Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse

CBS obtains photos showing alleged abuse (Page 8)
Thread Tools
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:21 AM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Yet in the same token people complain about Iraqis dying while being liberated from the very same dictator. I guess it's OK to kill civilians if it's the Arab leader doing it.


*SMACKDOWN*
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:24 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The fact that we haven't nuked France into a glassy smoking crater should stand as a rock-solid testament to the fact that Americans are nice folks.


edited:

yes, you can quote that statement for use on your MacNN signature. It does, indeed, meet the (rather draconian and somewhat juvenile-minded) guidelines that the (rather draconian and somewhat juvenile-minded) administrative staff posted somewhere as a lame-ass sticky, or something.

edited v1.1:

Or simply post only pro-Apple, pro-leftwing liberal democrat anti-dubya rhetoric >

and bloody well get away with having a signature with forty-six megapixel jpeg satellite image and the full king james version bible text.

it's your choice.

follow the guidelines or kiss ass.
I posted this a while back:
When you refer to foreigners, I suppose you're talking about people from the EU.

You're making a huge mistake. What we think, ironically, is of very little consequence in real terms. At worst, Poland could remove its troops (which they are going to do in any case).

No, the real impact of these pictures, and I have to laugh here because you dumb bastards project so much of your hate onto the Europeans that you can't even see it, is in the Muslim and especially the Arabic world, where they weren't exactly your best friends to begin with. In the conservative prude societies of the Arabian world (somewhat like your more conservative Christian areas in the US) there is nothing worse that picture of sexual humiliation, nothing worse. Humiliation is bad enough for them, something they'll kill to revenge, but sexual humiliation has the same effect on them that paedophillia has in the west.

It makes, in real terms, no difference, whether these images of abuse by US and UK soldiers were isolated incidents by some primitive ****s. The Arab world will see and believe it as being widespread. And the Iraqis will almost certainly believe that as well.

That is where the problems start. That is where the insurgency starts on a large scale.

But, hey! No one's stopping you from looking the other way and blaming the Europeans once again. I mean, we understand your need to put the blame on somebody else because you can't face the reality of the problem. We used to do this on a large scale as well, and still do when it helps the old kick in the bollocks.
This BBC article proves the point:

On the Arabic satellite channels, it's "all torture, all the time" - wall-to-wall coverage of the photographs, the graphic images flooding into homes across the region.

Even if the images are staged, the damage has been done

"The situation has not changed in Iraq; only the prison warder is different," said one report on al-Arabiya.

The news bulletin was playing loudly on a TV in the corner of a caf� in Cairo's old town. Men looked up from their chess boards and water pipes.

"This is shameful, shameful, shameful," said one, getting nods of agreement. "A soldier urinating on a prisoner, sexual abuse and humiliation, is this human?"

Pictures flashed by of naked bodies piled up on one another and the taunting grin of an American woman soldier. All this is especially upsetting in a culture which prizes dignity, modesty and respect.

The man added: "The United States used to stand for liberty, now it stands for imperialism." One of the waiters said he was ready to go Iraq to become a martyr, fighting the Americans.

These remarks were not surprising. The "Arab street" is often angry with the US and Israel. It is a safe way to express general discontent when criticism of your own leaders could be a risky business.

But there is no doubting the deep offence that these photographs have caused. The US Senator Joe Biden has called this the worst blow to American prestige in the Arab world for a decade.

The caf� I visited was well known in Cairo because - exceptionally - they cheered when the Americans took Baghdad and toppled Saddam just over a year ago. The coalition has no defenders there now.
weird wabbit
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*SMACKDOWN*
You call that a smackdown? I thought it was more than obvious that it had no merit at all.

Whatsoever I will reply to it in my next posting.

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 10:58 AM
 
Don't misunderstand me, Taliesin. It's really nothing personal. I agree with some of your viewpoints and disagree with the others. You did, in fact, get smacked-down. But it ain't the end of the world. Some of the best folks here have earned respect by regaining consciousness and clawing their way back to an upright position from a *SMACKDOWN*.

There's no shame in being wrong. Shame is reserved for the dolts who are obviously wrong, and know it, yet continue to defend their point of view.

You wouldn't think a southern cracker would support gay marriage and racial equality, would you?

Now, if you take that same southern cracker and expose him to about four years of *SMACKDOWNS* in order to show him how his reasoning is flawed....

OK, dude, redeem yourself. Abandon the 'wrong' beliefs or issue a *SMACKDOWN*-worthy reply defending them.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:01 AM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
I wasn't aware that Iraq = OPEC.


Yet in the same token people complain about Iraqis dying while being liberated from the very same dictator. I guess it's OK to kill civilians if it's the Arab leader doing it.
Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, the small but oil-rich gulfstates all under US-control, definetly make up for most of the oil the OPEC stands for.

The liberation of Iraq was unnecessary, the additional 10,000 dead civilians are unnecessary. Saddam lost all his heavy weapons through the UN-inspections, and he controlled only the Sunni-triangle, and he was losing might with every day passed. He would have been toppeled a few months, years later nonetheless.

Taliesin
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:04 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, the small but oil-rich gulfstates all under US-control, definetly make up for most of the oil the OPEC stands for.

The liberation of Iraq was unnecessary, the additional 10,000 dead civilians are unnecessary. Saddam lost all his heavy weapons through the UN-inspections, and he controlled only the Sunni-triangle, and he was losing might with every day passed. He would have been toppeled a few months, years later nonetheless.

Taliesin
Saudi Arabia is under us control?
Saddam would have been toppled?

I remember there was a discussion as to where you are from and live. I don't remember a definitive answer. Where are u from and where do you live?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:06 AM
 
The liberation of Iraq was unnecessary, the additional 10,000 dead civilians are unnecessary. Saddam lost all his heavy weapons through the UN-inspections, and he controlled only the Sunni-triangle, and he was losing might with every day passed. He would have been toppeled a few months, years later nonetheless.


after Saddam killed another 10,000 civilians, perhaps?


edited:


Saddam didn't agree to diddily-squat until there were 100,000 coalition troops gathering at the Iraq border.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:06 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
[B]Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, the small but oil-rich gulfstates all under US-control, definetly make up for most of the oil the OPEC stands for.[/b
If that were true then OPEC couldn't unilaterally raise prices.


The liberation of Iraq was unnecessary, the additional 10,000 dead civilians are unnecessary.
So, it was OK to leave him there instead? So, in the future he could start reselling oil and rebuild everything? You think he would just start being Nice Uncle Saddam and start treating all Iraqis to free home cooked meals and chocolates on everyone's birthday?

The difference between any civilian deaths during liberation and civilian deaths under Saddam is in one case the deaths are unintentional and in the other they are intentional. Seems to me that no matter how brutal an Arab is you'd rather another Arab die intentionally at the hands of another Arab than unintentionally and with regret from a non-Arab. I just don't get that.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:10 AM
 
killing to liberate = bad

killing to oppress = acceptable
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:12 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
killing to liberate = bad

killing to oppress = acceptable
Killing your civilians while living in lavish palaces while the majority of your population feed their infants contaminated infant formula = priceless.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
killing to liberate = bad

killing to oppress = acceptable
WOW! What a grasp of the issues! You'd make an awesome UN official!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:40 AM
 
killing to liberate = bad
killing to opress = bad
killing innocence in the name of allah = justifiable (but bad)
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 11:49 AM
 
An unelected government willingly kills civilians in order to maintain power.

Damn that really sucks.

An unelected government accidentally kills civilians in order to promote an environment where free and fair elections can more easily be undertaken.

OMG THOSE MURDEROUS GREEDY AMERICAN BASTARDS!!! BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:03 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
An unelected government willingly kills civilians in order to maintain power.

Damn that really sucks.

An unelected government accidentally kills civilians in order to promote an environment where free and fair elections can more easily be undertaken.

OMG THOSE MURDEROUS GREEDY AMERICAN BASTARDS!!! BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
I don't see the torture and humiliation that is in those images taken of US and UK soldiers abusing Iraqis as accidental.

I also seriously doubt that anyone in Iraq cares if the killing of Iraqi civillians is accidental or not.

Free and fair local elections that Jay Garner organised last year were cancelled by his successor, Paul Bremer.

The cronyism evident in the selling of Iraqi instutions and oil business is not exactly making friends amongst a people with a very high unemployment rate.

Iraq is a mess, whether that fact is denied or not. The propaganda war for the support of the Iraqi people and the Arab world in general has been lost, irrevocably.
weird wabbit
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:10 PM
 
*SMACKDOWN*
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:15 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
I don't see the torture and humiliation that is in those images taken of US and UK soldiers abusing Iraqis as accidental.
But bombed out civilians and gassed villages are OK though even though those were intentional? As long as it's an Arab doing it it seems to be OK...

Iraq is a mess, whether that fact is denied or not. The propaganda war for the support of the Iraqi people and the Arab world in general has been lost, irrevocably.
Iraq was a worse mess under Saddam.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
(1) I don't see the torture and humiliation that is in those images taken of US and UK soldiers abusing Iraqis as accidental.

(2) I also seriously doubt that anyone in Iraq cares if the killing of Iraqi civillians is accidental or not.

(3) Free and fair local elections that Jay Garner organised last year were cancelled by his successor, Paul Bremer.

(4) The cronyism evident in the selling of Iraqi instutions and oil business is not exactly making friends amongst a people with a very high unemployment rate.

(5) Iraq is a mess, whether that fact is denied or not. The propaganda war for the support of the Iraqi people and the Arab world in general has been lost, irrevocably.


(1) I don't see their actions as being representative of the controlling government, either.

(2) I could understand that.

(3) I wasn't aware. Although the ultimate goal is still free and fair elections.

(4) The Iraqis have never really benefitted from that oil. At least now there are fewer palaces being built. We've got unemployment here, too, but you don't hear very much whining about the hundred billion dollars we've spent on Iraq's liberation. I hope we can recover that expense by withholding our UN membership dues for the next few eons.

(5) I agree. But it wasn't really important one way or the other. The same folks that didn't like us before - still don't like us. no love lost, I say.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:22 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
I don't see the torture and humiliation that is in those images taken of US and UK soldiers abusing Iraqis as accidental.
I can't be bothered to look at the rest of this thread but those UK pics are looking to be more and more false by the minute. Wrong uniforms, wrong guns, wrong boots, wrong stances... ...wrong everything.

So...

1) Anti-war peeps staging the photos?

2) Islamic peeps staging the photos?

3) Money grabbing peeps staging the photos?

4) CIA staging the photos (doubt cast on UK photos eases pressure about US photos)?

?
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:24 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
But bombed out civilians and gassed villages are OK though even though those were intentional? As long as it's an Arab doing it it seems to be OK...



Iraq was a worse mess under Saddam.
I've said this before, but it's a point that seems to have trouble crossing the density of certain cerebral vacums:two wrongs don't make a right.

No one, let me say that again, no one, thinks Saddams brutality, abuse and exploitation were good. Even in the highly charged, generally anti-American Arab world there were some who cheered when Saddam was toppled (read the BBC article I linked to above).

But justifying US/UK abuse, brutality and exploitation by highlighting Saddam's crimes does not, in fact, work. It only makes the US/UK's troops seem more like Saddam rather than less than Saddam.

There is a saying that goes: Between a rock and a hard place.

That's where the Iraqis are. The rock was Saddam's regime and the hard place is the current occupation in which as arguably as many Iraqi civilians are dying per month as they did under Saddam, irrespective of who does the killing. I'm not so sure that that is a cheering thought to them.
weird wabbit
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:25 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:


But justifying US/UK abuse, brutality and exploitation by highlighting Saddam's crimes does not, in fact, work. It only makes the US/UK's troops seem more like Saddam rather than less than Saddam.
Who is justifying these things?
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:26 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
I've said this before, but it's a point that seems to have trouble crossing the density of certain cerebral vacums:two wrongs don't make a right.

No one, let me say that again, no one, thinks Saddams brutality, abuse and exploitation were good. Even in the highly charged, generally anti-American Arab world there were some who cheered when Saddam was toppled (read the BBC article I linked to above).

But justifying US/UK abuse, brutality and exploitation by highlighting Saddam's crimes does not, in fact, work. It only makes the US/UK's troops seem more like Saddam rather than less than Saddam.

There is a saying that goes: Between a rock and a hard place.

That's where the Iraqis are. The rock was Saddam's regime and the hard place is the current occupation in which as arguably as many Iraqi civilians are dying per month as they did under Saddam, irrespective of who does the killing. I'm not so sure that that is a cheering thought to them.
If two wrongs don't make a right, why are the Palestinians justified?

As for the abuse...I don't think it is nearly as bad as the media is making it out to be.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:28 PM
 
The Iraqis that are being killed (insurgents excluded) by the government today aren't being killed for their beliefs.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:30 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The Iraqis that are being killed (insurgents excluded) by the government today aren't being killed for their beliefs.
That's a comforting thought.
weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:31 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
Who is justifying these things?
Uhm, you?
weird wabbit
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:31 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
That's a comforting thought.
Only for the Iraqis that wish to express their opinion publicly. Which is probably like 99.864% of them.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:31 PM
 
I doubt that they are being lined up and shot en masse either. I doubt that the number of U.S. soliders abusing Iraqis is more than those who aren't.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:32 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
If two wrongs don't make a right, why are the Palestinians justified?

As for the abuse...I don't think it is nearly as bad as the media is making it out to be.
My head just exploded. Now I have to go and wipe up my brains from the carpet again.

I don't see the word Palestinians anywhere in what I wrote, do you?
weird wabbit
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:33 PM
 
you were thinking the word 'Palestinian'. we know what you're thinking. don't second guess us.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:34 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
My head just exploded. Now I have to go and wipe up my brains from the carpet again.

I don't see the word Palestinians anywhere in what I wrote, do you?
But the same theory would apply...no?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:37 PM
 
now look what you've gone and done, theo. You're surrounded by a mob of blind-patriot Americans. And your government prolly disarmed your socialist asses three generations ago.

Here's a whiffle ball bat. You can use it to fight your way free. It's a bit more rigid than your arguments, I suspect.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:38 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Only for the Iraqis that wish to express their opinion publicly. Which is probably like 99.864% of them.
You mean like the ones in Fallujah shot last year by US troops while they were demonstrating against the US presence in their town?

I know that it isn't exactly a common occurrence in Iraq under the US/UK occupation that demonstrators get shot, and that there is a much higher level of public freedoms than anything that was ever possible under Saddam, but from what I gather, the Iraqis mainly see the US/UK as oppressive occupation forces today, whether it is true or not, and I seriously doubt that is going to change.
weird wabbit
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:40 PM
 
I think the Europeans are just jealous that they are fairly impotent with regards to accomplishing anything in this world any longer. They couldn't even handle Kosovo without our help. They would rather appease and keep the status quo rather than doing the right thing. When criminals attack them they hand over their money and belongings instead of fighting back. Imagine too that the Europeans are accusing us of having colonial intentions! The irony of it all.
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:41 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
I think the Europeans are just jealous that they are fairly impotent with regards to accomplishing anything in this world any longer. They couldn't even handle Kosovo without our help. They would rather appease and keep the status quo rather than doing the right thing. When criminals attack them they hand over their money and belongings instead of fighting back. Imagine too that the Europeans are accusing us of having colonial intentions! The irony of it all.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:42 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
now look what you've gone and done, theo. You're surrounded by a mob of blind-patriot Americans. And your government prolly disarmed your socialist asses three generations ago.

Here's a whiffle ball bat. You can use it to fight your way free. It's a bit more rigid than your arguments, I suspect.
Mmm, I live in Switzerland, which I wouldn't call socialist by any stretch of the imagination. You can buy and posses guns and stuff here and shoot your way through a crowded shopping center if you're so inclined. Thankfully, that doesn't happen too often, so I can leave the Webley at home.
weird wabbit
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:45 PM
 
WOW,
the whole macnn-ultra-conservative-gang has gathered together. That means I'm up to something.

Sorry, folks,

but you wouldn't understand a thing even if you were spoonfed with wisedom:

If the US-army invaded Iraq in order to finally disarm Iraq from its ABC-weapons, it would be understandable, though only with full UN-support and under UN-lead, and only because Iraq had signed that non-profileration-treaty.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because Iraq's government was harbouring terrorists that have or will leash terror-attacks from Iraq's soil onto the USA or some other nation and which are equipped and supported by Iraq's government, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because the government is committing genocide against parts of its population, in order to save that part of population from genocide, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.

But if the USA unilaterally decides to invade another nation in order to topple a government the USA itself has installed or at least massively supported military, for reasons that were partly true and mostly lied together, that is not understandable.

Even the 10,000-20,000 gased Kurds and Shia are no reason to invade, because these are already dead, and in the mean-time Iraq has lost all its chemical weapons thanks to the UN-inspections, and other countries in this unholy world have done much worse things and still noone is interested in it.
Interesting, I'm forced to partially defend Saddam Hussein, eventhough he is my thirdworst enemy.

Don't let your hearts burst, but the USA did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons or in order to eliminate a threat to the western world, it did so only for egoistic strategic reasons, for ressources, and a future market for US-products, basically leading war as a mean to overcome recession.

And yes Saudi Arabia is under US-control, the small gulfstates as well, and Iraq soon as well.

One of you brought the argument that the OPEC can't be under US-control, because the OPEC is raising the prices for its oil.
Like I said previously the USA controls the oil in the middle-east because it wants to gain control of the economies of Europe, China, and Japan, who get their oil nearly 100% from the middleeast.

The USA on the other hand has its own oil in Texas, Alaska, and additionaly from Venezuela. Only a small part of the oil the US gets from the middleeast. For the USA higher oil-prices in the middleeast are definetly a nice gift, as it means that the USA can start digging for more oil in areas that are a little costly. Additionaly it makes it more hard for Europe, China and Japan to strengthen its economies.

Taliesin
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:45 PM
 
It was glaringly apparent from the get-go that the US lacked the support of "world opinion". It didn't matter then. It doesn't matter now. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans don't respect lip-movement. We don't consider it a substitute for actually doing something.
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:46 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
I doubt that they are being lined up and shot en masse either. I doubt that the number of U.S. soliders abusing Iraqis is more than those who aren't.
I agree, but you still don't get it. The mere fact that this abuse happened, and became public, and despite Sherwin's denial, there is evidence that it was widespread amongst UK troops and not even the US commanders are refusing to deny that it might have been widespread amongst US troops as well, is enough to convince those who are against the occupation that it was widespread. And they project it onto the occupation as a whole. Boom, and the support of the Iraqi people is lost.

That's the point.
weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:49 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
I think the Europeans are just jealous that they are fairly impotent with regards to accomplishing anything in this world any longer. They couldn't even handle Kosovo without our help. They would rather appease and keep the status quo rather than doing the right thing. When criminals attack them they hand over their money and belongings instead of fighting back. Imagine too that the Europeans are accusing us of having colonial intentions! The irony of it all.
So does this mean that you just ran out of arguments in the main topic and had to resort to the old fallback of Bash The EU When In Doubt?
weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:51 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It was glaringly apparent from the get-go that the US lacked the support of "world opinion". It didn't matter then. It doesn't matter now. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans don't respect lip-movement. We don't consider it a substitute for actually doing something.
There's a world of a difference in doing the right thing (generally by actually thinking before you do it) and doing the wrong thing (generally by making gung-ho statements about how one does things).
weird wabbit
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 12:59 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
So does this mean that you just ran out of arguments in the main topic and had to resort to the old fallback of Bash The EU When In Doubt?
Hmm, let's see. Which problems could Europe handle on their own last century? World War I? World War II? Cold War? Balkans? It's no wonder you can't see the forest for the trees because you can't handle your own problems.

And before that anytime Europeans did anything it was to colonize and destroy other peoples! The irony is choking me here.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
I agree, but you still don't get it. The mere fact that this abuse happened, and became public, and despite Sherwin's denial, there is evidence that it was widespread amongst UK troops and not even the US commanders are refusing to deny that it might have been widespread amongst US troops as well, is enough to convince those who are against the occupation that it was widespread.
Not denying the US photos Theo, just the UK ones. There's some very good evidence that the photos presented by the Mirror over the weekend aren't the real thing. Not saying torture doesn't happen, just saying that those particular photos are looking like lies.
     
Sherwin
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:08 PM
 
Originally posted by theolein:
Mmm, I live in Switzerland, which I wouldn't call socialist by any stretch of the imagination. You can buy and posses guns and stuff here and shoot your way through a crowded shopping center if you're so inclined. Thankfully, that doesn't happen too often, so I can leave the Webley at home.
And isn't it mandatory for all Swiss blokes of fighting age to have an M16 in their house?

Yep. Thought so. Spliffy loses this one (sorry Spliffy).
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:


If the US-army invaded Iraq in order to finally disarm Iraq from its ABC-weapons, it would be understandable, though only with full UN-support and under UN-lead, and only because Iraq had signed that non-profileration-treaty.
No. We don't need UN permission to do anything.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because Iraq's government was harbouring terrorists that have or will leash terror-attacks from Iraq's soil onto the USA or some other nation and which are equipped and supported by Iraq's government, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.
No, see above.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because the government is committing genocide against parts of its population, in order to save that part of population from genocide, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.
No, see above.

But if the USA unilaterally decides to invade another nation in order to topple a government the USA itself has installed or at least massively supported military, for reasons that were partly true and mostly lied together, that is not understandable.
If we *installed* the government surely we have the *right* to uninstall it?

Even the 10,000-20,000 gased Kurds and Shia are no reason to invade...
...because it's OK for Arabs to kill other Arabs...

20,000 dead Arabs under Saddam? NO PROBLEM!!!! KILL MORE! Several Arabs get mistreated by some U.S. soldiers? OMFG!! THEM AMERICANS IS BUTCHERS!
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:10 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
It's no wonder you can't see the forest for the trees because you can't handle your own problems.
Oh yes, because Hitler's wanting to take over the world was *Europe's* problem, as was the arms race between the US and the USSR.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:13 PM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
Oh yes, because Hitler's wanting to take over the world was *Europe's* problem...
If not Europe's than whose?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
If not Europe's than whose?
Um I think he was implying the entire world.
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:17 PM
 
Originally posted by vanillacoke:
No. We don't need UN permission to do anything.



No, see above.



No, see above.



If we *installed* the government surely we have the *right* to uninstall it?



...because it's OK for Arabs to kill other Arabs...

20,000 dead Arabs under Saddam? NO PROBLEM!!!! KILL MORE! Several Arabs get mistreated by some U.S. soldiers? OMFG!! THEM AMERICANS IS BUTCHERS!

1. If the USA doesn't want to go the UN-way then they put themselves outside of international law, and that makes the USA the agressor and a pariah-state all other nations in the UN should act against.

2. 20,000 killed Kurds and Shia are definetly a crime, but it's not the US's task to punish Iraq for that. Last I counted the US-army killed 11,000 civilians in Iraq this time, and I don't know how many in the first war against Iraq. I'm sure it soon will equate the sum Saddam has killed, if it hasn't already exceeded it. Why not invading Rwanda for the millions it has killed?

Tal�esin
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
WOW,
the whole macnn-ultra-conservative-gang has gathered together. That means I'm up to something.

Sorry, folks,

but you wouldn't understand a thing even if you were spoonfed with wisedom:

If the US-army invaded Iraq in order to finally disarm Iraq from its ABC-weapons, it would be understandable, though only with full UN-support and under UN-lead, and only because Iraq had signed that non-profileration-treaty.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because Iraq's government was harbouring terrorists that have or will leash terror-attacks from Iraq's soil onto the USA or some other nation and which are equipped and supported by Iraq's government, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.

If the US-army invaded Iraq because the government is committing genocide against parts of its population, in order to save that part of population from genocide, then it would be understandable, again only under UN-flag.

But if the USA unilaterally decides to invade another nation in order to topple a government the USA itself has installed or at least massively supported military, for reasons that were partly true and mostly lied together, that is not understandable.

Even the 10,000-20,000 gased Kurds and Shia are no reason to invade, because these are already dead, and in the mean-time Iraq has lost all its chemical weapons thanks to the UN-inspections, and other countries in this unholy world have done much worse things and still noone is interested in it.
Interesting, I'm forced to partially defend Saddam Hussein, eventhough he is my thirdworst enemy.

Don't let your hearts burst, but the USA did not invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons or in order to eliminate a threat to the western world, it did so only for egoistic strategic reasons, for ressources, and a future market for US-products, basically leading war as a mean to overcome recession.

And yes Saudi Arabia is under US-control, the small gulfstates as well, and Iraq soon as well.

One of you brought the argument that the OPEC can't be under US-control, because the OPEC is raising the prices for its oil.
Like I said previously the USA controls the oil in the middle-east because it wants to gain control of the economies of Europe, China, and Japan, who get their oil nearly 100% from the middleeast.

The USA on the other hand has its own oil in Texas, Alaska, and additionaly from Venezuela. Only a small part of the oil the US gets from the middleeast. For the USA higher oil-prices in the middleeast are definetly a nice gift, as it means that the USA can start digging for more oil in areas that are a little costly. Additionaly it makes it more hard for Europe, China and Japan to strengthen its economies.

Taliesin
Oh, stick a sock in yer pie-hole. We've seen all that spin before, it wasn't insightful then, and still isn't now.

Anyone who calls an animal like Yassin a "freedom fighter" is batting .000 in credibility.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
1. If the USA doesn't want to go the UN-way then they put themselves outside of international law, and that makes the USA the agressor and a pariah-state all other nations in the UN should act against.
Apparently the other UN nations don't feel the same as you. I don't see any foreign warships heading for our coastline. But I will admit I haven't looked since last Sunday. So there's still a chance you're right and the UN is wrong.

2. 20,000 killed Kurds and Shia are definetly a crime, but it's not the US's task to punish Iraq for that. Last I counted the US-army killed 11,000 civilians in Iraq this time, and I don't know how many in the first war against Iraq. I'm sure it soon will equate the sum Saddam has killed, if it hasn't already exceeded it. Why not invading Rwanda for the millions it has killed?

Tal���in
It's not anybody's task to punish the folks who are responsible for acts of genocide.

Be damn thankful the US occasionally does the world a favor by punishing some of them.



Lots of lip-movers and chair-warmers out there who believe their opinion has merit. It doesn't.
     
vanillacoke
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2004, 01:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
Um I think he was implying the entire world.
Europe spawned him...Europe could have contained him. But did appeasement work?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,