Why is it that the Iraqi's in custody are called detainees or in some cases prisoners of war and our people in their custody are called hostages? We're keeping them to extract information through torture and coercion. They're keeping us to try to manipulate us into leaving through coercion and torture...They've killed some of their "hostages" and we've killed some of our "detainees" ......hhhhmmmmmmmm -A pile of shit by any other name is still a pile of shit-
You seem to hold a very shallow point of view on the hostage verses POW/detainee situation. You seem to blame America. Granted the prisoner abuse was totally wrong and I do not condone it. I merely don’t hold Rumsfeld accountable. Not all is broke; a few individuals broke rules or laws. The same happens here in America. The police chief of a large metropolitan police department does not have to step down if two of his 1,000 policemen are corrupt. He must investigate and charge guilty and establish procedures to eliminate possibilities of reoccurrence. POW’s are enemy soldiers detained. Detainees are non-uniformed suspected combatants or terrorist found in a combative role on a battlefield. Both situations are totally within the law of warfare. The only option would be to kill them on the spot. Hostages on the other hand are simply that. Holding of hostages is an illegal act that no society endorses. Apply it to a bad neighborhood within a large city near you. You make it sound as though it is justifiable for hostages to be taken since the two police of a 1,000 had mistreated some prisoners and the jails should be emptied. Wrong thinking. Some General officer(s) in Iraq need to be fired for letting the abuse occur, simple as that! Changeyourlatitude
So you would argue sensory and sleep deprivation is not torture as a method to gain information? Also detaining people indefinitely without charge is a breach of human rights. If these people are guilty, and I'm sure some of them are, then they should be brought to trial and the evidence against them made public. The four British detainees who were eventually released spoke in the newspapers over here of inhumane conditions, whilst they themselves were never charged and no evidence was brought against them. Over two years in limbo for nothing? That doesn't seem fair to me, especially when it was clear that these four men were innocent. And if there are no human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay, then I say allow the film crews in, or at the very least the human rights organisations. You can hardly accuse Amnesty International of political bias! All people should be entitled to the human rights protections as guaranteed by the Geneva convention. To refuse this, is a base, inhuman and uncivillised affront to moral, democratic values....
“So you would argue sensory and sleep deprivation is not torture as a method to gain information?” Are you speaking of Cuba or Iraq in the above statement? I have heard of no such claims for the Cuba facility. I already stated above I condemn the abuse which occurred in Iraq. “That doesn't seem fair to me, especially when it was clear that these four men were innocent.” How did you come to such a conclusion? The war in Afghanistan didn’t happen in a 48-hour notice, so a reasonable person must ask oneself what were the British citizens doing on a battlefield in Afghanistan? How could you place trust in what they say in public. Put yourself there in a war as an innocent would you be on a front line or heading home to UK? “All people should be entitled to the human rights protections as guaranteed by the Geneva convention. To refuse this, is a base, inhuman and uncivillised affront to moral, democratic values....” In every war prisoners are held. The Red Cross has access to the Cuba facilities. Needless to say a POW taken in the beginning of WWII would have been held much longer than any held in Cuba now. These people have all the human rights protections as in any war. Changeyourlatitude
I was referring to Cuba, and those four ex-detainees spoke of the abuses I referred to. It has also been well documented in reports by human rights organisations, despite their limited access to the facility. I'm not sure what you are told in the media over here, but the broadsheets here do go into quite a bit of detail over the mis-treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, as they now are over the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I know that three of the British prisoners argue that they were taking aid to Afghan refugees caught up in the war. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and they were not charged. Given the strength of international inteligence agencies and the ammount of scrutiny over Islamic fundamentalist movements, I would be very surprised if these men were guilty whilst no scrap of evidence has been found against them. I don't doubt that policies were worse during the Second World War. But we are not living in that age any more. We all have a moral sensibility, and if our nations are to wage illigitimate wars in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights, we should, at the very least promote these principles ourselves, lest our message be lost....
"if our nations are to wage illigitimate wars in the name of freedom, democracy and human rights, we should, at the very least promote these principles ourselves, lest our message be lost...." So you think America was wrong in Afganistan and Iraq, in your words "illigitimate wars." America was attacked by Japan in WWII, not Germany, so the rescue offered Eastern Europe was also an illigitimate war? Your message would have already have been lost with such thinking! Changeyourlatitude
You ignored my question, so both wars were wrong? Also I meant Western Europe. A choice to go to war requires two countries. We could have fought Japan and did homeland defense from German aggression. Changeyourlatitude
I like to compare politics and have registered to the Democrats and Republican newsletters. You should try it “dueling propaganda!” Mary Beth from John Kerry for Prez reports more than 275,000 have signed petition to call for Rumsfeld resignation. CONSERVATIVE ALERT reports ALERT: America is facing a moral crisis -- and it's about to get worse, because in less than a week Massachusetts LEGALIZES so-called same sex marriages. We need YOUR immediate help to protect marriage from being destroyed by runaway liberal judges: Fox News reported a FOX dynamic poll found 70% of Americans say Rumsfeld should stay as Secretary Of Defense. Changeyourlatitude
I think the war on Iraq is B.S. (Afghanistan... eh, I think the execution was hastily done but it was arguably justified), but I don't really know if you can slap labels on wars as "legitimate" or "illegimate," it's not that absolute. But you can compare them relatively. In the case of the war against the Axis, we did have the Japan-Germany alliance to conveniently declare war on the Nazis... and the Nazis/Japanese were actively waging war and were so much more powerful than Iraq was or would ever be. We had Iraq under a close watch already, and I think that was good enough, and the fact that all the official reasons we used to justify the Iraq war (WMDs, establishing a democracy) seem dubious makes it, in my eyes, seem definately less legit than WWII. Getting back to Rumsfeld, what's up with all the praise being heaped on him by Bush? I mean I know Bush wants to stand by Rumsfeld whilst he's under fire, but he's really being too nice to him, saying Rumsfeld's done a superb job and all that. Doesn't seem too consistent with Bush's alleged anguish over the abuse scandals. And Cheney goes and says Rumsfeld is "the best secretary of defense the country *has ever had*"... uh, what?
I hate to say there was ever a justifiable war, but if there was one, it would be WWII, and i think after that war, the government realized the mass amounts of money and power they can get from waging war, so following WWII, all the US did was pick on little countries who couldn't defend themselves (Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Etc.) Peace and Love, Dan
All war sucks! But when the government puts a soldier in harms way the soldier must be represented 100%!!!!! Changeyourlatitude Colonel McCrae died while on active duty in May 1918. On the eve of his death he allegedly said to his doctor, “Tell them this. If ye break the faith with us who die we shall not sleep”. His volume of poetry, In Flanders’ Fields and Other Poems, was published in 1919. "In Flanders’ Fields" In Flanders’ fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place, and in the sky The larks still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead, short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow. Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders’ fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe, To you from failing hands we throw The Torch: be yours to hold it high! If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders’ fields. We Shall Keep the Faith: Oh! You who sleep in Flanders’ fields, Sleep sweet - to rise anew, We caught the torch you threw, And holding high we kept The faith with those who died. We cherish too, the poppy red That grows on fields where valour led. It seems to signal to the skies That blood of heroes never dies, But lends a lustre to the red Of the flower that blooms above the dead In Flanders’ fields. And now the torch and poppy red Wear in honour of our dead. Fear not that ye have died for naught We’ve learned the lesson that ye taught In Flanders’ fields. Other poets of the time were also stirred to write responses to McCrae’s poem. America’s Answer Rest ye in peace, ye Flanders’ dead. The fight that ye so bravely led We’ve taken up. And we will keep True faith with you who lie asleep With a cross to mark his bed, In Flanders’ fields. Fear not that ye have died for naught. The torch ye threw to us we caught. Ten million hands will hold it high, And Freedom’s light shall never die! We’ve learned the lesson that ye taught In Flanders’ fields. R.W. Lilliard Reply to In Flanders’ Fields In Flanders’ fields the cannons boom, And fitful flashes light the gloom; While up above, like eagles, fly The fierce destroyers of the sky; With stains the earth wherein you lie Is redder than the poppy bloom, In Flanders’ fields. Sleep on, ye brave! The shrieking shell, The quaking trench, the startling yell, The fury of the battle hell Shall wake you not, for all is well; Sleep peacefully, for all is well. Your flaming torch aloft we bear, With burning heart and oath we swear To keep the faith, to fight it through, To crush the foe, or sleep with you, In Flanders’ fields. J. A. Armstrong Reply to Flanders’ Fields Oh! sleep in peace where poppies grow; The torch your falling hands let go Was caught by us, again held high, A beacon light in Flanders’ sky That dims the stars to those below. Your are our dead, you held the foe And ere the poppies cease to blow, We’ll prove our faith in you who lie In Flanders’ fields. Oh! rest in peace, we quickly go To you who bravely died, and know In other fields was heard the cry, For freedom’s cause, of you who lie, So still asleep where poppies grow, In Flanders’ fields. As in rumbling sound, to and fro, The lightning flashes, sky aglow, The mighty hosts appear, and high Above the din of battle cry, Scarce heard amidst the guns below, Are fearless hearts who fight the foe, And guard the place where poppies grow. Oh! sleep in peace, all you who lie In Flanders’ fields. And still the poppies gently blow, Between the crosses, row on row. The larks, still bravely soaring high, Are singing now their lullaby To you who sleep where poppies grow In Flanders’ fields." John Mitchell
Dan, That is some of the most ignorant shit I've read on here. Next to my posts of course. You know if Bill Clinton wasn't too busy getting his knob shined maybe he could have done something about the BIRTH OF AL QAEDA during his eight years in office. But 9/11 is GWB's fault. Granted, both administrations could have done so much more but how can you say that Clinton COULD NOT have slowed down Al Qaeda's growth. I'm sure you've read this already but I want you all to think about this when you blame the chaos in Iraq on one man..... "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
These "abuses" haven't even been proven yet. There have however been some that have been proven to be fake. (IE: The British ones from the IK Daily Mirror) Just because Rummy hasn't come out and said them doesnt mean they weren't investigating. (Which they were)
First, this war wasn't justifiable in any sense. Iraq didn't pose a threat to the U.S...where's the proof? Second, for the sake of arguement if Iraq was a "potential" threat, where do you stop? After this bullshit, the entire world could be seen as a potential enemy. As far as the prisoner abuse "scandal" goes, it isn't a scandal. The Red Cross brought these problems to Paul Bremer's attention last year. Bush and his fellow pirates simply didn't care. It was only after the pictures became public, that they were forced to address the situation. Out of sight, out of mind. It's scary that so many Americans are willing to give this son of a bitch a pass on sanctioning murder, but were "shocked" when Clinton got a blowjob. Clinton's "crime" only hurt his and his family's reputation. Bush's crime is getting people killed. To top it off, he has the audacity to call himself a "Christian." What a joke.
Dude The representatives of the entire free, and not so free world, said war through their rep's at the UN would be acceptable with resolution 1441. The congress of the US said it was a good idea to go to war in Iraq. Why do you blame Bush? The UN or congress could have prevented the war had it not been necessary. Sadam could have said here are my scientists and their families take them and ask questions. Would you like to bring in more inspectors? I have nothing to hide. He didn't do that. Changeyourlatitude
First off, how much creedence should we give UN resolution nowadays? The powerful countries ignore them whenever it doesn't suit them. It's kind of a double standard. Bush and his Cabinet should still bear the bulk of the blame, they're the leaders of this country and have the most responsibility. The US went to war regardless of what the UN said, the UN doesn't have much real power in terms of controlling the US. Congress was unfortunately eating up all the Bush administration's claims of WMDs in Iraq and whatnot, and they bought into it and supported it. Furthermore, politicians that do not fall in line with the war on terrorism deal, Patriot Act., etc. get branded as "anti-American" or "unpatriotic." This McCarthyite tactic is particularly a favorite of Attorney General Ashcroft.
Explain how a minority of Democrats stopped something as simple as Judicial Nominations and couldn’t even set up some ground rules for going to war with Iraq? The problem isn’t Bush and cabinet. He’s the only one showing leadership. Senator Kerry was an embarrassment on the vote of confidence that allowed the US to go to war. He showed no leadership then and why should someone expect more now? You say ” Politicians that do not fall in line with the war on terrorism deal, Patriot Act., etc. get branded as "anti-American" Yet, setting up a few resolutions on the vote for war which did not limit ability would not label a Senator in such a way. For example, prior to going to war a coalition of other willing nations will make up at least 40% of the fighting force. Resolution: Other countries must be on record to aid financially if they do not commit troops. There are records all over this site of Democrats stating WMD’s in Iraq. Bush didn’t make that up or make up their words that fell out of their mouths for years. Changeyourlatitude
"Let's Review Bush e) got us bombed (others may disagree, I think 9/11 would not have happened had Bush not been handed the presidency)" hahahahahaha! Thats the stupidest, most inane thing I've heard all month... I'm not kidding! Ok, President Bush had 7 MONTHS to do something and there were no terrorist attacks in his presidency at the time; when Clinton had 8 YEARS and about 4+ terrorist attacks. And your bullshit that he didn't do anything is well... bullshit! If he DID do something, you and others saying the same things would be the VERY FIRST to call for his removal "because he lied to the American people because he went into Afganastan without any PROOF!" Ah, such bullshit.
Bush perhaps should've been more alert on security at home, it's got nothing to do with whether he should have declared pre-emptive war on Afghanistan.
