Modification of Geneva Conventions

[Downthestretch55]

Ding! Ding! Ding!
End of round!
To the corners.
Another faulty "debating technique" just showed up.
Insults like "genius", "your mother" show that you need to sit on the stool in the corner for a few moments until your head clears enough to bring facts back into the ring.
No low blows are allowed or I'll have to get my rubber chicken from my "torture bag". Warning: it won't be pretty.

Back to the topic, please.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Wow..that was so mature...wasn't that the bell to come back from recess?

You are right. I apologize.

Timmi, i said in the beginning that i wasnt going to story tell or namedrop. Lets just say that I know what im talking about. Believe what you will. If you really think that name, rank and serial number are all that are asked during these "interviews" then you are certainly entitled to that fantasy. If you think that no one dies at our secret bases around the world, again, believe what you will.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by oracle80

OH, so you keep an open mind as to who you support here?
Torture them, mutilate them. whatever. Doesn't bother me one bit, make me feel better if we did.
If we get info from just one of em that saves the lives of the people I support, the citizens of the USA, then its well worth it.
You seem to be forgetting something here, or realize it yet don't support the USA.
We didn't start this war in any way shape or form.
A bunch of murderous cowards attacked and killed 5000 innocent US Citizens on our soil.
Its no different than what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor and the only solution, like with the Japanese, is to bring them to their knees and then allow them to rebuild as a non threat to the world.
Sorry, but any people who worship a God who says to murder innocent people deserve a lot more than waterboarding.

How many innocent Iraqis died as a result of our illegal invasion of Iraq?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How many innocent Iraqis died as a result of our illegal invasion of Iraq?

Dala,
I've heard numbers all over the place. Both sides have put out plenty of propaganda.
One side says 30,000-35,000...the other says over 100,000.
In between is probably accurate if you figure those that died from disease, lack of clean water, and other non-direct "military" causes.
If the "civil strife" (not civil war) between the Shias and Sunnis comes into the equation, I'd think a higher number might be more realistic.
Do you know an accurate number?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think a lot of what i have said is taken and run with without any real interpretation. Perhaps it is my lack of command of the language. Never did i say that i disagree with what US intelligence had to do. I pretty much said that when i said "all is fair in love and war". My only point is that the US isnt above all of the things we accuse all of the other countries of.

This black and white thing is funny to me though. It shows how little people know about the history of the region. Terrorism is a terrible thing and the act of terrorizing is truly an evil thing. But what has led to the current situation is what i mean when i say that there is grey area.

The war in Iraq was unjust. Thus, the thousands of innocent civilians that died were wrongly killed. Could that be deemed as an act of terrorism? Depends on which way you look at it. Thats what i meant when i said "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". We view our soldiers over there as fighting for the freedom of the iraqi people. Many Arabs feel that those same soldiers are oppressive. Who is right or wrong? It depends on which way you see it.

Does that make things any clearer?

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How many innocent Iraqis died as a result of our illegal invasion of Iraq?

How many Iraqis was Saddam killing every year? Let's suppose that he killed 20,000 people a year for the last 10 years(200,000 people). If that is the case then if 30,000 people died during our invasion, then wouldn't the invasion be worth it? We would actually be saving lives overall.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You are right. I apologize.

Timmi, i said in the beginning that i wasnt going to story tell or namedrop. Lets just say that I know what im talking about. Believe what you will. If you really think that name, rank and serial number are all that are asked during these "interviews" then you are certainly entitled to that fantasy. If you think that no one dies at our secret bases around the world, again, believe what you will.

Dalakhani: Apology accepted! I will take you at your word that you have facts, however, despite the onslaught of MSM, there were sufficient facts and intelligence from numerous sources in and out of this country that supported the war in Iraq! A number of high level military people have said that there were WMD's in Iraq. A book called 'DISINFORMATION' written by a respected journalist detailed what Hussein had in his arsenal, and these are backed up by various intelligence sources. I've posted this book here at least 3 times before and yet nobody bothers to check it out. I'm not naive enough to believe our agents don't resort to means that are controversial. The rules here are vague, because the enemies of this country are clandestine. It's seems like a pre-WW3 buildup, especially with the fanatical religious nature of the drama before us! Hopefully...things will calm down...but the basic tenets will still need to dealt with for sanity to prevail.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that clarifies your position somewhat.

With regard to our invasion of Iraq, I still don't understand why people in the Middle East would be angry about it. If the Iraqi people did not want us to invade, then I would understand why people in the Middle East would be angry. But that's not the case. The vast majority of Iraqis wanted us to come in and "liberate" them and get rid of Saddam. All the polls does in Iraq within a year of the invasion showed that.

I can understand why Americans would be angry about us invading Iraq, but for people in the Middle East to have been angry makes no sense. If the Iraqi people were suffering under Saddam and they wanted us to "liberate" them, then nobody in the Middle East should have been upset at the time. The polls done in Iraq even a year after we invaded showed that the huge majority of Iraqis were happy that we came despite the fact that some people got killed and the country was still in bad shape.

Why would you view Iraqis as victims of US agression, if Iraqis don't see it that way at all?

Who is doing the polls and who is being asked Rupert? Polls can be spun a million different ways. Such is the way of propaganda. Not to say that there werent many people that werent people that were elated to have US intervention but at the same time i think those polls are pretty worthless.

I think Iraqis ARE the victim of US aggression. It is clearly obvious to most that the war was a bad idea. Who were the victims? More than anything, it was the Iraqi citizen. Death by the thousands. Many homeless. Some starving. Lives completely uprooted. I think there victimization goes without saying.

Of course the other victims are the soldiers fighting over there and their families. They had no choice either.

As far as why the other Arab states are angry, many view this as another humiliation to the Arab world. It is yet another example of Western powers dictating the course of action in what they view as a regional struggle.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Dalakhani: Apology accepted! I will take you at your word that you have facts, however, despite the onslaught of MSM, there were sufficient facts and intelligence from numerous sources in and out of this country that supported the war in Iraq! A number of high level military people have said that there were WMD's in Iraq. A book called 'DISINFORMATION' written by a respected journalist detailed what Hussein had in his arsenal, and these are backed up by various intelligence sources. I've posted this book here at least 3 times before and yet nobody bothers to check it out. I'm not naive enough to believe our agents don't resort to means that are controversial. The rules here are vague, because the enemies of this country are clandestine. It's seems like a pre-WW3 buildup, especially with the fanatical religious nature of the drama before us! Hopefully...things will calm down...but the basic tenets will still need to dealt with for sanity to prevail.

Agreed with much. AGain, thanks for accepting my apology because i was indeed behaving like a child.

It wasnt really the WMD's that i thought were misrepresented as much as the terrorist ties. They KNEW Sadaam despised Al Qaeda yet they still misrepresented it to the American people. Sad.

[GenuineRisk]

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

[timmgirvan]

Not to belabor this(as if it couldn't be) by the US had warnings from intelligence sources outside this country as far back as 1999 about the connections of Al Queda and Hussein. This country is damned either way,huh?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Not to belabor this(as if it couldn't be) by the US had warnings from intelligence sources outside this country as far back as 1999 about the connections of Al Queda and Hussein. This country is damned either way,huh?

Accoding to the CIA and 9/11 commission, that intelligence was inaccurate.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The following is from Andrew Sullivan's website. Guys, whatever terrorists might do to captured soldiers, it does not justify us torturing enemy combatants. We must never cede the moral high ground. And yet Bush does so. Shame on all of us, for tolerating it-- we are putting future soldiers in danger by going along with this. Anyway... most of it is the reservists; the last sentence is Sullivan's (I put the reservist's words in between quotation marks)

What We've Lost

15 Sep 2006 04:38 pm

A reserve soldier who fought in Iraq writes:

"I was deployed in my reserve unit (USMCR) as part of operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. Marine infantry, and we were on the front lines, supposedly to guard a gunship base, but really, though, the gunships guarded us.

Not too much later, it was time to take prisoners. One of the platoons went north, and when they came back, there were stories about how Iraqi soldiers lined the roads, trying to surrender. I spent a week guarding Iraqi men in a makeshift prison camp, a way-station really, and more than I could count. They didn't look like they were starving or dehydrated. Apparently, once the ground war began, they just pitched their weapons and headed south at first opportunity. The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that they knew bone deep that they'd get fair treatment. We gave them MREs (with the pork entree's removed) but almost immediately some Special Forces guys arrived and set up a real chow line for them. We gave each man a blanket, (I kept an extra as a souvie) and I think I saw a Special Forces doc giving some of them a once over.

Once, only once, one of them got all irritated and tried to get in one of the Corporal's faces, loud. (I was a lance-corporal). He wouldn't back down, so the Corporal gave him an adjustment, a rifle butt-stroke to his gut, not hard, but he went down. The Corporal sent me for the medic. The guy was ok, and now calm (or at least understanding the situation), and hand-signed that he was out of smokes and really, really needed one... Not a bad guy, just stressed-dumb and needing a smoke. None of the others prisoners in the camp even registered it.

We went north to mop up not long after that. I saw the Iraqi weapons: rocket launchers a little smaller than semi-trailers, hidden in buildings, AKs in piles, big Soviet mortars and anti-tank mines, everywhere but unarmed. They had food too. Pasteurized milk to drink, but most gone bad by then. Some of the mortar rounds were still in crates. They had long trenches that were hard to see in the dunes, bunkers with maps, fire-plans laid out, and blankets, all placed with decent vantage for command and control. They even had wire laid for land-line communications. The point is, they could have fought. Not won, no they couldn't have won, but they could have fought. Instead, they chose to surrender.

Looking back, I think that one of the main drivers in these men's heads was that they knew, absolutely, that they'd get fair treatment from us, the Americans. We were the good guys. The Iraqis on the line knew they had an out, they had hope, so they could just walk away. (A few did piss themselves when someone told them we were Marines. Go figure.) Still, they knew Americans would be fair, and we were.

Thinking hard on what I now know of history, psychology, and the meanness of politics, that reputation for fairness was damn near unique in world history. Can you tell me of any major military power that had it? Ever? France? No. Think Algeria. The UK? Sorry, Northern Ireland, the Boxer Rebellion in China... China or Russia. I don't think so. But America had it. If those men had even put up token resistance, some of us would not have come back. But they didn't even bother, and surrendered at least in part because of our reputation. Our two hundred year old reputation for being fair and humane and decent. All the way back to George Washington, and from President George H.W. Bush all the way down to a lance-corporal jarhead at the front.

Its gone now, even from me. I can't get past that image of the Iraqi, in the hood with the wires and I'm not what you'd call a sensitive type. You know the picture. And now we have a total bust-out in the White House, and a bunch of rubber-stamps in the House, trying to make it so that half-drowning people isn't torture. That hypothermia isn't torture. That degradation isn't torture. We don't have that reputation for fairness anymore. Just the opposite, I think. And the next real enemy we face will fight like only the cornered and desperate fight. How many Marines' lives will be lost in the war ahead just because of this ******* who never once risked anything for this country?"

This president must never be forgiven for what he has done to the reputation of this country.

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Rupert,
Please provide a link to the polls you cite.
Thank you.
DTS

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

GR,
Thanks for putting this up.
It's kind of ironic that I disagree with Sen John McCain on many issues, I really DO agree with him when he states "We must preserve the moral high ground". It give credibility to the United States as much as that torch held by the beautiful lady in New York harbor does.

Anyway, last report I saw said that Sen Frist was going to block the debate on the bill that McCain, Warner and Graham presented.
DTS

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Who is doing the polls and who is being asked Rupert? Polls can be spun a million different ways. Such is the way of propaganda. Not to say that there werent many people that werent people that were elated to have US intervention but at the same time i think those polls are pretty worthless.

I think Iraqis ARE the victim of US aggression. It is clearly obvious to most that the war was a bad idea. Who were the victims? More than anything, it was the Iraqi citizen. Death by the thousands. Many homeless. Some starving. Lives completely uprooted. I think there victimization goes without saying.

Of course the other victims are the soldiers fighting over there and their families. They had no choice either.

As far as why the other Arab states are angry, many view this as another humiliation to the Arab world. It is yet another example of Western powers dictating the course of action in what they view as a regional struggle.

The war looks like it was a bad idea now. Things are not good over in Iraq at all. But hypothtically, let's suppose that the insurgency wasn't so strong. Let's suppose things would have gotten under contorl after a couple of years the way we thought and everyone was living in realtive peace right now in Iraq. Would you still be upset about the invasion or would you be happy about it and figure that they are much better off in a free Iraq with no Saddam?

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The war looks like it was a bad idea now. Things are not good over in Iraq at all. But hypothtically, let's suppose that the insurgency wasn't so strong. Let's suppose things would have gotten under contorl after a couple of years the way we thought and everyone was living in realtive peace right now in Iraq. Would you still be upset about the invasion or would you be happy about it and figure that they are much better off in a free Iraq with no Saddam?

Technically, after 9/11, Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. It sucks.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The same Senator Frist that said, after viewing videotape of Terri Schiavo, "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."? THAT Senator Frist?

He's such a good lapdog for GW. Here, Fristy! Here's your treat! Good boy, blocking debate! Good boy!

I thought the same thing about Terry Schiavo. she seemed to respond when they would talk to her and pat her on the head. I'm far from a pro-lifer. I actually support Dr. Kevorkian. But I thought it was absolutely wrong for them to starve her to death. Her family was willing to take care of her. I thought the whole thing was disgraceful.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't have a link to the polls. These were polls that were done about a year after the invasion. They were failry well publicized at the time. They were done by independent media groups. All the polls done pretty much showed the same thing. They showed that about 70% of the citizens of Iraq were glad that we came. The thing that was so significant to me about it was that the people were glad we came despite the fact that things were still really bad there and the people had suffered a lot.

The polls that have been done more recently are not nearly as favorable but that's because the insurgency has been really bad and things are really bad over there. The people are starting to wonder if it was all worth it or not. The people were originally expecting the same thing that we were. They figured that after Saddam was gone that everything would be great. It hasn't happened thanks to the insurgency.

Ain't it sad that just when you think you've got the monkey by the nuts, a coconut falls out of the tree and knocks you out. Not that I'm referencing the esteemed "macaca" senator from Virginia.
Here's a question that I'll preface with one of my favorite quotes, "those that ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."

Here's the question...
How did Americans react when an invading force attempted to dictate our decision to have independence, and sought through armed conflict, on American soil, to instill subserviance to their demands?

Follow up...
Would we expect the Iraquis to respond differently?