damn about our safety and the lives of our troops, something Bush has shown utter contempt for.

 

[Baron Max]

Did the president take the US to war with the intention of protecting and promoting the interests of the American people or the institution of the USA?

Yes! And the congress of the United States approved it!

And: Did/does the war work to protect or promote the American people or the institution of the USA?

That, of course, is a question that only history will answer. There are no ways to determine whether is did or didn't ...."if" scenarios are worthless (except for heated discussion at sciforums!).

Which war are you talking about? Afghanistan? Yes. Iraq? No.

I think they're the same war, aren't they? If they weren't before, they sure are now.

...all evidence points to Saddam having scary weapons that can threaten the United States.

That evidence was presented to the congress and they subsequently approved the war against Sadman Hussy in Iraq. If the evidence has proven inaccurate, then so be it ....but it WAS evidence at the time. And that's what sooooooooo many idiots can't seem to understand!!!

But also, now that we're IN the war, we can't just pull out like we did in Vietnam .....unless, of course, we're willing to allow thousands/millions be killed like what happened in Vietnam. We broke our promises to the South Vietnamese people and they died by the millions!! Is that what you want to happen again with the Iraqis?

Baron Max

 

[SpyMoose]

But also, now that we're IN the war, we can't just pull out like we did in Vietnam .....unless, of course, we're willing to allow thousands/millions be killed like what happened in Vietnam. We broke our promises to the South Vietnamese people and they died by the millions!! Is that what you want to happen again with the Iraqis?

Baron Max

Haha, completely the oppocite happend you know. We fought the war primarily by killing South Vietnamese citizens to try to cull the overwhelming majority of communists out of their population. We massacred that nation, and by the time we pulled out the ARVN forces we left behind promptly retreated from every advance of the NVA and the country was united within months. American analysts were predicting doom and gloom, mass slaughters, entire villages killed off, but it never happened! A few executions of notable collaborators with the US, a few thousand intellectuals sent to re-education centers but no blood bath. They even gave us all our POW's back contrary to popular and missinformed movements that interpreted every American MIA as a POW we left behind.

 

[Baron Max]

(I've copied a little info that you might want to read ...please check it for accuracy, you'll be shocked and amazed.)

Why were we in vietnam?

Two reasons: We had a military alliance with them, that we were obligated to defend. Second, the idea of domino theory, that communism would spread beyond vietnam and threaten all of south east asia.

When the US pulled out of vietnam, close to 2 million people were slaughtered by the new regime and more than a million fled for their lives, by boat to safety in the west.

When the US pulled out, they abandoned the montagnards to the North Vietnamese, who committed the greatest acts of ethnic cleansing since the holocaust.

When the US pulled out the NVA supported the pathet Lao in Laos, which resulted in close to 750 000 deaths.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into cambodia, eventually taking power and murdering 6 million people.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Thailand, sparking a civil war that raged for more than a decade and claimed a half million lives.

If the US had STAYED in Vietnam, these might have been prevented, it was the RIGHT, JUST AND MORAL act to stay. It was the WRONG, IMMORAL and UNJUST act to abandon the innocent to the hands of the bloodthirsty.

The same is true of Iraq.
_________________
Paul Morrison

 

[spidergoat]

That evidence was presented to the congress and they subsequently approved the war against Sadman Hussy in Iraq. If the evidence has proven inaccurate, then so be it ....but it WAS evidence at the time. And that's what sooooooooo many idiots can't seem to understand!!!

That's what YOU don't understand, it was DELIBERATELY inaccurate information. The INTELLIGENCE WAS FIXED AROUND THE POLICY, as the Downing Street memos now prove.

 

[spidergoat]

I think they're the same war, aren't they? If they weren't before, they sure are now.

They weren't the same war, but now the chaos in Iraq has made it the perfect training ground for Al Quida, and has radicalized many Iraqis who were not radical before. Much of the insurgency is just Iraqis fighting occupation, not the terrorists we were after. Bush forgot the lessons of Vietnam, namely that we need to use overwhelming force and have an exit strategy.

Oh...damn, I almost forgot, Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam. Too bad, he could have learned something even his father knows, certainly Colin Powell knows, it's called the Powell Doctrine.

 

[SpyMoose]

(I've copied a little info that you might want to read ...please check it for accuracy, you'll be shocked and amazed.)

Why were we in vietnam?
Two reasons: We had a military alliance with them, that we were obligated to defend. Second, the idea of domino theory, that communism would spread beyond vietnam and threaten all of south east asia.

As of 1945 we had an alliance with Ho Chi Minh. American diplomats were at the independence ceremony and American war plains flew overhead. Later as the cold war blocs were arranging themselves we realized that France was a more important allie than Vietnam, so we switched from backing Ho Chi Minh and the independence and unification of Vietnam, to backing the French colonialists in the first Indochina war. Our military alliance was first with the communist Vietminh, then with the French. No viable political body existed in the south for us to be allied with. When we took the war over completely from the French we violated international law by canceling an election in which the communist party would surly have won, and we installed our own ruler.

When the US pulled out of vietnam, close to 2 million people were slaughtered by the new regime and more than a million fled for their lives, by boat to safety in the west.

Again, such a slaughter was widely predicted but never occurred. It was one of the big surprises of the end of the war. Many did flee in anticipation of it.

When the US pulled out the NVA supported the pathet Lao in Laos, which resulted in close to 750 000 deaths.

The US supported a coup against the Laotian government leading to the instability that allowed the NVA backed pathet to take power

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Cambodia, eventually taking power and murdering 6 million people.

There were already Cambodian communists in Cambodia who were active long before the war's end. A "crossover" as you characterize it did not happen, the United States did not seem concerned with fighting communism in Cambodia as the more unstable the Communist revolutionaries made that country the greater ease we could make incursions into that nation to fight the NVA.

When the US pulled out, the communists crossed over into Thailand, sparking a civil war that raged for more than a decade and claimed a half million lives.

Again this crossover model is inaccurate, and this war was backed by China not the NVA

If the US had STAYED in Vietnam, these might have been prevented, it was the RIGHT, JUST AND MORAL act to stay. It was the WRONG, IMMORAL and UNJUST act to abandon the innocent to the hands of the bloodthirsty.

These events were either tangentially related to Vietnam, or occurring amidst US involvement in Vietnam, not due to our withdrawal.

[Quack]The same is true of Iraq.[/quack]

With nothing but a straw man of Vietnam to draw this conclusion from I wouldn't be so confident. The bulk of my information comes from America’s Longest War: The United States and Vietnam, 1950-1975 by George C. Herring fourth edition. I presume your's comes from Ideolougs who wish to missrepresent history in order to expediently make political points about the current war.

 

[Baron Max]

Okay, Spymoose, like everything else in the world, it's America's fault! Sorry ...just lost my head there for a while and let reality lead me astray.

Baron Max

 

[spidergoat]

US laws prohibiting torture were enacted to protect our own troops. Bush is putting our troops in more danger by trying to weasel out of these laws. Thankfully, there is no statute of limitations, and Bush, Gonzales, and the rest can get put on trial anytime. The death penalty is even possible for these criminals.

 

[Baron Max]

Yeah, ye're right, Spidergoat, I shoud have seen that. Gee, you're just about the smartest motherfucker I've ever run into. I mean, geez, you know everything that there is to know ....and probably some things on top of that. Hell, you must be about a thousand years old to have learned all that you know.

I'm gonna' start listenin' to you more .....might learn something before I die!

Baron Max

 

[hypewaders]

You might indeed. Spymoose seems to have demolished your Vietnam analogy. And if you have something to teach, please sort out where Spymoose's debunking is flawed, and maybe I'll learn something too.

Wesmorris asked 2 questions (but not to me). I think they should be answered.

 

[Roman]

I used to think that the Vietnam War was crazy idiocy. I mean, the whole idea of Communism spreading down from China to Australia like a disease seems ridiculous.

At the time though, I think it would have been very plausible. At the time, half of Europe was Communist. The Soviets had gobbled everything up, including half of Berlin! If Communism could do that, then surely it could infect Australia.

 

[river-wind]

Posted by Baron Max:
Yeah, I saw those pictures. So what? Those people have no value to me, they're someone that I don't even know, why should I give a big rat's ass what happens to them? What ...am I supposed to have compassion for people just 'cause they look like they might by human? Why?

Because they are human, or even more simply, because they are alive. And if you are smart, you will see that self-preservation in the long run supports the idea that treating your enemies with the fairness you feel that you deserve not only allows you to keep true to your own ideals of what is "right", but also helps to secure your own safety if, at some point, the tables are turned.

Your safety from tortue come from mutual respect. By violating that respect, you are then the one endangering your own safety. Complete selfishness breeds altruism; only arrested selfishness breeds selfish action.

Or did the meaning behind the Golden Rule pass you by in childhood?

If you want to exercise your compassion, pick something that really means something, not just what the media says you should be concerned about and shows you a few "oh, my god" pictures.

Are you completely unaware of the actual torture that occured? Things from people being hung by the wrists from ceiling shackles for days, to continual beatings, to the death of two prisoners, for which two US Marines were court-martialed?

IMO, I don't think that the photos that were splashed across international newspapers were of subjects all that terrible. However, many people did. Esp. in those cultures where to be nude and seen nude by women actually has a chance to effect the cleanliness of your soul.
There are many things which you may consider horrid and aprehensible; should others be allowed to subject you to them simply because their culture doesn't see those things as bad? If the one subjecting doesn't see the problem, it is not torture?
Who gets the supreme authority to determine what is acceptable, and what isn't? Who gets to determine what is 'useful' information? Useful enough for justification?

The problem that I see with your stance on torture is that it only works from your perspective. Therefore, until you become God, it should not be imposed on everyone else.

You seem to have so much compassion for humanity, why are you not overly wrought about the 8,000 kids that died today of EASILY CURED diseases? That's right, some 8,000 kids die every single day ...EVERY SINGLE DAY! Yet you're makin' a major issue out of "torturing" a few lousy prisoners. Wow!

Child mortality is, IMO, a very large problem, a cause of great unuseful suffering. Work should be done to help these children and their families. However, that doesn't allow us the ease of ignoring all other problems until it is solved.
The world is not linear; to focus on one issue while ignoring all others is as much of a waste of time as doing no work at all.


edit: and what are your thoughts on things such as this:
http://www.junbish.org/afghan_probe_of_mass_graves.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/afgh-j17.shtml

why is this not a tpoic of discussion? Why do we rail about nude pictures while there appears to be real war crimes to uncover?