DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Were the Iraquees really liberated?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 59 of 59, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/06/2004 07:27:22 AM · #51
Ted Rall

Message edited by author 2004-05-06 10:09:37.
 05/06/2004 08:34:23 AM · #52
from a news story I saw last night I don't like how and who is getting punished for these acts.

The US military has suspended 10 prison guards, indicting six of them on criminal charges, while delivering what are effectively career-ending rebukes to six officers and a lesser punishment to a seventh.

Basically the enlisted soldiers are totally screwed and will more than likely do prison time while the officers will only have their military career ended, no biggie, they still have a civilian life.

All involved need the same exact punishment regardless of rank.

James

05/06/2004 09:48:14 AM · #53
Originally posted by jab119:
...while the officers will only have their military career ended, no biggie, they still have a civilian life.


Go talk to someone who has been court martialed, ask them how easy it is to get a job in civilian life. Most jobs that they can come back and do have a hardline policy and 99% of the time automatically throw anyone's resume in the trash if they have a dishonerable discharge. There is nothing easy about.

Originally posted by jab119:
All involved need the same exact punishment regardless of rank.

So dispite the fact that they can't actualy proove any of these upper officers had anything to do with this torture, they should serve jail time anyway??? I've been hearing this same argument from the left now for days on TV.

Why is it that a rappist should be let out of prison when there is shit loads of evidence but a small paperwork error by a blue collar police officer... YET a miltary officer should be sent to prison when there is in actuality no real proof, just asumtions by people who don't have an f-ing clue?

Most of the officers are getting booted for a show of force and because they SHOULD have known if they didn't.

Message edited by author 2004-05-06 09:50:32.
 05/06/2004 10:01:20 AM · #54
I wanted to make this a seperate post. I really want some of you to think about this...

1) After 9/11 there was a large group of people (mostly from the left) working extremly hard pointing out that just because ALL of the terrorists that attacked was were Muslim, doesn't mean that ALL muslims are terrorists. Good logic, makes sense and is almost in large part true.

BUT, now that a few small apples have done terrible things: they want you to believe that the ENTIRE US military is out to toture prisoners (who are by the way terrorists).

2) Before the Iraq war the left could have given two shits about the plite (sp?) of the Iraqi people, Saddams murderous regime wasn't so bad, and deep down he was a cuddly kinda guy...

But now that an EXTEMLY small percentage of prisoners have been abused, it's the end of the fucking world???? What the fuck gives.

3) And this is the biggie: If the torture was SO BAD, why have a number of the prisoners who were abused asked to come to the United States????

edit: more reading help for GeneralE: I'm not excusing what they did, not implying it or hiding it in secret code!!!

Message edited by author 2004-05-06 10:02:39.
 05/06/2004 01:43:46 PM · #55
1) From my pov it is not about the US army. It seems to be part of some human nature. Every army, every company, every school, every club, every society has some (sometimes a lot) of these rotten apples. They seem to have a desire to threathen, to verbally/mentally/physically/sexually abuse others (against their will)..
This weekend I heard some disgusting stuff local kids did 'because they were bored' (to a point where I would kill them if they did it to one of my relatives). Not in my worst nightmares I would come up with those kind of ideas. For others it seems to be pretty normal.
I guess somewhere human development took a wrong turn and has developed some errors in its DNA. I understand it is not really genetical. How and in what kind of environment someone was raised as a kid plays a major role as well.
There are no excuses for this behaviour though. It should be dealt with and in no way be 'covered up'. When newspapers and television stations are asked by politicians or governing bodies not to pay much attention to it, it is a very bad thing. Especially for a country that propagates 'Freedom of Speech'.

2) In reality nobody really gave a shit about what Saddam did. If he hadn't attacked Kuwait the whole world would still be friends with him.

We don't know what percentage of prisoners is abused and while it is not the end of the world it surely does not help when you are occupying a country whose society is very sensitive about nudity and abuse. Everyone knows Saddam did the same, but it was stuff they heard about, Saddam made sure that no-one ever saw the pics and who'd oppose was never heard of again. Now they do see it with their own eyes instead of only hearing about it. They might think this is only the top of the iceberg given their previous experiences.
Perhaps it would have been a good thing to start an investigation about Saddam's prisons as soon as Iraq was liberated and report extensively about that in the newspapers. Perhaps they did, I don't know.
These pics and stories are ideal propaganda for muslim extremists btw.

3)
a) because they cannot live with the shame in their own country
b) because conditions in the US are much better, especially with a big sum of money on your bankaccount
c) to forget

It will be a mix of these three, 80% b I guess.
 05/06/2004 02:02:57 PM · #56
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by jab119:
All involved need the same exact punishment regardless of rank.

So dispite the fact that they can't actualy proove any of these upper officers had anything to do with this torture, they should serve jail time anyway??? I've been hearing this same argument from the left now for days on TV.

Why is it that a rappist should be let out of prison when there is shit loads of evidence but a small paperwork error by a blue collar police officer... YET a miltary officer should be sent to prison when there is in actuality no real proof, just asumtions by people who don't have an f-ing clue?

Most of the officers are getting booted for a show of force and because they SHOULD have known if they didn't.


it will be hard to actually prove the officers had knowledge of what the enlisted were doing, but the enlisted had to take their orders from somewhere, the news story I saw had one of the enlisted on the phone stating they were told (ordered) to persuade info out of the prisioners. so they follwed orders, but took it WAY too far. So I do feel the officers should receive the same punishment as the enlisted.

James
 05/10/2004 08:21:33 PM · #57
There are a few reasons for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, but none of them really have anything to do with terrorism, WMD’s or HUMANITARIANISM. (Even President Bush declared that the invasion of Iraq was for our security) Those issues were merely the public relations case to persuade the American public that a war in Iraq was necessary. The real issues are: to weaken and possibly break OPEC and to prevent the dollars’ demise as the currency of trade for oil (a number of countries have started to use and promote the use of the Euro in place of the dollar, as did Sadaam Hussein). Also, to secure more oil in an American economy that is so dependent on it.

To accomplish these goals, the neocons of the Bush administration felt it necessary to invade and take over Iraq and establish another military presence in the very important (if you’re part of the oilygarchy) middle east Persian Gulf region. The Bushites (western fundamentalists) plans are to establish a western friendly Iraqi regime that would be happy to do business with US oil companies and to start developing the vast not yet tapped oil reserves of this country. Before the war, Iraq had only developed 15% of it’s oil fields, but now even less are functional due to vandalism from the war and parts and technology that are not yet available to maintain the currently developed oil fields.

All of this is not being reported by the American press as it is feared by the oilygarchy that knowledge of this would curtail investor and consumer confidence, effect lending institutions negatively (especially the central banks), and cause a major policy shifts towards renewable energy sources. A major US economic distaster could ensue should OPEC decide to make a complete shift to use the Euro as the currency of trade.

To my mind, OPEC has already made their statement against the US presence in Iraq in the form of cutting oil output to raise prices. If it’s an actual statement you are looking for from OPEC denouncing “stealing” oil from Iraq it may be that some of the other OPEC countries are too afraid of the US military might that may mean regime change in their countries. Also, OPEC doesn’t meet but 4 times a year (the next being in June) and as is, there is little agreement among OPEC countries for any issues. The fact that there is reduced oil coming out of Iraq at this time also means it's harder for the OPEC countries to make official denouncements against the US.

There is probably no real exit strategy for the US to leave Iraq, as a military presence will be needed to support the new US-friendly Iraqi regime. That really means NO true sovereignty for the Iraqi people or the “democratic” institutions that will be established there in the months ahead.

Democracy and democratic institutions have also been eroded in the US due to our extreme dependence on oil. All of the major think tanks and analysts have forecast deepening and worsening energy shortages, and oil is our major energy source. What the powers-that-be are so scared of is that there will be intense pressure to start developing alternative energy sources. This should have been the US govt’s plan since the energy crises of 1973, but democrat or republican, our politicians have failed us BIG TIME by not dealing with this issue appropriately in a timely manner.

Originally posted by AFChris:
Originally posted by RonB:

Iraq COULD have been the "Kitty Genovese" of the WORLD if the U.S. had not decided to NOT be like the "neighbors" who were willing to watch Saddam Hussein killing not only his OWN people, but plotting to kill his neighbors, as well.


Outstanding point, Ron. From my own recent research paper on just war:

A justification to go to war that does not directly involve the security of a nation is one of a humanitarian nature. There are many instances in the world today of people groups and ethnicities exploiting other, weaker groups. When human rights violations are committed, the international community needs to respond. All too often the world turns a cold shoulder and lets these situations escalate to the point of genocide. According to Kenneth Himes, "a new argument for justified use of armed force, humanitarian intervention, is gaining credence" (11).

Himes, Kenneth R. "Just War, Pacifism and Humanitarian Intervention." America. 21 August 1993: 10-20.
05/13/2004 09:01:47 AM · #58
There is a very interesting article in Today's Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages. It was written by Jose Ramos-Horta, a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. It's title is Sometimes, a War Saves People, and is subtitled We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil. Here's are some exerpts:

"As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so."

"Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing."

Here's the link Jose Ramos-Horta

Ron

05/13/2004 11:48:07 AM · #59
I haven't read the article because the link you posted down below requires me to register, which I won't do, but I will go and seek out the article in the library today.

Assuming it's true what you say, it's certainly very curious, especially given the fact that Ramos-Horta fought against the brutal Indonesian regime that was supported by Nixon and Kissinger back in the early 70's.

Originally posted by RonB:
There is a very interesting article in Today's Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages. It was written by Jose Ramos-Horta, a 1996 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. It's title is Sometimes, a War Saves People, and is subtitled We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil. Here's are some exerpts:

"As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so."

"Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing."

Here's the link Jose Ramos-Horta

Ron
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:27:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 07:27:17 AM EDT.