user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Saddam was a dictator and a killer. Everybody knows that. So is no surprise to find mass graves in Iraq. But US soldiers coming in Iraq in the name of freedom and democracy and acting like a bunch of AL-Quaeda monkeys... That's a big fuking surprise! Or shouldn't be?
WHAT is this obsession with comparing these incidents?!? If one is worse than the other, does that mean the lesser evil is now miraculously acceptable?
YES, YES, already ... killing is worse than torture! Please, tell me ... *what is your point*?!?
Is the new tactic of the week to do something bad, then scramble to find something that someone else did that was worse?
Perhaps the killing saren't covered as much because:
* It is obvious that they are bad. No one in the US is trying to say otherwise.
* Since we didn't do the killings, there isn't a lot that we should be morally evaluating to prevent them.
* When WE do something wrong, but people are trying to minimize, trivialize, or even defend the action -- that tends to generate JUST a little more discussion.
Perhasp I should not be unloading on you -- you didn't start this tactic. But I have to admit, I am fed up.
I am officially outraged at the outrage at the outrage! Anything to avoid accountability! Anything to avoid blame! Anything to point the finger at someone else.
Well I'm mad as hell and I'm ... I'm ... bother, not much I can really do, is there?
... and I'm going to have a drink.
johan: Excellent point! Thanks for saying it so much more succinctly than me. ;-)
The so called abuse didn't go far enough. Oops I forgot to be sensitive to the terrorists.
Excelent point me!
Excellent point, pointing out my own excellent point.
whitemike: It was reported that 95% of the prisoners were ultimately deemed not to be terrorist or insurgents -- just innocents caught up in the sweep of war.
Way to uphold American ideals.
wm: Plus ... in cas eyou have been in a coma for months -- there was no credible Al Quaeda - Iraq connection!
I suppose the 9/11 comission's findings that there was a connection between Al Quaeda=Iraq isn't something you would like to acknowledge.
Iraq=Al Quaeda didn't plan 9/11 together but Saddam is the definition of a terrorist giving comfort and aid to Al Quaeda. Ex.1 Saddam's sons provided medical treatment to Al-Zarqawi, when he was wounded in Afghanistan.Al-Zarqawi is the most brutal cro-magnon Islamist next to Osama Bin Laden.
Ex.2 Saddam nurtured Al Quaeda by allowing them to train and recruit more fanatics on Iraqi soil, which would love to cut your throat.
Ex.3 Saddam was funding terrorism, not Al Quaeda, granted but terrorism never the less by giving paychecks to the families of the sub-human Palistinian homicide bombers.
Still refuse to see the connection, go fuck your self!
Anonymous: Ha! I like you. You make me chuckle.
To your assertions:
1: Cathexis= pseudo intellectual lush.
A: Since Intellectuals have been lumped in with liberalism (chardonnay-sipping, sushi-eating, east-coast intellectuals), I suppose this is a NeoCon complimentm, to be considered merely pseudo.
Thanks!
2: Impeach bush
A: Amen, brother!
3: Fire Rumsfeld
A: Oh SAY it again!
4: eat granola
A: Actually, I do like granola. But I tend to eat the nasty, sugary stuff more often. What's your beef with granola? Did you have a bad experience with Oats when you were young? Still have an aching bagful of unsown wild ones?
5: plant trees
A: Oooh, here I have to draw the line. Isn't planting trees just plain *evil*?!? I mean, really! Think about it: You subsidize trees with planting and they eventually lose the motivation to plant themselves. Next thing you know, you have *generations* of lazy, shiftless trees, all photosynthesizing on the government dole!
I say: Plant a tree and get a tree; but teach a tree to plant itself and everyone enjoys sufficient paper products for all product packaging.
6: abort the innocent
A: Survey says ... BRAK! OH, I'm sorry! The Standard Liberal Stereotype survey seems to have failed. I, personally, am not in favor of abortion. Oh no! Now what! Perhaps you can hate 9/10ths of me?
7: don't execute the guilty
A: Posh and tiffle, sir! Not only should we execute the guilty, we should execute their friends, families, and associates! Just to make sure we get 'em all!
8: socialisim is the greatest thing since sliced bread
A: Mmmm ... nothing like a nice, toasted Socialism sandwich! Maybe on commie-style whole-grain bread. No, no ... ! On *granola* bread! Yeeeah! Mmmm!
9: if you disagree your ignorant
A: Not at all. Supposeable_thumbs disagrees with me *all* of the time, but he uses cogent arguments, rather than blanket stereotypes. I have developed a deep respect for his intelligence.
It is when one applies blanket stereotypes to anyone who disagrees with them that I suspect they *may* be ignorant.
Oh, and when they rag on my granola!
10: bombs are only ok as long as it has a "D" on it
A: Ok, your scintillating diatribe has lost me at this point. Bombs with a D ... nope, my pseudo-intellectual lushness is drawing a blank. Can you help me out?
11: hey hey ho ho G.W. has to go
A: All RIGHT! BRO! You've seen the light! Everyone ... join in on the chorus!
Wait ... was that *sarcasm*?!? Oooh, you're getting up there with the pseudo, aren't you! ;-)
12: bla bla bla and so on
A: Agh. I am wounded. Your pithy wit and crushing mastery of rhetoric has me speechless. No more! Show mercy! I give up.
13: more hippie subversive bull shit
A: Heh heh ... as a former NeoCon myself, you have no idea how truly ironic that accusation is. I suppose I deserve it for decades of similar abuse I foisted on others.
14: blame America first
A: Nonsense. We all know that America can do no wrong, hence it would be foolish to *ever* look at our own behaviour with questioning eyes. That would be ... unpatriotic!
I have a better idea, one that I know will be new to you: Hold accountable whomever deserves to be held accountable!
15: Eerie, how I know so much about you, huh.
You have no idea how amazed I am.
And stop calling me Eerie! ;-)
WHAT is this obsession with comparing these incidents?!? If one is worse than the other, does that mean the lesser evil is now miraculously acceptable?
Usally the obsession is over the Prison abuse scandal vs. Beheadings.
Also, I never implied that the prison abuse was exceptable, in ANY way.
I hate the fact that these sub-human soidlers would stoop to a level so low, ecspecially in a time when America's actions are scrutinized by every country in the world. It gave ammo to the,"America is evil" crowd.
I'm gonna start up a new poll. It will be....
Do you think that the soilders at Abu Ghraib represent the soilders of the U.S. military.
Come vote and comment.
by NE0 on Sun Jul 04, 04 2:39pm
[+]
Cathexis: witty rebuttal,I enjoy your humor. I did get 9/10 sterotypes correct, that means I got an A.
whitemike: Pegged!
NE0: Here's another possibility for why the beheadings don't get as much press -- because doing so may play into the hands of the perpetrators. The fact that the US press doesn't continuously harp on the beheadings removes a publicity venue for the perpetrators. Why are thye doing this? Becaus ethey want the world to take notice. When we don't, that frustrates them.
NE0, IMO, no responsible Conservative press would play this up, either.
NE0: Just my point -- it is perfectly valid to ask *Why isn't more press given to the beheadings?* I understand this. What I have trouble with is the arbitrary juxtaposition with the Prison situation ... the two have no real connection, other than associated with the war. IMO, it ismost likely that the people who complain want to minimize focus on the prison issue and possible war support effect.
I somewhat agree with your explaination on broadcasting the beheadings. However, whether they get reconition for beheading this guy or beheading that guy. They will still do it.
Also some would say thta playing those videos, just rallies the American people to the cause even more.
by NE0 on Mon Jul 05, 04 12:54pm
[+]
I've been trying to stay neutral/objective in my recent polls. I think I'm doing a little better. What do you guys/girls think?
by NE0 on Mon Jul 05, 04 12:57pm
[+]
NE0: I disagree -- the whole purpose of selecting that means of Traditional cultural *execution* is to send a message. This is similar to the crazies who commit crimes to get their 15 minutes, except that these murderers get to pou=mulgate their message. Also, they get referred to as executioners -- a step more legitimate than *murderers*.
Re: Objectivity & neutrality -- gettin' there. ;-)
Are you saying that they would stop if we didn't broadcast on the news?
I believe that's what your saying.
I base my opinion on having seen videos of these beheadings dating back to the late 70's through the mid-80's. Do you remember seeing videos pertaining to beheadings? They really were not broadcasted, atleast not in America.
That's just one of the many execution styles in their culture. ecspecially for the Infidels. I do agree that giving them air time does boost their morale , but as I said, it rallies our people to the cause even more.
Of course you'll have people that say,"they knew what they were getting into" --talking about the civilians-- and have little to no sympathy, but the majority of Americans that see the beheading videos get really ticked off and that's to say the least.
by NE0 on Tue Jul 06, 04 11:43am
[+]
O and if anyone would like for me to send them some of the videos, via. e-mail.
Let me know.
by NE0 on Tue Jul 06, 04 11:44am
[+]
Re: Objectivity & neutrality -- gettin' there. ;-)
It's REALLY HARD...lol
I bite my tongue alot.
by NE0 on Tue Jul 06, 04 11:46am
[+]
Am I saying they'd stop if we didn't air? Don't know. I do believe it will continue/increase if it gets publicity.
Conversely, they will always be exploring SOME way to stir the pot. If it isn't with beheadings, it will be something else.
Re: Biting tongues.
Yup, I know. I tell people I type bad, but it is really due to a swollen tongue, from biting it so often, myself.
Anyone old enough to know if the media in the 40s ignored german and japanese atrocities and focused exclusively on american crimes? Just wondering.
If the media at that time were like todays they would have spent the entire war covering american 'genocide' against the axis powers, and the blatant racism of american troops (using words like nip and kraut) and given maybe 5 minutes to the concentration camps of germany, or the mass murder of pows by the japanese. Just going by the current standards here.
So true.
by NE0 on Tue Jul 06, 04 4:19pm
[+]
herz: Sorry, can't help ya. I'm not quite that old.
I suppose I can empathize with what you're saying, to a degree. If I thought it was a completely justified war and we really had Right on our side, going in ... perhaps I'd have a different perspective.
But ... here's my point of view: The US was *completely* unjustified in invading. Once in, they believe that they now cannot be questioned, because it might 'undermine the war effort.' Now there is an expectation that we should all band together and show unity.
Except ... I *still* think it was wrong. 'Banding together' means tacictly supporting the war effort, which I view as illegal, immoral, and not in my country's best interest.
So ... what can you realistically expect? That we all break into 'As the Cassons go Rolling Along?' This is one of the fallouts of initiating something under false pretenses and without justifiable reasons and support -- both domestically and internationally.
I don't expect everyone to fall in line, so to speak. And I don't expect americas faults to be ignored simply because we are at war. But I would like to see some balance here. Was the 'abuse scandal' at abu ghraib a bad thing? Yeah. Was it such a terrible thing that it deserved half the press coverage it recieved? No. Were saddams atrocities far worse both in quanity and quality? Yep. But which one recieved the lion share of the medias attention? Even today, months after the event it's still being brought up as 'news'. I'm sorry but stripping some prisoners down naked can't really compare with throwing them into industrial shredders. So while I don't expect the media to be a mindless propaganda machine for the war, I don't want them to be a mindless propaganda machine AGAINST the war either.
I see your point ... to an extent. But my problem is that this comparison appears to be an attempt, not to focus on real wrongs, but to minimize the censure for what one side or another did.
Yes, Iraq atrocities were bad. But ... that really isn't news. We knew about that back when we were best buds with Iraq, in the 80s. Heck, after he gassed the Kurds, Rumsfeld went over and was photographed glad-handing him! So, any sudden inidgnation about Iraq atrocities seems to ring a bit hollow for me -- it strikes me as just another attempt to justify the war effort.
And the prison scandal *should* be harped on! herz, this isn't a matter of "placing blame." It is a matter of defending the principles that we, as Americans, profess to hold dear. If someone undermines these principles, this does need to be addressed. And nothing is going to get addressed if it is all kicked under the rug.
One reason everyone keeps harping on it, IMO, is that people at teh top are still engaging in a cover-up ... trying to weasel out of any accountability *they* might have and let some grunt scapegoats take the fall.
This *is* a big deal. It isn't that *America is so bad* ... it is that we are so good that we want to get to the bottom of these events and root out the truly unpatriotic actions: undermining our principles.
I wouldn't mind the way the media over reported the prison scandal and ignored saddams atrocities if they'd mention some of the good things we'd done as well. But they don't. When was the last time you saw a headline like 'US troops build new hospital in iraq' or 'all iraqi infrastructure has been repaired and is exceeding pre war levels'? You don't, these things go unreported. So americans and foriegners reading american newspapers get a very skewed view this country. Of course any country is going to look bad if you focus exclusively on the bad and totally ignore the good.
And the fact that a few soldiers harrassed a few prisoners doesn't mean that all american principles go down the tubes. If we were to bring them home to a parade and give them medals then yeah I'd say our values are out of whack. But we didn't, we brought them home to courtmarshalls and dishonor. Big difference. But how often does it get mentioned that these people are in fact going to pay for what they did.
*sigh* From my perspective, building all the new hospitals and schools in the world doesn't make the invasion right.
Plus, for all of the new construction that the US might have done, that doesn't change the fact that the place is now a hellhole: they STILL don't have dependable electricity, drinking water, and sewage in many parts of the country. Security is STILL a major problem. Man ... it's a good thing they DO have extra hospitals! They NEED them!
Geez, herz ... who can care if there is a new school building up when you can't go outside and you can't turn on lights or run water?!? It seems like a simple matter of priorities.
Has the US done *nothing* good? No. But when you look at the overall priorities for the people who have to live there ...
The "good" seems to me to be token, at best.
I'm sorry cathy but you're wrong on this. And it goes to prove my point, the media isn't reporting any of the good. Most services, water sewage electricity, are back up to or exceeding pre-war standards. Security is not that bad, the average iraqi is still alot less likely to die under US rule then they were under saddam. I'd say that makes them more secure.
herz sez: I'm sorry cathy but you're wrong on this.
CX: Cathy? Oooh! Don't make me hurt you, boy! ;-)
CX: And it goes to prove my point, the media isn't reporting any of the good.
CX: I somewhat agree with your point ... I merely maintain the point is irrational. When an area's situation is so dangerous that one risks getting killed or injured going out to cover a new school opening ... I suggest that the danger is the story, not the new Baghdad Wal-Mart opening.
CX: Most services, water sewage electricity, are back up to or exceeding pre-war standards.
CX: Again, a disengenuous comment, playing fast and loose with statistics. *Most?* Probably, to a limited extent. But are you going to tell me that there is enough that it is no longer a problem?
Plus: Having rolling black-outs every day is convenient -- technically, the electricity *has* been restored -- they just can't use it part of the time.
Finally: Restored to pre-war levels ... you should be the WH Press Sec'y! What a great spin. So much (not all) of teh infrastructure is back to how it was in a country ravaged by over a decade of sanctions.
Let's all pat ourselves on the back!
CX: Security is not that bad, the average iraqi is still alot less likely to die under US rule then they were under saddam.
CX: Anytime one has a major risk of death or injury due to bombs or gunfire, I suggest the security *is* that bad.
As for *it's better than under Saddam* ... again, that strikes me as incredibly disengenuous.
It is also not true. Say what you like about Saddam, as a nasty dictator type, he did maintain Law n' Order -- with an iron fist, admittedly. No, for the average Iraqi, it has been much less secure during the past year. Saddam may have been bad, but he does not equal the effect of a country at war.
It's been two years, how much progress had we made in germany in 1947? Not nearly as much as we'd made in iraq in 2004. Under saddam only a few key cities and military bases got electricity, if you lived out in the sticks you got none. We're trying to give it to everyone so there isn't enough, for now. No doubt some people would have said life was better under hitler, germany will never be rebuilt, democracy is incapatible with german culture, etc. They were all proven wrong. But not overnight. Like I said, it's been two years, these things take time. Already there's been alot of improvement, more than anyone could reasonably expect. But because iraq wasn't rebuilt a week after the invasion and magically transformed into a thriving democracy we've failed? I don't think so. How long were we in germany and japan rebuilding following the war? More than 2 years I can promise you.
herz sez: Under saddam only a few key cities and military bases got electricity, if you lived out in the sticks you got none.
Cx: Again, I will assert this is a disengenuous argument. It is meaningless to compare present-day Iraq to when it was *under Saddam* because that was also under punishing UN sanctions. The situation was pitiful.
herz sez: We're trying to give it to everyone so there isn't enough, for now.
Cx: Agreed. But I don't view us as great humanitarians because of this.
Cx: No doubt some people would have said life was better under hitler, germany will never be rebuilt, democracy is incapatible with german culture, etc.
Cx: Yes, I daresay you are correct. But I also know thatteh animosity towards the US in post-war Germany was nothing like it is in *post-war* Iraq.
herz sez: They were all proven wrong.
Cx: OK, now I am disappointed in you. You are a better intellectual than to set up a straw man (hypothesized opposition to post-war germany reconstruction) and assert that because that would be wrong, opposition/suspicion about Iraq is misplaced as well.
Herz sez: But not overnight. Like I said, it's been two years, these things take time.
Cx: No question not overnight. However, I am doubtful of it being possible at all. The goal is not to merely reconstruct Iraq, but to export our ideas of government and culture. That won't help the reconstruction effort.
herz sez: Already there's been alot of improvement, more than anyone could reasonably expect.
Cx: Depends upon what you mean by improvement. Yes, we've put up buildings and such. But ... so? With the chaos and security situation, that's like boasting about slapping a new coat of paint on a leaning barn.
I will repeat: Putting up buildings means little when their are bombs and guns in the streets. I can't understand why the pro-war folks are petulant that they don't get pats on the heads.
herz: But because iraq wasn't rebuilt a week after the invasion and magically transformed into a thriving democracy we've failed? I don't think so.
Cx: ?!? I don't think so either. I don't recall making that assertion.
Now, I *do* believe we are destined to fail, but that's because of arrogance, willful ignorance, and overwheening pride.
But that's not because the promised flower petals have not been strewn.
herz sez: How long were we in germany and japan rebuilding following the war? More than 2 years I can promise you.
Cx: Quite right. Nation-building requires a *long* time and a *lot* of money.
However, both of those situations were handled *much* better than our present one. And the US agenda was much more manageable, for those.
The UN sanctions did not cripple iraq as many people believe. If saddam could afford 40 some odd palaces then clearly they had enough wealth to provide a much better standard of living to iraqis. That they didn't condemns saddam, not the sanctions which allowed all the food, medicine, and public goods necessary for the country. He was merely prevented from buying military goods, which have nothing to do with the standard of living.
'Yes, I daresay you are correct. But I also know thatteh animosity towards the US in post-war Germany was nothing like it is in *post-war* Iraq.'
The resistence in germany to the US occupation continued for years. Werewolves, as they were called, attacked US troops and destroyed property in an attempt to bring back the old regime. The only difference between then and now is that in germany our soldiers were allowed to line these people up against a wall and shoot them whenever they were caught in arms against us, that put an end to it pretty quickly. But in these days of political correctness we aren't allowed to do anything that might possibly offend our sworn enemies. Which will only increase suffering on both sides.
' No question not overnight. However, I am doubtful of it being possible at all. The goal is not to merely reconstruct Iraq, but to export our ideas of government and culture. That won't help the reconstruction effort.'
Like I've said, we've done it before. If it worked once on a much larger and more daunting task, why would it fail now?
Post nazi germany, and imperial japan weren't exactly bastions of pro western sentiment, nor were they big supporters of the whole democracy thing. But we turned them around. People, if ever given the choice, prefer democracy and freedom to oppression and slavery.
herz sez: The UN sanctions did not cripple iraq as many people believe. If saddam could afford 40 some odd palaces then clearly they had enough wealth to provide a much better standard of living to iraqis.
Cx: Of a certainty. But whether you blame the UN or Saddam, the fact remains -- the country was still crippled and the infrastructure in horrendous shape.
I have to confess relative ignorance on WWII reconstruction -- I have heard relatively little.
I will go back to my original point: Even if we can, it doesn't mean we should.
No doubt things were bad in iraq, but were they worse than germany or japan in 1945? I keep going back to those countries because they fit so perfectly. Only difference is that in 1945 we had a much larger and more difficult task ahead of us.
herz: You may have *some* points here ... if one looks at this strictly from a Military Domination Exercise viewpoint.
But ... aren't we way off-topic? We started out on what appeared to be an ethics discussion and ended up on strictly military approaches.
Much like the Iraq War effort, itself has gone.
"American legal investigators have discovered evidence of abuse, torture and rape throughout the US-run prison system in Iraq. A Michigan legal team meeting with former detainees in Baghdad during an August fact-finding mission gathered evidence supporting claims of prisoner abuse at some 25 US-run detention centers"
I detect the familiar odor of anti-american bias by posting unsubstanciated claims that you apparently are eager to believe.I've heard first hand accounts by soldiers well aquainted with the tripe that exist in those prisons and have heard stories of what these "innocent" people have done.Some stories turned my stomach.I have little faith in the mainstream media and much less in lawyers representing "innocent" detainees.Where is the proof?!
BTW,I don't doubt that a minority of soldiers have acted badly in the prisons.However I also don't doubt that there are many people eager to believe anything anti america they hear.There are minority portions of any human catorgorization that behave badly so let's please keep things in context.The point of the post was that America is viewed under a microscope by many yet those same people who have so much a problem with america are amazingly silent of true atrocities.
To say that either is less of an evil is ludacris. Buth are worng and both need to be dealt ith in the proper fashion. However hoping not to contradict the previous statement, someone can live through embarresment, someone can't live through murder.
Being tortured to death is a lot worse then being beheaded after you're already dead (like happened to Nick Berg - how else do you explain the ridiculous lack of blood; barely any at all). It was definitely torture, not some little humiliation, real nasty horrible torture. Wasn't the US Congress investigating the deaths of 20 or more people who were tortured to death at Abug Ghraib prison.
both are horrible and barbaric, and unfortunately we had a hand in both. The mass graves are from an era in which the US was actively supporting and arming Saddam Hussein (and Limbaugh was blasting liberals for calling him a monster).
Using the mass graves as an excuse for Bush's invasion makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
