THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Apparently it's idealistic to expect that US soldiers won't torture and abuse people

I'm okay with being idealistic, then. If realism=acceptance of barbarism (hey, it's going to happen no matter what, so who cares?), then you can keep your 'realism.'

ican711nm wrote:

This anti-American bias is a form of bigotry. It is bigotry when the characteristics of a minority of a group are alleged to be the characteristics of an entire group. It is bigotry when one expresses disagreement with another person's actions by slandering or libeling that person's intentions. It is bigotry when one frequently villifies the victim of terrorists but rarely villifies the terrorists.

Oh, get off it, why don't ya? You're better than this tiresome sh*t.
Cycloptichorn

JustWonders wrote:

My point is that there are and have been these types of abuses in every war.

I agree with that, precisely the reason I was against any armed invasion.

Leut. Calley and the Abu Ghraib perps had the bad fortune to be uncovered. The GI who shot the wounded man, he was filmed. Bad for him. How many others, away from the camera lens? Reason says, plenty more.

That's why it causes such despair when chickenhawk politicians, who took care never to serve their country in the armed forces, send their young men off to fight, to do their best, and their worst, in places like this.

Intimidated, my ass, lol....Cycloptichorn

intimidated by your labelling me a bigot for having a free mind? Please! Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Cyclop writes
Quote:
More proof exists than there did of WMD in Iraq, and that sure didn't stop us from invading. Why shouldn't an investigation go to the top? It's the same mode of thinking.


Exactly what proof is that Cyclop?

The fact that there was in fact Zero proof of WMD before the war.

This has been bourne out by the simple fact that there were no WMD when we got there.

If there is even an IOTA of evidence that the abuses of prisoners were known about/ordered/not condemned by those at the top, it should be more than enough to launch an investigation. After all, less evidence was enough to launch a war!

Now, why don't you lie down on your couch in the privacy of your own dwelling and quietly ask your alleged "free mind" why you thought you were being labeled?

It seems one benevolent country just stepped up to the plate and forgave an Iraqi dept of $4,000,000,000 today! That's pretty cool.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

McTag wrote:

You have used (US) and "benevolent" in the same sentence. Most world opinion sees the US as an overbearing, arrogant, xenophobic, warmongering, colonialist and even fascist country and not "benevolent" at all

does "india" ring a bell ?? bermuda ? hong kong. north america, aka, the colonies ?

easy buddy. not like there's no blood on the hands of english history. don't like bush? fine. either do i. don't like the iraq expedition? fine. either do i. don't like america or americans? too bad.

people here talk about the french having a short memory. righhhhttt... or is it just me that remembers that "le boche" nearly conquered britania. until the us stepped in, that is.

in the same way that some americans forget that without the french, we'd be saying "ta, gov'" instead of "thankya" and having tea at four, it seems that you forget that without the malvolent americans, grosvenor square would be die goebelsplatz and you'd be having struedel instead of scones.

of course, none of this response is directed at my u.k. pals that know the difference between an administration and a people.

So defensive yet. I have been attacked by several posters for saying things I did not actually say.

This interesting post starts quite a few hares, and an appropriate answer to it could be very long. I did not think I would be called upon to to defend England's colonial past, and indeed I cannot. Our record is not without fault. I would remark briefly though, that 18th and 19th Century colonisation is rather different from today's version. The colony in India was built up as a trading venture, for example.

Some of our former colonies and dominions have turned out quite well, though; New Zealand, Canada, Malta spring to mind.... :wink:

You have used (US) and "benevolent" in the same sentence.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It seems one benevolent country just stepped up to the plate and forgave an Iraqi dept of $4,000,000,000 today! That's pretty cool.

Any idea why, O'Bill? :wink:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

o'bill. i truly think that you are mistaken with your view on revel and cyclo, and possibly even the et al

from what i'm taking away from most of their comments it this;

if you purport to be the moral arbiter of a situation, you must hold your actions up to a higher standard, and scrutiny, than those that you are judging and/or punishing.

if you do things in that way, it is easy to see why the abu gharaib events needed to be addressed in the harshest terms. i say that in full acknowledgement that nothing that i've heard about happening there comes close to what our enemies do. but we are supposed to be the good guys. when one of our own does this crap, it undermines the stated mission. that, does the soldiers in iraq no good. and it does our country a disservice.

The anti-American pre-disposition I speak of isn't an isolated impression on the subject at hand. It wasn't born of the last couple days of this thread, and won't dissipate upon having a post or two's meaning more clearly defined. I'm not suggesting anyone here hates America. I'm on this soapbox because I'm sick and tired of the "Blame America First" club's constant America bashing.

It seems one benevolent country just stepped up to the plate and forgave an Iraqi dept of $4,000,000,000 today! That's pretty cool.

This ended a rift between the United States and Britain on one side and France, Germany and Russia on the other.

The deal will slash Iraq's debt to Paris Club creditors to $7.8 billion from $38.9 billion in three phases over the next four years.

The deal caught analysts by surprise as the United States, which had been pushing for a 90 to 95 percent cancellation of Iraq's debt and France, which wanted just a 50 percent reduction, had stuck adamantly to their positions until last week.

But do Iraqis have dogs? Can you buy a dog leash at a pet store in Fallujahor Baghdad? Is there any evidence they packed them from here? It's all speculation, and the soldiers themselves said they acted on their own 'believing' they had consent from their superiors. Some of their superiors were demoted or reassigned for sure, as they had to be held accountable for the behavior of their subordinates. But court marshall? Come on. There is simply no proof for that.