Originally posted by PVS
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Do you mean the title of "Commander-in-chief" means nothing and that he has no responsibility ultimately for the conduct of his forces?
Originally posted by PVS
\that question shall be conveniently dodged.
amazing...i would like these conservatives to tell me one thing.
what IS the commader in chief's responsability? to read speeches
off a teleprompter and nothing more? apparently so, since all other
responsability has been lifted off his shoulders 😬
Sure, Bush should take responsibility for the conduct of our forces, as he is our country's representative. But should you blame him? I am highly skeptical that Bush told people that the Iraqis should be tortured.
Originally posted by PVS
racist ass 😬and i love how people bring up the classic
*child's voice* THEY DID IT FIRST!!!!!!!!!
I also believe that if the Iraqis repayed their torturers in kind, you would use the argument you condemned to justify them.
Originally posted by alcoholicpoet
If Iraq is supposedly being "liberated", why are Iraqis being killed and tortured in the same numbers as when Saddam was in power? They're the enemy yes, but they're ****ing human beings, why torture them? Why? If they shoot at you, you shoot at them, it's that simple, why torture them slowly and painfully? There is no justification for it.
2. Why torture them? Three things--it brings about a sense of justice to the torturers, it gives them power, and if one person starts doing it, psychology says that most everyone else will join in. Especially if the person who began and/or permitted the torture is a ranking officer.
Originally posted by PVS
the conservative leader is the rooster who is worshipped for causing the sun to rise, while the liberal is the goat who is beaten to death for causing the drought.
Originally posted by KidRock
No, but dont act like the Iraqis are clean in this war by saying "well at least they didnt do this.."
I'm not trying to justify Iraq, what I'm asking now is why are American troops bringing themselves to the enemies level by torturing them in a horrific fashion similar to that of the insergents actions?
Originally posted by FeceMan
1. "Killed and tortured in the same numbers as when Saddam was in power?" Erm...any factual basis for this? Because I'm going to wager that Saddams decades in power involved more killing and torture than anything that has happened with U.S. involvement. I could be wrong, of course; I'm not trying to slam you.2. Why torture them? Three things--it brings about a sense of justice to the torturers, it gives them power, and if one person starts doing it, psychology says that most everyone else will join in. Especially if the person who began and/or permitted the torture is a ranking officer.
So the continued and expansive torture of Iraqis, and the satisfaction of the torturer is a reason to torture? You're confusing me on that one.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the liberals will blame everything on Bush while the conservatives will blame everything on the liberals.
and wtf does it matter what liberals think today? who's making the policy? there's a time to be PC and there is a time to call a spade a spade. we can play this game and in the end we can realise we are equal and have a big hug.
only thing is, 1700+ american soldiers are dead, in a war rooted on lies from the administration and now based on the hypocrisy of that same administration. we are not safer, we are in more danger now than ever. maybe because i live about 10 miles from nyc i tend to be more nervous about this issue, but i fail to see how we're safer. all the blind rhetoric of "things have to get worse before they get better" and other anal leakages will not change that.
meh, im done ranting for today. i just wish people would learn to turn around and realise there's a scumbag president reaming them from the backside.
Originally posted by PVS
ever hear of the geneva convention?torture is illegal. by allowing the torture of enemy soldiers we put our own soldiers at risk of equal or worse torture as retaliation.
the geneva convention applies to prisoners of war...given that most terrorists fight without identifying insignia and are not allied to any country or state then they are not legally classed as soldiers and so are not covered by the laws of the geneva convention
is this bad?...do i care?
ever hear of the geneva convention?in a situation of war that kind of cease to exist, and after war is over people who havent experienced the horror of war is gonna sit and decoede who is a war criminal or not. Of course some of the incident that happen in the balkan conflict needs to be sorte out yet war is war and you do anything to win it
Originally posted by jaden101
the geneva convention applies to prisoners of war...given that most terrorists fight without identifying insignia and are not allied to any country or state then they are not legally classed as soldiers and so are not covered by the laws of the geneva conventionis this bad?...do i care?
you should care. for all we know those dead men could have been insurgents not terrorists.
I know of an insurgent who rallied for his country to get the invading rulers out. he lived about 700 years ago not too far away from you . They also did a film on this insurgent.
Should you care ? i dont know ; but doesnt this look like history is repeating itself time and again ?
So its OK to kill the rebels who want to have a free country when Scotland has a monument in the name of William Wallace who fought for the freedom of all.
Is this a bad comaparism ?
Originally posted by GCG
you should care. for all we know those dead men could have been insurgents not terrorists.I know of an insurgent who rallied for his country to get the invading rulers out. he lived about 700 years ago not too far away from you . They also did a film on this insurgent.
Should you care ? i dont know ; but doesnt this look like history is repeating itself time and again ?
So its OK to kill the rebels who want to have a free country when Scotland has a monument in the name of William Wallace who fought for the freedom of all.
Is this a bad comaparism ?
not a bad comparrison, but i would have gone with general george washington ✅
Originally posted by GCG
you should care. for all we know those dead men could have been insurgents not terrorists.I know of an insurgent who rallied for his country to get the invading rulers out. he lived about 700 years ago not too far away from you . They also did a film on this insurgent.
Should you care ? i dont know ; but doesnt this look like history is repeating itself time and again ?
So its OK to kill the rebels who want to have a free country when Scotland has a monument in the name of William Wallace who fought for the freedom of all.
Is this a bad comaparism ?
the English felt it was ok to kill rebel scots,However the Scots and Mel Gibson didnt.
Originally posted by GCG
you should care. for all we know those dead men could have been insurgents not terrorists.I know of an insurgent who rallied for his country to get the invading rulers out. he lived about 700 years ago not too far away from you . They also did a film on this insurgent.
Should you care ? i dont know ; but doesnt this look like history is repeating itself time and again ?
So its OK to kill the rebels who want to have a free country when Scotland has a monument in the name of William Wallace who fought for the freedom of all.
Is this a bad comaparism ?
did this "insurrgent" go around killing children in market places?...did he hang 10 year olds for talking to English soldiers?...
So its OK to kill the rebels who want to have a free country
presumption i presume?... the iraqi's aren't fighting for freedom...quite the opposite actually...most of the insurrgents are ex bathist regime members and their followers...since when have they ever been pro freedom...the only reason they fight against the americans is because they want to impose their minority dictatorship back onto the iraqi people
it wont though.
lets use some common sense here
who did the iraqi people fear when saddam was in power?
did they fear saddam? or did they fear the men who would PERSONALLY
torture them to death? yeah, common sense. now those very people are being hired right back to the police force.
do you think iraqis will be happy about this? here in america and over in europe we have the luxury of being able to tuck our heads neatly into our asses and ignore all these factors which lead to destabilisation (as if there ever was stability). we can just ignore those articles in an attempt to simplify our appraisal. this way it can all make sense and we can say "case closed".
only thing is, we dont have to worry about being dragged out of our homes, brought to prison, and tortured to death. they do and they know this.
Originally posted by PVS
it wont though.lets use some common sense here
who did the iraqi people fear when saddam was in power?
did they fear saddam? or did they fear the men who would PERSONALLY
torture them to death? yeah, common sense. now those very people are being hired right back to the police force.do you think iraqis will be happy about this? here in america and over in europe we have the luxury of being able to tuck our heads neatly into our asses and ignore all these factors which lead to destabilisation (as if there ever was stability). we can just ignore those articles in an attempt to simplify our appraisal. this way it can all make sense and we can say "case closed".
only thing is, we dont have to worry about being dragged out of our homes, brought to prison, and tortured to death. they do and they know this.