I think that in a cycle of violence, the person with the biggest stick wins. Seeing as how America has the biggest stick, we will eventually win.
-----------------------------------------------
rofl,
britian had the bigger stick in our war for independance.
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?
we have killed more iraqi,s in the last two wars with them than hussin has killed in his life time. hussin made people dissappear? we butcher whole famileys on street corners in broad day light. hussin tortured their loved ones? dito for us.
life for the average Iraqi was better under Hussins rule.
liberating a country? freeing them from oppression? that is not what the iraqi people see. what they see is their famileys being butchered on the steet, their loved ones being humilated and abused and sometimes killed in our prisons, no waste system, very little drinkable water, sporadic electric, closed schools, no jobs, no food, and a very real fear of venturing out to get any of the above.
it is about integrity. we have none, so they dont trust us. they dont believe us. they donw want to give us a chance to suceed.
our integrity is more important to winning the peace than our military is. and currently, we have none. without it, we can not win the peace. as long as this addministraition is in charge, there will be no peace because they associate our lack of integrity with our current leader.
as long as bush is in charge, there will be no peace in Iraq.
that is not saying someone else will do better. that is just saying bush can not achieve peace in iraq at all.
and the biggest reason is the complete lack of integrity this addministraitoion has shown through out the world in matters of trust. the walking away from treties, the rationalizing of torture, the defending of criminal acts like outing a cia operative and sending prisoners to other countries to be tortured.
integrity.
we have none. without it we CAN NOT lead.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- An interesting article on POW abuse in Iraq
An interesting article on POW abuse in IraqFollow
Soracloud Quick Hands wrote:
That is actually pretty funny. Iraq has been pulling off sh[/b]it like that for years to innocent civilains, POWs, etc. Seeing as (USA) being The "Bigger Man" in this war went out the door when it started. Fu[b]ck em, let the beatings and what not continue. Bob knows they would show no mercy to our POWs.
Your whole statement just made me want to cry.
SR wrote:
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?.
Do Muslims believe in the anti-christ?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
SR wrote:
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?.
Do Muslims believe in the anti-christ?
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
Logic?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
Logic?
Sarcasm?
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
SR wrote:
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?.
Do Muslims believe in the anti-christ?
We are trying
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
Logic?
Sarcasm?
Obvious?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis.
I wonder if that reflects the "80%" of people who live in Iraq who are Iraqis.
Mass quantities of people don't often leave thier own nation to fight for another's independance. Unless they are the United States of course.
As for the legality of the situation... the geneva convention does not apply to non-uniformed combatants.
They all need to get together and wear red turbans and dirty clothing or somthing, that is (or would be) a uniform.
I think its mighty big of us to only beat the **** out of them when their comrades are out killing our countrymen.
However, from an ethical point of view, its not right. Basic human rights need to be observed.
I refuse, however, to condone the thought that what these people are being put through is somehow extremly arduous.
If you pleged for an "old-school" frat or went to a military school/college you probably know what I mean.
"Smoking" in that context (extreme physical exertion) is a quite common occurance.
Been smoked a few times myself...
To sum up: Is it legal? Probably for now. Is it right? No. Do I care that much about the "victims"? No.
Edited, Tue Oct 4 11:55:50 2005 by AngryUndead
Why do you hate paragraphs?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
Logic?
Sarcasm?
Obvious?
Pharming?
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Lefein wrote:
Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
Wha?
Allow me to explain. The pervasive attitude in post-WW2 America was that the good guys overcame and all evil was gone from the world except Russia. We still had someone to point the finger at and call the bad guy for a long time. Even in the fifties when teenage pregnancy was rampant, it still wasnt looked on as a problem because the kids would just get married and noone talked about it.
However, the social revolution of the 60s left America wondering exactly how good it really was. Between "dirty Di[/u]ck" and the rampant drug abusing hippie nay-sayers... America lost it's innocence. The social revolution shattered what decency and high-standing that America felt it had over the rest of the world.
Fast forward past the seventies which was a time of notorious self-centrism and go to the eighties. We had the rise of the Neoconservative movement that (bless its sad little heart) tried to recapture a little bit of the fifties mentality of American superiority and pointed the finger right back at the USSR. "Tag, you're it" for the next decade. But, then the Curtain fell..
What you were left with is a Kurt Cobain blowing his brains out while teenage sex comes back into the social conscious with pop-stars prancing around like whores and Presidents cheating on their wives for all the world to see. We have a Hollywood that is absolutely guilt-free with the messages it sends to the rest of the world and government leadership that refuses to be responsible for even the most blatant social evils like pornography and corruption.
In another day and age, the Muslim extremists and the Neo-Cons would be absolute bedfellows. Both movements outwardly want to convey a message of social evils and a lack of discipline. However, 9-11 changed the public conscious. Even though they brought it to our doorstep with the first bombing back in the early nineties. We have played the part of "Great Satan" to the t. The problem is that with our endless pursuit of self-blame and hatred coming from the left, you ripped the balls right off of anyone who would be willing to take a real stand and make a real high ground.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Shhh, Bodhi. You're messing with the whole logic of his argument, there.
Logic?
Sarcasm?
Obvious?
Pharming?
I like pie. Do you have pie?
Lefein wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Lefein wrote:
Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
Wha?
Allow me to explain. The pervasive attitude in post-WW2 America was that the good guys overcame and all evil was gone from the world except Russia. We still had someone to point the finger at and call the bad guy for a long time. Even in the fifties when teenage pregnancy was rampant, it still wasnt looked on as a problem because the kids would just get married and noone talked about it.
However, the social revolution of the 60s left America wondering exactly how good it really was. Between "dirty Di[/u]ck" and the rampant drug abusing hippie nay-sayers... America lost it's innocence. The social revolution shattered what decency and high-standing that America felt it had over the rest of the world.
Fast forward past the seventies which was a time of notorious self-centrism and go to the eighties. We had the rise of the Neoconservative movement that (bless its sad little heart) tried to recapture a little bit of the fifties mentality of American superiority and pointed the finger right back at the USSR. "Tag, you're it" for the next decade. But, then the Curtain fell..
What you were left with is a Kurt Cobain blowing his brains out while teenage sex comes back into the social conscious with pop-stars prancing around like whores and Presidents cheating on their wives for all the world to see. We have a Hollywood that is absolutely guilt-free with the messages it sends to the rest of the world and government leadership that refuses to be responsible for even the most blatant social evils like pornography and corruption.
In another day and age, the Muslim extremists and the Neo-Cons would be absolute bedfellows. Both movements outwardly want to convey a message of social evils and a lack of discipline. However, 9-11 changed the public conscious. Even though they brought it to our doorstep with the first bombing back in the early nineties. We have played the part of "Great Satan" to the t. The problem is that with our endless pursuit of self-blame and hatred coming from the left, you ripped the balls right off of anyone who would be willing to take a real stand and make a real high ground.
Are you saying drugs and **** are evil?
The sad thing is you actually think you know what you are talking about.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Lefein wrote:
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Lefein wrote:
Those days were over when everyones idealism got shattered by the civil rights movement and free love.
Wha?
Allow me to explain. The pervasive attitude in post-WW2 America was that the good guys overcame and all evil was gone from the world except Russia. We still had someone to point the finger at and call the bad guy for a long time. Even in the fifties when teenage pregnancy was rampant, it still wasnt looked on as a problem because the kids would just get married and noone talked about it.
However, the social revolution of the 60s left America wondering exactly how good it really was. Between "dirty Di[/u]ck" and the rampant drug abusing hippie nay-sayers... America lost it's innocence. The social revolution shattered what decency and high-standing that America felt it had over the rest of the world.
Fast forward past the seventies which was a time of notorious self-centrism and go to the eighties. We had the rise of the Neoconservative movement that (bless its sad little heart) tried to recapture a little bit of the fifties mentality of American superiority and pointed the finger right back at the USSR. "Tag, you're it" for the next decade. But, then the Curtain fell..
What you were left with is a Kurt Cobain blowing his brains out while teenage sex comes back into the social conscious with pop-stars prancing around like whores and Presidents cheating on their wives for all the world to see. We have a Hollywood that is absolutely guilt-free with the messages it sends to the rest of the world and government leadership that refuses to be responsible for even the most blatant social evils like pornography and corruption.
In another day and age, the Muslim extremists and the Neo-Cons would be absolute bedfellows. Both movements outwardly want to convey a message of social evils and a lack of discipline. However, 9-11 changed the public conscious. Even though they brought it to our doorstep with the first bombing back in the early nineties. We have played the part of "Great Satan" to the t. The problem is that with our endless pursuit of self-blame and hatred coming from the left, you ripped the balls right off of anyone who would be willing to take a real stand and make a real high ground.
Huh?
Quote:
integrity.
we have none. without it we CAN NOT lead.
we have none. without it we CAN NOT lead.
Speak for yourself. I have plenty of integrity, thank you very much. Enough to freely admit that I CAN NOT lead not because I lack integrity, but because I lack ambition.
Also, I'm pretty sure there are nekkid pictures of me out on the internet drinking and being promiscuous which probably wouldn't go over that well during an election. Shhhhhh
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
AngryUndead wrote:
I refuse, however, to condone the thought that what these people are being put through is somehow extremly arduous.
If you pleged for an "old-school" frat or went to a military school/college you probably know what I mean.
If you pleged for an "old-school" frat or went to a military school/college you probably know what I mean.
Ok there, Rush
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
[/quote][quote]britian had the bigger stick in our war for independance.
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?
we have killed more iraqi,s in the last two wars with them than hussin has killed in his life time. hussin made people dissappear? we butcher whole famileys on street corners in broad day light. hussin tortured their loved ones? dito for us.
life for the average Iraqi was better under Hussins rule.
liberating a country? freeing them from oppression? that is not what the iraqi people see. what they see is their famileys being butchered on the steet, their loved ones being humilated and abused and sometimes killed in our prisons, no waste system, very little drinkable water, sporadic electric, closed schools, no jobs, no food, and a very real fear of venturing out to get any of the above.
it is about integrity. we have none, so they dont trust us. they dont believe us. they donw want to give us a chance to suceed.
our integrity is more important to winning the peace than our military is. and currently, we have none. without it, we can not win the peace. as long as this addministraition is in charge, there will be no peace because they associate our lack of integrity with our current leader.
as long as bush is in charge, there will be no peace in Iraq.
that is not saying someone else will do better. that is just saying bush can not achieve peace in iraq at all.
and the biggest reason is the complete lack of integrity this addministraitoion has shown through out the world in matters of trust. the walking away from treties, the rationalizing of torture, the defending of criminal acts like outing a cia operative and sending prisoners to other countries to be tortured.
integrity.
we have none. without it we CAN NOT lead.
80 percent of the insurgents we fight in Iraq are Iraqis. why? mabe because they feel they traded a tyrant for the anti-christ?
we have killed more iraqi,s in the last two wars with them than hussin has killed in his life time. hussin made people dissappear? we butcher whole famileys on street corners in broad day light. hussin tortured their loved ones? dito for us.
life for the average Iraqi was better under Hussins rule.
liberating a country? freeing them from oppression? that is not what the iraqi people see. what they see is their famileys being butchered on the steet, their loved ones being humilated and abused and sometimes killed in our prisons, no waste system, very little drinkable water, sporadic electric, closed schools, no jobs, no food, and a very real fear of venturing out to get any of the above.
it is about integrity. we have none, so they dont trust us. they dont believe us. they donw want to give us a chance to suceed.
our integrity is more important to winning the peace than our military is. and currently, we have none. without it, we can not win the peace. as long as this addministraition is in charge, there will be no peace because they associate our lack of integrity with our current leader.
as long as bush is in charge, there will be no peace in Iraq.
that is not saying someone else will do better. that is just saying bush can not achieve peace in iraq at all.
and the biggest reason is the complete lack of integrity this addministraitoion has shown through out the world in matters of trust. the walking away from treties, the rationalizing of torture, the defending of criminal acts like outing a cia operative and sending prisoners to other countries to be tortured.
integrity.
we have none. without it we CAN NOT lead.
Flip flop, flip flop, do we have some or do we not? Makeup your mind and then get back us on this.
I don't know why I hate paragraphs.
I think I'll think about it.
I think I'll think about it.
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The sad thing is you actually think you know what you are talking about.
No, the sad thing is that you know what Im saying is true. Our dichotimal universe has spawned forth a splintered society that will never agree on anything.
Lefein wrote:
bodhisattva Defender of Justice wrote:
The sad thing is you actually think you know what you are talking about.
No, the sad thing is that you know what Im saying is true. Our dichotimal universe has spawned forth a splintered society that will never agree on anything.
If you're looking to philosophy to provide a solution to anything, you have a mighty long wait ahead of you.
It's not so much as disagreeing with you more myself stating that you are wrong. I would say the same thing to a liberal (ask SR).
You are either incapable of fully articulating your ideas or you have a very narrow and restricted view that you use to make a poorly thought out conclusion based on wishful and naive thinking of the past with a dash of monstrous omission of a number of relevent social factors.
Either way its clear that your knowledge of most issues as well as your ability to grasp, understand and make any form of well reasoned argument or idea from that knowledge is clearly lacking. You are like the fool that can quote shakespeare but never understand the structure and theme behind it.
In the end you never truly get it, do you Lefein.
You are either incapable of fully articulating your ideas or you have a very narrow and restricted view that you use to make a poorly thought out conclusion based on wishful and naive thinking of the past with a dash of monstrous omission of a number of relevent social factors.
Either way its clear that your knowledge of most issues as well as your ability to grasp, understand and make any form of well reasoned argument or idea from that knowledge is clearly lacking. You are like the fool that can quote shakespeare but never understand the structure and theme behind it.
In the end you never truly get it, do you Lefein.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
re: Geneva - AngryUndead hit it earlier. The Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war apply to uniformed combatants. The enemy soldiers need to be uniformed, they need to fight under a flag, they need to be representing a country. As it stands, people who are attacking the United States as terrorists, freedom fighters, jihadists or whatever you want to call them have no official backing from any given State.
Part of the catch of being a POW is that there has to be someone to give you back to. Who claims these soldiers? 80% of them are Iraqi -- has the Iraqi government claimed them and asked for their return? Who is it that has declared war on us?
If no state represents them, they cannot be returned. They are not soldiers. They are not a legal army. Thus the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them at all.
It's bs semantics, but semantics are often the soul of the law.
--
We are in a poor situation because we are imprisoning illegal combatants - violent non-soldiers who are attacking our military force. We are in a poor situation because allegations of torture and mistreatment have arisen.
We are under no obligation to take prisoners. We can solve the problem easily by using portable tree-shredders.
Normally it's handy to have a prisoner because you can gain military intelligence from an interrogation. It's advantageous to treat the prisoners well because, should your soldiers be captured, you want them to be treated in kind. Sadly we're dealing with an enemy that is fascinated with beheadings and public bombings. The traditional reasons for keeping prisoners are void.
We'll probably lose some intel but at least we won't have to worry about people being upset by our troops using torture in the field.
Edited, Tue Oct 4 14:43:16 2005 by Wingchild
Part of the catch of being a POW is that there has to be someone to give you back to. Who claims these soldiers? 80% of them are Iraqi -- has the Iraqi government claimed them and asked for their return? Who is it that has declared war on us?
If no state represents them, they cannot be returned. They are not soldiers. They are not a legal army. Thus the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them at all.
It's bs semantics, but semantics are often the soul of the law.
--
We are in a poor situation because we are imprisoning illegal combatants - violent non-soldiers who are attacking our military force. We are in a poor situation because allegations of torture and mistreatment have arisen.
We are under no obligation to take prisoners. We can solve the problem easily by using portable tree-shredders.
Normally it's handy to have a prisoner because you can gain military intelligence from an interrogation. It's advantageous to treat the prisoners well because, should your soldiers be captured, you want them to be treated in kind. Sadly we're dealing with an enemy that is fascinated with beheadings and public bombings. The traditional reasons for keeping prisoners are void.
We'll probably lose some intel but at least we won't have to worry about people being upset by our troops using torture in the field.
Edited, Tue Oct 4 14:43:16 2005 by Wingchild
Wingchild wrote:
re: Geneva - AngryUndead hit it earlier. The Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war apply to uniformed combatants. The enemy soldiers need to be uniformed, they need to fight under a flag, they need to be representing a country. As it stands, people who are attacking the United States as terrorists, freedom fighters, jihadists or whatever you want to call them have no official backing from any given State.
Part of the catch of being a POW is that there has to be someone to give you back to. Who claims these soldiers? 80% of them are Iraqi -- has the Iraqi government claimed them and asked for their return? Who is it that has declared war on us?
If no state represents them, they cannot be returned. They are not soldiers. They are not a legal army. Thus the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them at all.
It's bs semantics, but semantics are often the soul of the law.
Part of the catch of being a POW is that there has to be someone to give you back to. Who claims these soldiers? 80% of them are Iraqi -- has the Iraqi government claimed them and asked for their return? Who is it that has declared war on us?
If no state represents them, they cannot be returned. They are not soldiers. They are not a legal army. Thus the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions do not apply to them at all.
It's bs semantics, but semantics are often the soul of the law.
Yeah ... semantics gives us the right to act like heathens. The US should not resort to tactics used by the terrorists we despise, unless we desire to become what we despise.
Recent Visitors: 208
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (208)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- An interesting article on POW abuse in Iraq
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC