I think we are reaping what we have sown

When Bush opened the door to torture, he condemned and doomed our entire Armed Forces.

What the fuck did they expect? That we would be the only ones to torture people, and other nationalities would be afraid of his signing statement?

By not recognising the Geneva Convention in spirit it becomes inevitable that the "enemy" will use that as precedent.

:D

not to be off topic :hi:

But I'm sure they expected this.

1. Torturing Iraqis makes them look tough on "terrorists," thus strengthening resolve with their base.

2. Troops getting tortured by Iraqis makes it easier to hate the Iraqis, thus strengthening resolve with their base.

I'm not defending the US's slide down our own slippery slope towards cruelty, or excusing our presence in Iraq.

But I do think this would have happened even if we had conducted ourselves in a squeaky-clean manner.

History has always been filled with barbarian creeps. I think the opposition in Iraq contains its' share of creeps who didn't need the excuse of our own behavior to justify their own barbarian instincts.

:rofl:

Armstead,

I'm aware that war is filthy, ugly, nasty, hateful. I could go on and on.

But I feel that officially sanctioning torture has taken us the way of the barbarians.

I'm not too naive to think that the othe side doesn't do it. I'm not too naive to think that we don't/didn't do it.

But to officially declare that practice as a part of our culture has made it easier for us to be looked upon as scum.

"But I feel that officially sanctioning torture has taken us the way of the barbarians."

Too true. But I'm just saying that we can't equate their barbarism with our own slide in that direction....At least not yet. :scared:

I would just imagine something akin to torture occurs between the fire falling on them and death. And we sanction that all day long. We even give out medals to the pilots who drop the fire onto the peoples heads.

Don

While using barbaric methods such as torture has been standard in some countries, we at least could use the fact that we did NOT employ the same methods to set ourselves apart from them. We can not claim righteous indignation, and point out the brutality of Saddam's regime, as opposed to our own civilized behavior.

One of the many reasons the administration gave for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to remove a brutal, torturing tyrant. How can we claim to be any better than the tyrant we deposed, if we use the same techniques of torture, rape, and destruction? Just as it has become a farce for Bush to blather on about bringing democracy to the Middle East, while his administration has done it's best to destroy democracy in the U.S., it is also a farce to condemn torture, while inflicting it ourselves.

Bush has also ignored treaties, and declared himself above the law. He is becoming the tyrant he removed from Iraq. The whole world is suffering from his enormous ego, his stubbornness, and his sociopathic behavior. He has surrounded himself with other criminals, who care not a bit about law, or peace, or fairness. His corrupt administration is the worst in American history, and you are right, CatWoman, we will reap what he has sown. The pity is that he will not suffer any punishment for his mistakes.

from Iraq. Just consider his (self-made) 'barbarian-emperor' status (above all laws).

... on the weaker side. Indeed, the history of asymmetrical warfare should be a lesson. It is the essential objective of the weaker side to suck the superpower into acts of inhumanity and brutality. It's in the nature of such superpowers to be easily sucked into it - they wouldn't be bullies if they didn't.

this is seen by many as retaliation, instead of a single disgusting act. And so the cycle of revenge continues...

its "dissenters" too.

Why US in Iraq then, and not in China?

...in my opinion. Cheney, on the other hand, is a brutal thug who doesn't give a rat's buttocks about whether American torture policies affect the pawns he manipulates for fun and profit. The Cehney-Rumsfeld-Rice axis of evil probably considered the risk to Americans for a few seconds before dismissing it out of hand-- if it doesn't further their goals, it isn't even on the radar.

From his torture memos, to his refusal to talk with Iraq, Iran, Korea, et cetera; it's all intended to create war death and suffering.

He is a Nazi. This is what they do.

The people of this country COULD stop this. We haven't. We sit safely behind our keyboards and call for military personnel, already in harm's way, to mutiny (and be imprisoned) - but how many of us have put our own lives on the line in the streets? I've seen a one-day "strike" to defend the 'rights' of people to enslave themselves to global corporatists, but I haven't seen even a one-hour strike to stop the war crimes. No, we cheer on the mother of a son killed in the Bushoilini War of Glabal Conquest when she camps out in Midland and gets arrested for protesting - and a few of us went and camped out to support her - but where are the mass arrests? Where's the blood in the streets? Where's the general strike? (You'd think a strike by merely 50% of The People would be enough.) It's always easy to ask others to do the bleeding and dying. We'll be sorry. The cost can only get higher and higher every day.

Maybe I can be a tent person.

... and all the denials in the world don't change that. In a very real sense, all nations have "democratic" realities. People can always revolt. Even in the most heavy-handed dictatorship, people have the power to overturn their government. As we get further and further away from 'democratic' processes, the price just gets higher and higher.

The whole notion of a 'democratic' form a of government is merely a KSOTO: We All Sink Or Swim Together! That's a reality. That's how it is no matter what the form of government. It's not our 'leadership' we need to convince, it's one another. Liberal democrats have been far too silent for far too long. Afraid. Afraid of having our cars keyed. Afraid of "offending" fascists. Afraid of making family members feel uncomfortable. The price will keep climbing.

The answer can never be what "I" do ... it'll always be what "we" do.

And the Repukes will blame the media for the torture. Not Bush.

Yes, I can see that many victims and their kin in Iraq have reason to want some revenge. And we reap what we sow about treatment of combatants. But I am not blind to the need of the junta to change headlines again either.

What? Is havocmom suggesting the junta would possibly use American troops in such a cold and calculating manner?

Anybody really have to ask?

Not trying to lessen the horror of these men's fate. Just want to suggest keeping an open mind about the many possibilities as to the parties directly responsible.

One way or another, those men's fate was due to the junta. Indirectly at the very least, the policy choices sealed their fate. Is it not also possibly the junta could be more directly involved?

What will be the topic on TV, bush aid conviction or two brave Americans serving in Iraq killed in a brutal manner? As when anything happens these days, I have to ask myself, who benefited?

he's a stupid arrogant, evil little man trying to be a bigshot. Pathetic and hollow...

Have you viewed any of the videos of this barbarism which you so blithely equate to American "torture"? Just curious...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

a comparative of American treatment of prisoners vs. the insurgency treatment of prisoners.

So let me ask you- would you rather have your head cut off, or rather be bitten to death by attack dogs?

and haven't viewed the latter. Perhaps a link to the video so I can make an informed choice?

Notice the large chunk of flesh ripped from his leg and deposited in the foreground.

Do you suppose the insurgents first ripped chunks of flesh from those two troops before killing them?

will aid me in making my choice. Perhaps a link to the video of the fatal dog attack would be more helpful.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Catwoman drew a comparative between American treatment of prisoners and the insurgency treatment of prisoners. For Catwoman (or anyone) to draw such a comparative absent viewing readily-available evidence of insurgency treatment strikes me as bordering on willful ignorance.

Now, from that assertion, I am accused of supporting "rapists, and torturers, and murderers, of the American variety."

You've not only shifted the goalposts my friend...you've moved the stadium.

a head will be cut off in exchange for tens of thousands of people being blown to smithereens.

But you can't think that far ahead, and you are a victim of the racist bullshit which makes you search for words like barbarians for use in describing those who you see as lesser beings.

And the original context of that term referred to the tribes of northern Europe who constituted the basis of Celtic/WASP culture. So I did not use it in a racist context, but in terms of behavior. Tim McVeigh was a barbarian too.

The American military is a long established organization, with definate chain of command, rules to follow, and training that must be done before anyone goes into combat. This, in my mind, makes it different from an insurgent force-despite the talk of al Qaeda, I don't believe that every insurgent group is under its control. It seems that there are also groups of warriors following various warlords, as well as certain element of ruffians who are taking advantage of the unstable situation in Iraq to kidnap people for ransom and to sell females into sex slavery.

The differences in no way allows anyone to condone any behavior which goes against the Geneva Convention, imho. However, the fact that our military is under one leader and has codes, etc, means that we should - no, we must- adhere to international conventions when it comes to treatment of prisoners. That we are not doing so besmirches our country, because it is not following international rules.

Before I get jumped on, let me emphasize that I was and am totally against the war in Iraq. We have no business being there. We never did.

Having said that, there is a difference between warfare and gratituitous barbarism.

I can't defend dropping bombs on civilians, and making innocent people collateral damage. However such things are inevitable in a military conflict.

On the otehr hand, capturing and performing grisly acts for no purpose is worse. Even if they had killed the American soldiers or otehr hostiges, was it really necessary to deliberaly inflict torture on them?

...and killed your family would you classify that as warfare or gratuitous barbarism?

Would you be able to just write it off as some innocent people getting caught up in warfare and just forget about it?

Don

But if I were living under an oppressive regime, and my house was Shocked and Awed to defeat them, I might consider it a price to pay for liberation.

Unfortunately, "situational ethics" often applies to war.

We bombed a lot of houses during WW2.

DON'T GET ME WRONG on this. I think there is no justrification for us to be in Iraq. I do not condone the exesses of the Bush administration, and our sliding away from standards of human rights.

In the sense that we are paying the price for an imperialistic invasion of a country, I agree with the original post.

However, I do think it's important to not draw a moral equivalence between warfare and terrorism.

In many societies Abu Garbid would just be accepted as "business as usual" instead of a scandal.

Once again, I am not condoning the direction the Bush administration and the right wing fools like Rush-- "Abu Garabe was just a fraternity prank" -- Limbaugh are trying to take the US.

However, I do believe we have to be real careful in making comparisons with the world's worst, or implying that we are morlly equivalent to those who deliberate engage acts of pure brutality and terrorism against innocents.

I asked:

If someone Shocked And Awed your house to steal your counties oil and killed your family would you classify that as warfare or gratuitous barbarism?

Can you answer that question?

Don

On an emotional level, if that were to happen to me, and if I thought it was a war of conquest solely for oil, I'd certainly consider it gratuitous barbarism.

However it isn't that cut-and-dried. War, in general is gratuitous barbarism. Violence is inherently immoral. However, nations that don't engage in those to some degree are vulnerable to those who are willing to use those means.

And the perceptions of barbarism depend partiually on where one stands in a conflict.

Iraq is a mix of people with differing opinions about all of this. There are some who undoubtedly see us as barbaric invaders of their country. But there are others who are glad to be rid of Sadaamn, and see us as liberators. And there are a lot who have very mixed and contradictory emotions about it.

Those who have personally experienced the impact of our violence are in their own category, but they also contain the same mix.

Let me draw an analogy. There was a very moral cause behind the U.S. Civil War -- to end slavery.....But it wasn't that simnple. It was also a battle of competing economic interests and political factors that had nothing to do with slavery.

The North engaged in some awful behavior to bring the South to its knees, such as Sherman's March and the burning of Atlanta. The end resuilt was the ending of a horrible institution of slavery. Many of the people who died were supporters of slavery....However, at the same time, many of them no doubt consider the Shock and Awe tactics of the Yankees to be barabarous.

Was it worth it and justified to kill southern civilians and burning their homes to free millions of people from slavery? Or was it gratuitous barbarism?

You are probably rolling your eyes and thinking "Stop waffkling. Give me a straight answer."

But my point is that you posed a question that can't be answered simply, because of the nature of war, and the nature of THIS war in particular.

I don't have the stomach to be quite honest.

But what about you? Do you have dinner while watching them, downed with a fine Claret? And creme brulet for dessert?

With the rapes, and the beatings, and the corpses.

Putting quotations around the "torture" speaks volumes about your character.

If the barbarism you're refering to is decapitation, keep in mind, that is the preferred method of execution in the Middle East. I'm sure they are equally repelled by the idea sending electric currents through a person strapped down in a chair until they die.

a comparative of American treatment of prisoners vs. the insurgency treatment of prisoners

I didn't realize we weren't allowed to drift away from the exact subject you had defined in your head... when you speak of barbarianism, I can only assume you were refering to beheadings, as I'm unaware of any videos of people being tortured. Perhaps those do exist, but I don't go intentionally looking them, it doesn't get me off.

If you want to compare treatment of prisoners, you're fetching hard to try and better your image of the US conduct. You can compare your actions against anyone and say, 'Look, I'm better than that, I must be the good guy.'

For example, I hit my kids hard enough that they bruise (not really, I don't even have kids), but its OKAY, because my neighbor hits his kids so hard they bleed. I'm a good parent!

was used in France until a few decades ago, I believe. It isn't strictly a Middle Eastern form of death. And I believe the reason the French opted for it was because they felt it more humane than hanging.

which means you are just like them. American Taliban....

interrogation tactics used by the U.S, and it should sound absolutely appalling to anyone with a trace of a conscience...it would be completely unrealistic to not expect any kind of fallout as the result of it.

being put in a cage with no knowledge of the charges, no knowledge of how long I would be locked up, no trial to exonerate me, no hope everyday that it will ever end or will it be this way for the rest of my life....


Suicide seems like a good way out to some....

By the Rove machine, they will even be used in the republican platform this fall.

Ms Average Jane America will not be reminded that we were the first ones to turn our backs on the Geneva Convention and behave like barbarians. All she's going to hear is how they disrespected our boys and abused their bodies exploiting their deaths for their own causes.

Let's hope she can see through the BS and see the similarities between "us" and "them".