ABC Slanders Troops - What Else Is New?

You're a little older than me, and you've seen it before as an adult. I figured no way would the extreme left be allowed to create another Vietnam, thinking we should have learned that lesson from history, and thinking no right-minded American would take another political loss on the battlefield just for partisan politics.

Guess I was wrong.

The allure of power is just too overpowering to ignore for some. Also, remember that some of those in power until now were also in power then...a good reason for term limits in my opinion. Many of the icons of extreme liberalism and anti war proponents are still around too.
 
Superlative, I thought the geneva convention only applies to prisoners of war. Not enemy combatants. Meaning, if your not an iraqi, trying to kill american soldiers, you are not entitled to the protections, and if your a terrorist not fighting a country, like any insurgent terrorist since, the iraqi army was defeated, how are they, or anyone at guantanamo bay subject to the terms of the convention. If torture saves life, i would support it. I have not read the convention yet, i will, thank you for sharing it :)

The US invaded and occupied Iraq. As a belligerent occupying force, the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions, specifically Section III, as well as the Hague Conventions of 1907.

As for torture, it produces little in the way of useful intel. The victim just tells his captors what he/she thinks they want to hear to make the abuse stop.

<blockquote>No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives.<a href=http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/>Brigadier General David R. Irvine</a>, 11/22/05</blockquote>
 
Guess what, the Extremists didnt write the rules, Alot of people helped to write them, incliding the US ,then they used THAT set of rules to try people for crimes committed during war.

Do you think that we should act as the extremists do?

does that make us a noble enemy? an eye for an eye?

does that give us just cause? that they broke the rules?

to lower ourselves and be no better than them? that is wat you want

Bullshit argument in the context of tactics and strategy. You cannot win if you don't employ whatever is necessary to do so. One does not have to lower one's standards to employ the nemy's own tactics against him. One must just realize that in order his standards to survive, he is going to have to enusre his enemy is defeated by whatever means necessary.
They are a different breed, they have been fighting for decades, and we stepped in ,invaded, and feel they should follow "Our Rules"

I don't feel they should follow our rules. You feel only we should follow our rules while they do whatever the Hell they see fit and you'll harp and preach against us breaking them and not a peep out of you about them being basic savages.

I do believe if they are ever found and convicted of their crimes they should be hanged .

Yippee.

I think that the US being the 'Superpower' they are, that it is only right that they should hold themselves to some kind higher standard, perhaps a set of rules for war?

like the Geneva Convention perhaps?

A bunch of words on paper written by a bunch of idealistic bureaucrats ... kinda' like you ... who have never laced up a combat boot that Uncle Sam issued.

The extremists kidnap and torture people then behead them.

We should find them and try them. What youre saying is we should go into someones house and kidnapp them and torture them to see if they "Know" anything".

I said nothing of the sort. That's just pure bullshit.

Your so called double standard is hardly applicable when the people being occupied are not a superpower, and are hardly capable of defending themselves with anything short of blowing themselves up.

You're the one with the double standard. You think some scumbag murderer should be treated with all the respect afforded a King, while saying NOTHING of their violating the Geneva COnventions by waging war against noncombatants.


They have their hidden camps, but they do not have entire detention centers located in international waters to avoid the very rules that were set into play to counter such horrors. they do not have guantanamo's.

Irreelvant.

They are at least honest in the horrors they commit, the US looks in the face of the rules and says oh, they arent POW's, they are "enemy combatatants." its ok.

They aren't POW's by definition. Funny how you flip flop in and out of literalism to suit your argument.

Im not saying that what the enemy does isnt horrifying or terrible, what im saying is that the US holds itself outside the rules, simply because it makes them.

Thanks for making my argument for me. The US is ALWAYS the bad guy to you.

Its the right of the people of this nation to hold our armed forces, and government responsible for their actions, for they reflect our nation.

You call my view a double standard, but if you set rules of war, and you try others for them, then you better well apply them to yourselves, or admit you dont follow them, and that they dont apply to you because you say so.

That i believe is the definition of a double standard? isnt it? Or is it hypocrisy? one or the other? maybe even both>? hhhhmmmm just a little?

I didn't set any rules for war genius. And I hardly consider dishing out to the enemy what he's dishing out to us as a double-standard.
 
The US invaded and occupied Iraq. As a belligerent occupying force, the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions, specifically Section III, as well as the Hague Conventions of 1907.

As for torture, it produces little in the way of useful intel. The victim just tells his captors what he/she thinks they want to hear to make the abuse stop.

<blockquote>No one has yet offered any validated evidence that torture produces reliable intelligence. While torture apologists frequently make the claim that torture saves lives, that assertion is directly contradicted by many Army, FBI, and CIA professionals who have actually interrogated al Qaeda captives.<a href=http://www.alternet.org/rights/28585/>Brigadier General David R. Irvine</a>, 11/22/05</blockquote>

I suspect that it ( the effectiveness of torture) is far more situational and subjective than presented in the above context. The further removed spatially and temporally from verification the torture victim is, the less effective it is likely to be (speculating here, not speak authoritively).

If the situation exists that Gunny proposed in an earlier post exists and it is likely that the information extracted will be validated or not within the next few moments, then I think the odds are more than even that you will get the truth.
 
I didn't set any rules for war genius. And I hardly consider dishing out to the enemy what he's dishing out to us as a double-standard.

I never said that, I said the US acts hypocritically when it circumvents the Geneva Convention.

Bullshit argument in the context of tactics and strategy. You cannot win if you don't employ whatever is necessary to do so. One does not have to lower one's standards to employ the nemy's own tactics against him. One must just realize that in order his standards to survive, he is going to have to enusre his enemy is defeated by whatever means necessary.

Than we should apply your tactics to our Police Force as well? would that work out?

I don't feel they should follow our rules. You feel only we should follow our rules while they do whatever the Hell they see fit and you'll harp and preach against us breaking them and not a peep out of you about them being basic savages.

I figured it was pretty obvious that what they do is brutal, You do enough trumpeting about it for everyone.

You feel I should not be standing up for the innocent people who are held and tortured for indeterminate lengths of time, without councel or representation.

YOU classify every person in Afghanistan as savages, when in all factual actuality they didnt do anything.

Now the US is on every street corner in Baghdad.


A bunch of words on paper written by a bunch of idealistic bureaucrats ... kinda' like you ... who have never laced up a combat boot that Uncle Sam issued.

Its funny that these guys wrote the rules of war, which you so brazenly disagree with, then tried and convicted people guilty of these crimes.
I guess you Feel that the Nazi's didnt deserved fair trials for what they did? That they should have been piled into gas chambers and starved to death, without finding out whether or not they were actually guilty?


I said nothing of the sort. That's just pure bullshit.

Sorry I misunderstood what you said. which was this....

I'd stick a Kabar to an enemy combatant's throat in a heartbeat. He can start singing his life's story or hope I'm bluffing.

Totally different, my mistake..

You're the one with the double standard. You think some scumbag murderer should be treated with all the respect afforded a King, while saying NOTHING of their violating the Geneva Conventions by waging war against noncombatants.

Again you lump every one in Iraq together, you do know they are not all extremist "Scumbag Murderers" right?

Some of them coincidentally happen to be innocent citizens of a country the US invaded, and currently occupies.

And yes, I do think that innocent people should not be kidnapped tortured and held without representation by the US. Which unbeknownst to you does happen.


Irreelvant.

Well If we need to do what they do to "Get things done" then maybe the Iraqi's should be allowed to have Detention facilities that no one in congress seems to mind.

They aren't POW's by definition. Funny how you flip flop in and out of literalism to suit your argument.

Funny how when we kidnap someone and detain them they are "Enemy Combatants"
But by holding them they arent a "Prisoner of War".

OR no sorry, is it not a war?, is it an occupation?

So its ok to invade a country and see people we dont like and take them somehere and hold them forever if we want? Just cause we said so?

Arent you glad your skin isnt too dark.

I bet you are just tickled pink, you are a free American, isnt it great knowing the rules dont apply cause youre government says so, and any one who speaks out, is anti-American and a liberal kook.

It must make you feel warm knowing that everyone outside of the USA is a "scumbag murderer" and deserves what they get, even if they didnt actually do anything.


Thanks for making my argument for me. The US is ALWAYS the bad guy to you.

No, No. the US is not always the bad guy to me, they are the bad guy, when they are actually doing something bad, but you seem happy to ignore, like when they ignore the rules of war, and rename an enemy so they dont have to worry about the silly rules.

Rules are for people who dont have enough power to ignore them,

Rules are for people that dont live in the US.

Everytime you lump the bad guys together, (which you do) you ignore the fact that the US does bad things to people who are innocent,

and thats who im talking about.

You obviously feel they can go fuck themselves and maybe they shouldnt live there so they wouldnt get in the way of the US in the first place.

I figure that those the likes of you do enough condeming of the "evil" that I dont really need to add to the parade telling the world how horrible these "Scumbag murders" are.




My apologies to you, for bringing to light so inconsideratly the dirty stains on your beloved flag.
 
My apologies to you, for bringing to light so inconsideratly the dirty stains on your beloved flag.

You HAVEN'T brought to light any stains on my flag. You have brought to light the fact that you are willing to indict the US for even the slightest excuse, while ignoring our enemy's blatant disregard for the rules you demand we so dilligently adhere to.

Don't tell ME I have a double-standard, when your double standard appeases and apologizes for an enemy barely above caveman level, committing completely uncivilized crimes and adhering to NO laws of war, Geneva Convention, nor any other set of rules except anyone that does not believe as they must die.

And when that enemy is on your doorstep you'll be crying the loudest for someone to come save you. Hopefully, you will not have emasculated any and all that could by then, because ingrate that you are, SOMEONE would come bail your ass out. And it's going to be someone like me, who takes it to them and dishes out better than what I get. When that day comes, I hope you recall this conversation, and just picture some asshole jarhead saying :

"I told you so.":badgrin:
 
You HAVEN'T brought to light any stains on my flag. You have brought to light the fact that you are willing to indict the US for even the slightest excuse, while ignoring our enemy's blatant disregard for the rules you demand we so dilligently adhere to.

The slightest excuse? I hardly call the kidnapping detaining and torturing of inocent people "Slight"

Don't tell ME I have a double-standard, when your double standard appeases and apologizes for an enemy barely above caveman level, committing completely uncivilized crimes and adhering to NO laws of war, Geneva Convention, nor any other set of rules except anyone that does not believe as they must die.

I have never apologized for any act commited by someone against the US.

I raise my voice against atrocities commited by the US, you so blatently ignore.

And that fact that you think these people are barely above caveman level, speaks volumes for the level of ignorance and utter disrespect you have for an entire country and its inhabitants that, the United States of America INVADED and currently OCCUPIES. All based on poorly gathered intel.


And when that enemy is on your doorstep you'll be crying the loudest for someone to come save you. Hopefully, you will not have emasculated any and all that could by then, because ingrate that you are, SOMEONE would come bail your ass out. And it's going to be someone like me, who takes it to them and dishes out better than what I get. When that day comes, I hope you recall this conversation, and just picture some asshole jarhead saying :

And thanks to the actions taken by the government you so adamantly defend it is FAR more than likely to happen now than before the invasion.

"I told you so.":badgrin:


I honestly hope that day never comes, for I will be saying you brought this on all of us.
 
Hey gunny ...told you "yella mainman" was a fraud...when push came to shove He bailed... told ya...
 
Hey gunny ...told you "yella mainman" was a fraud...when push came to shove He bailed... told ya...

Would NOW be an inopportune time to point out to you that Maineman left and went to bed 7 minutes before you posted your question to him?
 
Incidently, it's also bad form to drag issues around the board, rather than leaving them in the forum they belong in..
 
I honestly hope that day never comes, for I will be saying you brought this on yourself.

Again, you are incorrect on many levels. First, if you think Islamofascists waging war against noncombatants is above caveman level, please DO explain how? Because they use bombs instead of clubs? Never mind the dishonest spin you tried to put on it.

Wake up. The actions taken by my government haven't made it any more or less likely to happen. My government didn't flying 747's full of noncombatants into building full of other noncombatants. These cumsucking lowlife asshats you presume to defend did.

And if that day comes, it will not be for anything I have done. It will be for the likes of you who think you can pretend or wish it away. I'm for going after it at the source, and that source is the Middle East, not Kansas.
 
Again, you are incorrect on many levels. First, if you think Islamofascists waging war against noncombatants is above caveman level, please DO explain how? Because they use bombs instead of clubs? Never mind the dishonest spin you tried to put on it.

Wake up. The actions taken by my government haven't made it any more or less likely to happen. My government didn't flying 747's full of noncombatants into building full of other noncombatants. These cumsucking lowlife asshats you presume to defend did.

And if that day comes, it will not be for anything I have done. It will be for the likes of you who think you can pretend or wish it away. I'm for going after it at the source, and that source is the Middle East, not Kansas.

Again you lump THEM ALL together,

They all did this? and we should wipe them all out?

Everyone from the middle east hijacked those planes?

I think the problem would have been solved if every "cumsucking lowlife asshat" was on those planes.

Then we wouldnt have run around like chickens with our heads cut off cooking up intelligence and jumping on the War Bandwagon to the first political strategic point of power in the East.

You can honestly say that EVERYONE in Iraq is an "Islamofascist" waging war against us?

You are red white and blue through and through.

You like polls right?

I seem to recall some kind of poll that said the world felt sorry for America after 9/11, even the people of Iraq.

Now, after 65,000 of them have died, indirectly due to and INVASION, they dont seem to like the US so much.

Which for the life of me I just cant figure out. - sarcasm

The US invaded a country that had little or nothing to do with 9/11, usurped the ruler, threw everything into chaos, and occupied it.

And you feel that this in no way escalated the threat of terror toward the US?
 
Again you lump THEM ALL together,

They all did this? and we should wipe them all out?

Everyone from the middle east hijacked those planes?

I think the problem would have been solved if every "cumsucking lowlife asshat" was on those planes.

Then we wouldnt have run around like chickens with our heads cut off cooking up intelligence and jumping on the War Bandwagon to the first political strategic point of power in the East.

You can honestly say that EVERYONE in Iraq is an "Islamofascist" waging war against us?

You are red white and blue through and through.

You like polls right?

I seem to recall some kind of poll that said the world felt sorry for America after 9/11, even the people of Iraq.

Now, after 65,000 of them have died, indirectly due to and INVASION, they dont seem to like the US so much.

Which for the life of me I just cant figure out. - sarcasm

The US invaded a country that had little or nothing to do with 9/11, usurped the ruler, threw everything into chaos, and occupied it.

And you feel that this in no way escalated the threat of terror toward the US?

I think a lot of the problem here is your ability to comprehend. By not excluding anyone, I did not necessarily INCLUDE everyone, as you keep trying to say. I don't know how you do it, but I don't identify ALL Arabs by what I call Islamofascist, murdering scumbags.

The US invaded Iraq for Saddam's 13-years-long noncompliance with the terms of ceasefire and UN Resolution after UN Resolution, for not accounting for his WMDs which are on record with the UN as unaccounted for TO THIS DAY, and for being a general all-around scumbag. I've certainly never tried to tie it to 9/11, so your point in that regard is irrelevant.

Why is it people like YOU can't see the REAL bad guys? Saddam brought all this shit on himself. HE did it. Not Bush. Not me. Not anyone else.

You are red white and blue through and through.

You're damned-fuckin-A rights I am.
 
I think a lot of the problem here is your ability to comprehend. By not excluding anyone, I did not necessarily INCLUDE everyone, as you keep trying to say. I don't know how you do it, but I don't identify ALL Arabs by what I call Islamofascist, murdering scumbags.

The US invaded Iraq for Saddam's 13-years-long noncompliance with the terms of ceasefire and UN Resolution after UN Resolution, for not accounting for his WMDs which are on record with the UN as unaccounted for TO THIS DAY, and for being a general all-around scumbag. I've certainly never tried to tie it to 9/11, so your point in that regard is irrelevant.

Why is it people like YOU can't see the REAL bad guys? Saddam brought all this shit on himself. HE did it. Not Bush. Not me. Not anyone else.



You're damned-fuckin-A rights I am.


War debate cited as aiding al Qaeda
By Bill Gertz and S.A. Miller


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday told Congress that al Qaeda will establish a stronghold in Iraq's Anbar province if U.S. troops pull out prematurely and that the group is reacting to the war debate in Washington by stepping up attacks.
Furthermore, the entire war effort will be disrupted unless Congress quickly passes an emergency funding bill acceptable to President Bush, he said.
Mr. Gates' testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee preceded today's scheduled House vote on a bill that the White House promises to veto because it rations war spending and sets up a July vote to cut off funds if progress in Iraq is inadequate.
"If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda almost certainly would use Anbar province as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States," Mr. Gates told the committee.
The hearing was on the $481 billion Pentagon budget request for the next fiscal year, which is separate from the nearly $100 billion that Mr. Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.
Mr. Gates said delays in approving emergency funds -- which the president asked for more than three months ago -- have hampered the war effort.
He said al Qaeda is a "thinking enemy" that has adapted its strategies as the United States changes its own. The group also is expanding both its organization and terrorist capabilities, Mr. Gates said.
"We know that al Qaeda has re-established itself ... on the western border of Pakistan where they are training new recruits," he said. "They have established linkages now in North Africa. Al Qaeda has actually expanded, I would say, its organization and its capabilities."
The Army has slowed spending at bases in the United States and plucked $1.6 billion from Air Force and Navy accounts to fill funding gaps at the battlefront, Mr. Gates said, adding that more raids of military accounts are likely.
"If we pulled out all the stops, used everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the war into July," he said. "But I would tell you the impact on the Department of Defense, in terms of disruption and canceled contracts and programs, would be huge if we had to do that."
The war funds are caught in a standoff between congressional Democrats bent on reining in the unpopular war and Mr. Bush, who demands a bill with no strings attached that constrict the war effort.
The White House yesterday promised to veto the fund-rationing bill, as the president did last week to a $124 billion bill because it included timetables to start a troop withdrawal as soon as July.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070510-120705-6975r.htm
 
War debate cited as aiding al Qaeda
By Bill Gertz and S.A. Miller


Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday told Congress that al Qaeda will establish a stronghold in Iraq's Anbar province if U.S. troops pull out prematurely and that the group is reacting to the war debate in Washington by stepping up attacks.
Furthermore, the entire war effort will be disrupted unless Congress quickly passes an emergency funding bill acceptable to President Bush, he said.
Mr. Gates' testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee preceded today's scheduled House vote on a bill that the White House promises to veto because it rations war spending and sets up a July vote to cut off funds if progress in Iraq is inadequate.
"If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda almost certainly would use Anbar province as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States," Mr. Gates told the committee.
The hearing was on the $481 billion Pentagon budget request for the next fiscal year, which is separate from the nearly $100 billion that Mr. Bush requested to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until Sept. 30, the end of the current fiscal year.
Mr. Gates said delays in approving emergency funds -- which the president asked for more than three months ago -- have hampered the war effort.
He said al Qaeda is a "thinking enemy" that has adapted its strategies as the United States changes its own. The group also is expanding both its organization and terrorist capabilities, Mr. Gates said.
"We know that al Qaeda has re-established itself ... on the western border of Pakistan where they are training new recruits," he said. "They have established linkages now in North Africa. Al Qaeda has actually expanded, I would say, its organization and its capabilities."
The Army has slowed spending at bases in the United States and plucked $1.6 billion from Air Force and Navy accounts to fill funding gaps at the battlefront, Mr. Gates said, adding that more raids of military accounts are likely.
"If we pulled out all the stops, used everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the war into July," he said. "But I would tell you the impact on the Department of Defense, in terms of disruption and canceled contracts and programs, would be huge if we had to do that."
The war funds are caught in a standoff between congressional Democrats bent on reining in the unpopular war and Mr. Bush, who demands a bill with no strings attached that constrict the war effort.
The White House yesterday promised to veto the fund-rationing bill, as the president did last week to a $124 billion bill because it included timetables to start a troop withdrawal as soon as July.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070510-120705-6975r.htm

What the editorial failed to mention is that it was the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when Bush decided to go haring off into Iraq under the most dubious of rationales that has allowed al Qaeda to re-establish itself on the Afghan/Pakistan border regions.

The notion that debate on ending the war in Iraq is somehow aiding al Qaeda is as asinine as it is unfounded. But then, the asinine and unfounded are your stock-in-trade.
 
What the editorial failed to mention is that it was the Bush administration's failure to finish the job in Afghanistan when Bush decided to go haring off into Iraq under the most dubious of rationales that has allowed al Qaeda to re-establish itself on the Afghan/Pakistan border regions.

The notion that debate on ending the war in Iraq is somehow aiding al Qaeda is as asinine as it is unfounded. But then, the asinine and unfounded are your stock-in-trade.

well said. And even if the vibrant and raucous exercising of our wonderful democratic process could somehow "aid" our enemies. Would we shut it down - stifle that which makes us special - just to avoid that unintended and dubious side effect?

If shutting down the free press and muzzling free speech throughout the land - if turning us into a repressive police state where no opinions counter to the leader's were allowed - if that would somehow HURT our enemies, would those on the right be advocating for that?

Would gaining some perceived tactical advantage over our enemy be worth cutting out our soul - be worth silencing the very vibrant and raucous voices that make us great?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top