More Wikileaks.Follow

You're an odd duck.

This. You've said some stupid stuff before, Alma, but this is ridiculous.

The war in Iraq was not a war on terror. you're getting Afghanistan and Iraq mixed up.

Edited, Nov 5th 2010 6:21pm by Xsarus

A war on books?

The "War on Terror" is a ******** war. It's unwinnable. You cannot win a war against a concept.

There was once a war called the Korean War. Long time ago, US occupied the Republic of Korea and they are still there now protecting it from North Korea. So, this is the same situation, yet in one you say it's "our problem" and the other you say it's not our problem.

So, this means your theory on why it wasn't released is completely false.

I've already mentioned a million times on why it wasn't released. You are purposely ignoring the truth to stand by your point because you don't want to accept the truth. I've already said that all documents that are entered in the central data base are automatically classified by default. It has nothing to do with the content. You keep implying that the US "hid" this information when in reality they were just practicing proper protocol.



I just told you, from what people mentioned in the media and in real life. Maybe "intel" was the wrong word. Maybe "information" is a better word. The fact that those are the only things that anyone has ever mentioned lead me to believe that those are the things that people cared about. If they cared about how the IA treats their prisoners, I would imagine that it would come up. Given the fact that most citizens knew or assumed the worst living conditions in those countries, it is obvious that the IA was of low priority.

While I don't disagree with anything that you've said, assuming that I correctly understand you, that was the "cover" used and we haven't been fighting the Iraqi Army. In any case, I'm still trying to figure out how these countries should have any jurisdiction on how the Iraqi Army treats their CRIMINALS. I know there is a line that has to be drawn of humanity, but it is blatantly obvious that we are more concerned about the innocent.

Since when? This morning? You must have forgotten, I just came from Korea. I lived there for the past 3 years and they are just NOW starting to allow Koreans practicing to start taking lead over military decisions if a war were to come out. We have exercises every year consisting of the whole peninsula and the US has ALWAYS been making the shots, simply because their military don't compare to ours in any shape or form.

So, quit making stuff up and woman up and realize that there is no difference. People like you only have an interest in these detainees because of their opinion of the war. We don't care about the ROKA or any other country that we are in, because the general public do not care.

So nice try, but no...



Let me rephrase that then. I'm not referring to simply "against the war", because I even said myself that no one wants to be at war, but the people who are against the war and uses the war to paint a negative image of the nation. Those are the only people who care. I would argue that most people are against the war because they don't want US Americans away from their family and dying, not because of Iraqi detainees.

That's how they make those wargames realistic!

Where did I imply that North Korea was part of the war games?

Given that I actually worked with Korean Soldiers the entire time I was there,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KATUSA) and I worked on a Korean Air Base for my last year in Korea, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwon. The Air Force has a base in Suwon. This was used by the United States Air Force during the Korean War. The base is now occupied mostly by the ROKAF (Republic of Korea Air Force), though the US Army houses half of a battalion there presently, and there are a limited number of US Air Force personnel.) I know about it. The ROKA SGMs are no joke. They are more physically fit that most of the Soldiers that I've worked with. Not only that, the ROK SGMs that I worked with were all experts in Taekwondo(which is Korean), so when they get in trouble, they literally get beat.



So, you admit that this isn't about any principle or anything, just your opinion and attachment to the war. This is exactly what I was trying to point out. You somehow always seem to have an emotional point of view towards topics we discuss. This is why we never agree.

This SITREP of the IA had no US coalition involvement, so I don't see why you a) think we should get involved, b) think we're somehow guilty for focusing on our mission first and not something of less priority and c) that nothing was ever done to address the situation.



Actually no. I meant what I just said. I rephrased it. I'm saying the same thing, but only using different words because you, along with others, like to take the dumbest interpretation of things to argue as opposed to the most logical. I've stated at least 3 times that no one wants to be at war, so why in the world would I mean what you were implying? In any case, that doesn't change my previous statement. I noticed how you didn't refute it, so I assume that you understand my point now.

If you actually pretended to be what you said you were ("just asking questions") as opposed to being defensive, then we wouldn't run into things like this.



o.O???

You can't say that the people in the Iraqi war are closer to you than the poor 'ol innocent Korean Soldiers getting kicked in the chest because that wasn't "in your life time"... then turn around and call me disgusting because I say there's a line of humanity, but until that becomes an issue, we should focus on the innocent.

You never cease to amaze me. I've never met someone so emotionally charged as you. Your emotions have totally clogged any remaining logical thinking that you might once have had. You claim that I'm "sticking up for the US army", yet you have no details on this abuse of the IA. You have no idea what these detainees have done, you don't know what measures, if any, that the IA has done to prevent that. You have no idea what measures, if any, the US has done to handle this. You have no idea if any US interaction will affect the international relations.

I mean, seriously take a second to think about this. We have Soldiers (your friends and family) over there in Iraq. Some of these people are on MIT teams living and working with the IA. The last thing we need to do is ruin what ever trust we do have in our relationship by intervening in something that not only not affects the US or our coalition forces, but maybe perfectly legal in their land.

Just pretend that those Iraqi detainees are Korean Soldiers, that way it wont be so close to you.

North Korea is part of the peninsula so when you said "whole peninsula"

I even tried to walk you through it hoping that maybe you would figure out your error,but that was a failure on my part.

This entire conversation was in reference to South Korea only.. South Korea is a Peninsula. If the conversation is referring to South Korea only, then "The whole peninsula", is referring to South Korea.This is because South Korea is a peninsula and North Korea is not a peninsula and they are two different countries. Just because they are next to each other, doesn't mean they are one. Or do you think of Georgia and Alabama when people refer to the entire peninsula of Florida?

When a person is referring to both South and North Korea, they say "The Korean Peninsula". That's a huge difference. If you lived in the ROK for more than a day, you would know that.

So, look stupid as I never mentioned North Korea. You all just decided to include a separate country into South Korea because they are next to each other. You don't do the same to Alabama and Georgia, so why would you do it for North Korea?

Actually, yes he really can.

Edited, Nov 6th 2010 8:05pm by Turin