Lets see how much play this gets...

[Dark Vengeance]

Unless something is done to improve people's idea of what America is, we will not win the war against terrorism.

We can't even do this within the bi-partisan system of American politics. How in the fuck do you suggest we make everyone in the world happy with our country and it's government?

There's this thing called unrealistic expectations. Making everyone like each other enough that terrorism goes away falls right in the middle of that category.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[WayAbvPar]

Unless something is done to improve people's idea of what America is, we will not win the war against terrorism.

We can't even do this within the bi-partisan system of American politics. How in the fuck do you suggest we make everyone in the world happy with our country and it's government?

There's this thing called unrealistic expectations. Making everyone like each other enough that terrorism goes away falls right in the middle of that category.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

So instead of making even a token effort, we should just stay the course and keep fucking everyone over. That will surely help stem the growth of terrorists.

[eldaec]

I will concede that US forces abused prisoners, I will not concede torture. They are being used as synonyms in the discussion, and in this context, I do not agree with it.

What you or I call it is irrelevant. All that matters is what random_iraqi01 calls it when choosing to put his or her support behind western democracy or islamic fundamentalism.

(And actually, if the iraqis were doing this to Americans - words like torture, abuse, and atrocity are exactly the words the west would be using)

*I* don't doubt that US forces interrogation is mild compared to what Saddam, the Taliban, or any number of other tinpot dictators did. But it's not *me* you need to convince. It's millions of arabs who have grown up being told the US is evil and that have no particular reason to give the US the benefit of the doubt. This is why the US operation is judged to a higher standard.

If the coalition fail to convince these millions of arabs then they will lose. On the other hand the terrorists and islamic fundamentalists need do no such thing to achieve their aims.

This is the natural advantage terrorists have. It is not an advantage we give them through our observation of standards of common decency and human rights; it's an advantage we can only neutralise by maintaining these standards.

There are a few thousand US troops in Iraq right now that would disagree with this sentiment.  [that installing democracy isn't a military operation]

If true then they've been badly trained.

(Which I doubt).

Solidiers can make an area (reasonably) safe. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition for success.

The rest is PR and politics.

Bah, what were they going to call it. "Operation Make Saddam Our Bitch"? These stupid military operation names all sound like they were thought up by focus groups. Did that start under Ronnie or Bush Sr.?

This is where the UK, and various other militaries really do get it right.

They have a book of names.

They pick one.

More or less at random.

Operation Iraqi Freedom (US)
is
Operation Telic (UK)
is
Operation Falconer (Austrailia)


Gulf War I was Operation Granby (iirc). etc...

[daveNYC]

Australia is cool.  I'm guessing we didn't pick Iraqi Freedom out of a hat.

How do we make everyone love us?  I have no clue.  I doubt it's even possible.  But we need to do something to bring about a net decrease in the number of terrorists.

People see those prison photos and some of them will decide that we need to die.  What we need to do is try and convince them that we aren't really that bad.

Saying "It's just a few bad apples." doesn't really cut it.  Much, much more needs to be done.  It's a marketing thing.  We have a product (America and it's values), and we need to tell the people of the world about that product.  Right now people are getting their image of America from satellite TV and commercial products.  Lets just say that Coke, Pepsi, Baywatch, and Al Jazera (sp) are not doing a good job of selling our product.

[stray]

When you say eternal vigilance, you mean eternal vigilance. Unless something is done to improve people's idea of what America is, we will not win the war against terrorism. The terrorists simply have too many juicy targets here, and we cannot be everywhere.

We need to 1: Shut down the current crop (generation) of terrorists, and 2: Stop the creation of new terrorists. I'm not sure we're doing the former, and I'm damn sure we aren't doing the latter.

Agree. It'll take an eternity to win a war of ideals. How is that going to work? It's "Freedom, Democracy, Apple Pie..and McDonald's" vs "Allah". I'm sorry, but as far as ideals go, America is a joke. There are only two ideals greater than Freedom in this world: Money and God (and I think we can all agree that an eternity is an entirely too long a time to wait and convince otherwise).

I understand the world today frowns at byzantine-like methods, but just because it's a "jihad" or whatever doesn't make terrorists any less difficult than other milatary targets. In fact, it should make it easier. As far as an Iraqi soldier (or soldiers in general) goes, yeah, we should be nice. Following the Geneva convention is in our best interest. As far as terrorists go, you just have to be worse than them. Stronger, not better. They're just humans. Give them enough pain and misery and "jihad" just becomes another word for "stupid". If you crush enough of their fucking heads in, they'll quit. Simple as that.

Scratch that. There are three ideals greater than Freedom in this world: Money, God, and Power. If we can't do it, maybe we should at least let the Turks have a go at it. Or we get some real "ideals" and then we can talk about who's "better" or not.

[Dark Vengeance]

Saying "It's just a few bad apples." doesn't really cut it.

I agree with what you're saying here, but this line is precisely what I feel is the problem. Sure, dismissing the problem as a few bad apples who abused their power doesn't cut it with most folks.

But consider the possibility that this actually was the case....national guardsmen that were not trained for this type of assignment, and they misinterpreted orders to "soften the prisoners up" before interrogation.

Or the possibility that they just did this shit because they could....put young people in a situation like that, given all circumstances (American corpses paraded through the streets, etc), and it's not unreasonable for some to become complete idiots with the power they've been given. Note that I don't feel it is acceptable, merely that I can understand how it could happen.

Now just thinking about those possibilities, if either one is actually the case, we are saying that the truth doesn't cut it. Let me say that again....that statement, which I agree with, means that ITS POSSIBLE THAT THE TRUTH DOESN'T CUT IT. That disturbs me very deeply.

From all reports I have heard, the soldiers involved are being disciplined in a rather expeditious fashion, and the situation being investigated. I was under the impression that this process had begun even before the photos hit the press.

Beyond that, what can we do? You cannot un-ring the bell...all you can do is try and prevent future incidents. At the end of the day, we're talking about soldiers doing stuff they KNOW isn't acceptable. Do we really need to add a rule that says "don't break the existing rules"?

Bring the noise.
Cheers.................

[Romp]

even if it is a few bad apples, and evidence suggests that these kind of practices were OK'd at high levels, then the US army, government and and the US itself is still responsible because these people were either badly trained, not properly supervised, there were coverups etc etc

Thats why saying 'its just a few bad apples' doesnt cut it.  Because its shifting away the blame from the US and its organisations and onto individuals, when it is the responsibility of the US and its organisations to ensure this kind of thing doesnt happen, regardless of whether or not there are bad apples or not.

[Comstar]

Do me a favor....go look up the definition of torture. Then look up the definition of abuse. Christ, it's amazing that nobody has started referring to the naked pyramid as an atrocity yet.

I will concede that US forces abused prisoners, I will not concede torture. They are being used as synonyms in the discussion, and in this context, I do not agree with it.

Stand on a small box, with your arms held up for hours. Hell, try doing it for a few minutes. Call what you want. I call it pain. Hours of it. Or not be allowed to sleep for 4+ days. Or be beaten by gun stock for small "infractions". And this all to an American allies citizin (2 Australians at Gitmo).

It is and was (AND STILL OCCURS this very minute at Gitmo) an unforgivable and undefendable act.  

And as for atrocities, does that wedding bombing/ground assault count?

[Comstar]

The unfortunate side of this is that we are bound to Geneva conventions as an occupying country against mistreatment or abuse of POWs or Iraqi citizens. The Geneva convention totally ignores the fact that some of these folks are terrorists and/or insurgent groups that do not have the backing of any sovereign nation. Thus, they are NOT bound by the Geneva convention..

Huh? Are you claiming that the rebels fighting the US Occupation in Iraq shoudn't be corvered by the Conventions!?!?!

[Dark Vengeance]

Huh? Are you claiming that the rebels fighting the US Occupation in Iraq shoudn't be corvered by the Conventions!?!?!

The point is that we have placed ourselves in a position where the rules do not apply for our enemy, yet they apply to us.

Not saying we shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher standard, just irritated by the fact that scenarios exist where some of our troops get killed because we follow the rules, and they don't.

Since they are not the army of a sovereign nation, there is no accountability....they have no reason to follow these same rules. When they do the shit to our guys, we are the only ones that pay the price.

When that price is the lives of American soldiers, I get a bit irritated. Nobody on the other side is giving a second thought to the humane treatment of our soldiers. Particularly from the staunch anti-war crowd, I get really irritated when they seem more concerned about an Iraqi being photographed naked than they are with how American soldiers are treated.

That sort of thing just causes me to believe that there has got to be a better way....that perhaps the current rules need to be modernized to reflect this type of conflict. I don't see the harm in looking into it, if there is the potential to add accountability for the enemy and ultimately save the lives of our troops.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[eldaec]

That sort of thing just causes me to believe that there has got to be a better way....that perhaps the current rules need to be modernized to reflect this type of conflict. I don't see the harm in looking into it, if there is the potential to add accountability for the enemy and ultimately save the lives of our troops.

Abusing Iraqis costs American lives.

You are not adding accountability. You are telling terrorists that if you harm us, we will harm more people you don't know and turn more arabs over to the terrorist cause. You think that the terrorists were anything less than delighted when those pictures came out?

People are not getting pissy (only) because it's immoral. People are getting pissy because it's counter productive.

Defeating Al Qaeda is a political objective - not a military objective.

I'd also note that this is exactly the reason you won the American war of fricking Independence.

Various elements in the British army and British government at the time felt that if they shot at and pissed off enough colonials you'd all come around to their way of thinking. Didn't really work out for them either.

[stray]

Various elements in the British army and British government at the time felt that if they shot at and pissed off enough colonials you'd all come around to their way of thinking. Didn't really work out for them either.

Because Americans were thinking the same thing.

[daveNYC]

[If you crush enough of their fucking heads in, they'll quit. Simple as that.

That didn't work in Algeria, Israel, Vietnam, South Africa, or Sri Lanka.  Why exactly do you think it will work in Iraq?

[HaemishM]

How do we make everyone love us?  I have no clue.  I doubt it's even possible.  But we need to do something to bring about a net decrease in the number of terrorists.

The trick is not to get them to love us. The trick is to keep them from hating us with the white-hot passion of the sun. Shit, I'm not sure we love the Brits, but we don't hate them.

We have to change the perception of Americans and American corporations as a bunch of carpet-baggers who will come into your country and pay someone to enslave the populace to make cheap-ass goods for the lazy Americans back home. We need to change the perception that Americans will blow shit up whenever we feel like it, especially if there is money to be made in it.

EDIT:

Not saying we shouldn't hold ourselves to a higher standard, just irritated by the fact that scenarios exist where some of our troops get killed because we follow the rules, and they don't.

Since they are not the army of a sovereign nation, there is no accountability....they have no reason to follow these same rules. When they do the shit to our guys, we are the only ones that pay the price.

The Fedayeen, during the actual war before we toppled the regime, were using tactics like hiding in schools, firing into crowds, and all other manner of non-Geneva convention style shit while they were members of a sovereign nation. So they changed the rules. Should we then have ignored the Geneva Convention because they were?

See, it doesn't matter if your enemy doesn't follow it, because it only works if you DO follow it. It's an agreement. You agree to it. The minute a nation doesn't agree to it, after having criticized another country for not following it, you give the opponent the excuse to not use it as well. And then no one uses it. And we descend back into an even more brutal form of warfare than we already have.

No, as a nation who agreed to the Geneva Convention, YOU STICK TO IT. It's called keeping the moral high ground.

Our administration apparently doesn't care about that, which is why they only agreed to sign that treaty about war crimes so long as their soldiers were exempt from being prosecuted for any war crimes under that commission.

[Dark Vengeance]

Abusing Iraqis costs American lives.

You are not adding accountability. You are telling terrorists that if you harm us, we will harm more people you don't know and turn more arabs over to the terrorist cause. You think that the terrorists were anything less than delighted when those pictures came out?

You seem determined to believe that I'm asking for the rules to be changed so that the prison abuses are made okay. I'm not....stop reading that into my posts.

I happen to think that the prison abuses are shameful, and have given our entire military a big black eye. I'm pissed off about it....and I'm equally pissed off that the left is donning their Michael Moore caps and trying to point the finger at Rumsfeld and even Bush. I'm pissed off that this overshadowed the execution of Nick Berg, because our enemies immediately displayed for us that they are more than happy to outdo our worst on exponential levels.

I just think that we need to evaluate the rules....to what extent can we adhere strictly to the rules, when our enemies are more than willing to use mosques and hospitals as staging grounds? Or when insurgents are willing to ambush our soldiers in the midst of the civilian population?

Are you familiar with the Geneva conventions as they apply to civilians and POWs??? When reading through them, it strikes me that POWs are entitled to conditions that are significantly better than the daily lives of most Iraqi civilians...possibly even better than some American civilians.

The rules regarding what constitutes a POW (Article 4) do not appear to include terrorists that have come into the country. Yet, they enjoy the same protections under Article 5...they get protection by default. This is in contrast to the civilian rules, including:

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

Iraqi insurgents are clearly covered...I'm thinking more along the lines of foreign terrorists that are fighting alongside them. Could we hold their nation of origin accountable for their actions, provided that that State is bound by the conventions? Or perhaps a state that had harbored or supported them? That'd be my preference...certainly moreso than simply saying that the conventions not apply.

If they are going to act in that way, they would be bringing hardship upon their country, or the country that harbors them....this is not only potentially undesirable for them, but could further motivate countries not only to refuse to harbor terrorists, but to active seek to expel them from their country.

Bring the noise.
Cheers...............

[Comstar]

Since they are not the army of a sovereign nation, there is no accountability....they have no reason to follow these same rules.

When that price is the lives of American soldiers, I get a bit irritated. Nobody on the other side is giving a second thought to the humane treatment of our soldiers.

Well they WERE an "army of a sovereign nation" till you broke it.  Or do you think ther're working for ANOTHER nation? Iran perhaps? Or that's right, the PENTAGON was working for Iranain intellegence.

The iraqi's fighting the occupation are fighting for Iraq, or at least thier version of it.

Besides if you want it so the other side DOES treat you with the geneve convetions, dosn't that mean you have to too?

That sort of thing just causes me to believe that there has got to be a better way....that perhaps the current rules need to be modernized to reflect this type of conflict. I don't see the harm in looking into it, if there is the potential to add accountability for the enemy and ultimately save the lives of our troops..

"...don't see the harm...". Uh huh. That prison and the ensuring photos that destroyed america's credability for the next 10 years, you did not see?

It dosn't save you're troops. It only adds to the size of the enemy. it generally does not give you information you want, it just gives you bad info you think you want.



Any anyway, why is this war DIFFERENT??? Example: London took 10000+ (30000?) causlties during WW2. You seem to be aruging that the british should have tortured the luftwaffe bombing crews.

Want to know how the Luftwaffe got THIER intel later in the war? NICE TREATMENT. It's amazing how much intel you can get when you're supringly NICE rather than using the expected Gestopo methods.


Hey here's a nice thought. When I said "Gestopo methods" you knew what I was talking about right? Well, if I said Abu Garihib" methods, everyone knows that THAT means too.

And they weill for a long time to come. THAT is one result BushCo has accomplished.

[stray]

That didn't work in Algeria, Israel, Vietnam, South Africa, or Sri Lanka. Why exactly do you think it will work in Iraq?

That all depends on if you think it only applies to oppressors, not the oppressed. I'd say Vietnam crushed our heads in, so my statement still applies. Apartheid was ended in much the same way, because the whites were overwhelmed. South African law didn't change because of the ideals neccesarily, they changed because of bloodshed. Sri Lanka, ditto. I guess Israel remains to be seen. Why I think it'll work is because it works in nature all the time. I don't want to come off as too Nietzschian, but just watch the Discovery channel.

I didn't say to apply cruelty to Iraqi soldiers, just terrorists. I love MLK and Gandhi and all that, man, but do you really think those kind of methods will ever work for terrorists? We can see that it works with politicians, who have some kind of status and reputation to uphold. But terrorists? These guys are far unreasonable than your average redneck. I bet Nicholas Berg tried a FUCKLOAD of reasoning, persuasion, and acted out his best impression of a "Good American"..but it didn't do him any good.

[daveNYC]

In those conflicts, the dominant party thought that the best way to win was to kill members of the other side until they gave up.  In the end the French left Algeria, the Palestinians hate the Israelis more then ever, North Vietnam won the war despite losing every battle, apartheid ended with negotiations, not revolution, and Sri Lanka's conflict is being negotiated (sorta) after umpteen years of suicide bombings and army raids.  I see no reason why the US won't eventually be forced out of Iraq.  Of course we won't say we were forced out, we'll just say we've achieved our objectives, pledge our support for the poor suckers in charge of Baghdad (and probably damn little else), and walk (quickly) towards the exit.

All stick, no carrot doesn't work.  Existing terrorists won't respond to a carrot, that's what the stick's for, but potential terrorists might be stopped from signing up for the cause if our carrot convinces them that we aren't such bastards.

[Dark Vengeance]

You seem to be aruging that the british should have tortured the luftwaffe bombing crews.

Hey, let's see if you can possibly misunderstand me any more than you already have, okay? Maybe you can try and put more words into my mouth.

Asking for accountability != asking for torture. Stupid fuckers can't get past that. Asking for account ability is not asking for torture. Read that a few more times until it sinks the fuck into your thick skull.

Modernizing the rules, and periodically re-evaluating them != a request to rip up the geneva conventions. The conventions are based upon mutual agreement, mutual adherence, and the notion that a state can be held accountable for the actions of it's troops. Guess what? Terrorist groups, such as those that went into Iraq to take potshots at our guys, are 0 for 3 there. I'd like to see someone held accountable, ideally any state that has harbored or aided those terrorists. Iraqi insurgents, of course, are another issue....they are fully and specifically protected by the geneva conventions (though with the tactics employed by many, they are only covered under the provisions of Article 5)....the conventions themselves don't have a situation where a combatant isn't covered, yet they have situations where civilians are not covered. Back-fucking-asswards.

I'm all for a higher standard, I'm all for the moral high ground. Read the language of the conventions. Some pretty broad, sweeping rules there....some that border on the ridiculous. After reading them, I'm not sure that ANYONE has ever abided by them all. Based on the vague language, some would argue that I can't call a POW a "fucking idiot" without breaking the rules. I'm not in favor of physical or psychological torture, or even what I'd categorize as abuse.

Some terrorist wants to saw the head off of Nick Berg, that's just fine....but if we take that guy into custody, we must permit him the use of tobacco products. WTF is that all about? They can decapitate prisoners, we can't put in a frickin no smoking policy.

They can take an American corpse and parade it through the street, we cannot take $20 from their pocket unless an officer handles the process and documents what was taken from the prisoner, and then secures those funds.

I'm not saying that we should be able to parade them through the streets, or photograph them in naked pyramids. I'm just saying that we should have the ability to hold states accountable that have harbored them, and IMO, we could probably go ahead and take away their cigarettes.

But I'm sure you'll tell me how that means I want to advocate the slaughter of Iraqi children or some nonsense. So please proceed.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[HaemishM]

Holding states that have harbored terrorists accountable really doesn't have much to do with the Geneva Convention, unless you are trying to say we shouldn't afford those states the rights of the Geneva Convention. Because they are still sovereign states whose combatants deserve the rights of the Convention.

And it still has fuckall to do with the terrorists themselves.

[HaemishM]

I think this really captures the problem with Bush foreign policy so well, I just had to share.

[WayAbvPar]

I think this really captures the problem with Bush foreign policy so well, I just had to share.

Heh. A little too close to the truth!

[daveNYC]

I think this really captures the problem with Bush foreign policy so well, I just had to share.

Nice.

[eldaec]

Some terrorist wants to saw the head off of Nick Berg, that's just fine....but if we take that guy into custody, we must permit him the use of tobacco products. WTF is that all about? They can decapitate prisoners, we can't put in a frickin no smoking policy.

You can execute him if you like (after a trial and so forth).

What you can't do is drag other iraqis off the street and on only the say so of people smart enough to pose for photos of naked prisoner pyramids, start assuming they must have been terrorists and therefore declare abusing them to be less bad that it otherwise might be.

[Romp]

I didn't say to apply cruelty to Iraqi soldiers, just terrorists. I love MLK and Gandhi and all that, man, but do you really think those kind of methods will ever work for terrorists? We can see that it works with politicians, who have some kind of status and reputation to uphold. But terrorists? These guys are far unreasonable than your average redneck. I bet Nicholas Berg tried a FUCKLOAD of reasoning, persuasion, and acted out his best impression of a "Good American"..but it didn't do him any good.

They wont work on terrorists but what the US has to concentrate on is increasing its standing in the international arena (which is at an ALL time low, and I mean all time as in since the USA came into existence) and stop using violent methods which draw recruits to the terrorists.

Superficially it may seem like bombing the hell out of Fallujah because 'terrorists' are there is going to hurt the terrorists but in actuality it hurts the US even more.  Because the international and esp Arab news media show the pictures of the dead and mutilated children and women who die at American hands.  And Al Qaeda gets even more recruits.

[Comstar]

I didn't say to apply cruelty to Iraqi soldiers, just terrorists. I love MLK and Gandhi and all that, man, but do you really think those kind of methods will ever work for terrorists?

Fine. Tell me which ones are the terrorists.

When you're orbital mind scanner satallite is finished, it can clear the streets of muggers too.

We can see that it works with politicians, who have some kind of status and reputation to uphold. But terrorists? These guys are far unreasonable than your average redneck.

I am all for putting various members of BushCo through the same things you want terrorists to go through! Mabye then the'll admit to making any mistake.

[stray]

They wont work on terrorists but what the US has to concentrate on is increasing its standing in the international arena (which is at an ALL time low, and I mean all time as in since the USA came into existence) and stop using violent methods which draw recruits to the terrorists.

Lol, I'm sorry, but America hasn't really done shit. We're dealing with a bunch of jealous cavemen, that's all. Jealously: It's goes with being a superpower. Probably the most tame superpower the world has ever known. I'm not saying the USA is perfect, I'm just saying it's no different than anywhere else..and in some cases, a helluva lot better. When citizens of other countries like calling out America as less than civil, I call out hypocrisy.

This thread is evidence enough of how many well meaning Americans are out there, how they view their country's place in the international scene. We don't deserve to die (Do you get it?!). As for the violent methods thing again: Yes they will work. You see, it's already working on us (so quick too).

[stray]

I am all for putting various members of BushCo through the same things you want terrorists to go through! Mabye then the'll admit to making any mistake.

Ah, so violence does work, eh?

[Tebonas]

You might have been dealing with a bunch of jealous cavemen once upon a time, but Bush drove you well into the "Everybody who is not slavely devoted to kissing your ass at least distrusts you" area. And we are talking about countries that find themself to be better off than you (if thats true or not is another debate of course, but what counts here is their perception, just like Jealousy is about perception).

Please continue to delude yourself, it is different in other countries, and it has been different in your own country. Thats not critizicing your country, but current events in your country. If you can't keep those two things apart, its really hard to discuss things with you.

[stray]

You might have been dealing with a bunch of jealous cavemen once upon a time, but Bush drove you well into the "Everybody who is not slavely devoted to kissing your ass at least distrusts you" area.

And we still are dealing with them, and it'll probably get worse. As for the kissing ass comment, I honestly have no idea what your talking about. I must have missed that. Clue me in please.

Please continue to delude yourself, it is different in other countries, and it has been different in your own country. Thats not critizicing your country, but current events in your country. If you can't keep those two things apart, its really hard to discuss things with you.

And it's really hard to discuss things with someone who doesn't accept that "Shit happens"...Everywhere I might add. The soldiers will be punished, probably even more than they deserve, end of story. What's to discuss?

Go right ahead and criticize, but the good thing is that you don't want to kill us for it...Which brings me back to the cavemen, who do. Like it or not, we need to go beyond criticism, and someone needs to be villianized. I just want to point out that it has to be those guys, not us.

[Tebonas]

"Shit happens" is indeed something I'm not comfortable with. That statement too often leads to a shrug and "Well, can't do anything about it, can we?".

I certainly don't want to discuss the events, there are procedures in place to punish all responsible parties, or all responsible parties that are not important enough to have somebody else fall on his sword for them, time will tell.

What I'm discussing here are your comments, which border on excusing everything your people do because the other people are bad. Whereas I think the one thing has nothing to do with the other. Everybody who does things worth to be called villainous has the right to be villainzed. So no, it doesn't have to be them, it can be everybody who lets himself to be dragged down into the dredges.

[Dark Vengeance]

You can execute him if you like (after a trial and so forth).

What you can't do is drag other iraqis off the street and on only the say so of people smart enough to pose for photos of naked prisoner pyramids, start assuming they must have been terrorists and therefore declare abusing them to be less bad that it otherwise might be.

Listen up, you fuckwitted cockgobbler, because I'm only going to say it one more time.

I don't want shit like Abu Ghraib happening. I don't want anything similar to it. I don't WANT us to execute the terrorists and/or Iraqi insurgents in our custody....and certainly not without some form of due process. I JUST THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER TAKING AWAY THEIR MARLBOROS.

But if you insist on pounding home the point that "we shouldn't be allowed to torture prisoners", go right the fuck ahead. I agree with that.

ABU GHRAIB = BAD. That's what you are saying...I've agreed with that several times now. So what the fuck are you babbling about?

Bring the noise.
Cheers............

[Dark Vengeance]

Everybody who does things worth to be called villainous has the right to be villainzed.

According to a radio broadcast by O'Reilly last night, Abu Ghraib has been the subject of front page stories in the NY Times for 28 consecutive days.

IIRC, this would rival NY Times coverage of 9-11, Watergate, and Pearl Harbor.

I agree that Abu Ghraib was bad...I'll even concede that it was bad on a historic level. But is it bad on a historic level that rivals Watergate, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11? Is it being blown out of proportion?

I guess it really depends on which candidate you plan on voting for this fall.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[daveNYC]

Lets see, Iraq is the biggest story of the year, and Abu Ghraib is the biggest story of Iraq.  Yeah, they should be focusing on stories of puppies or something.  Damn left-wing conspiracy!

BTW: The front page today covers the end of the fighting in Najif, and the large amount of Iraqi scrap metal (some of it with UN inspector tags) that is showing up in Jordanian metal yards.

[WayAbvPar]

Everybody who does things worth to be called villainous has the right to be villainzed.

According to a radio broadcast by O'Reilly last night, Abu Ghraib has been the subject of front page stories in the NY Times for 28 consecutive days.

IIRC, this would rival NY Times coverage of 9-11, Watergate, and Pearl Harbor.

I agree that Abu Ghraib was bad...I'll even concede that it was bad on a historic level. But is it bad on a historic level that rivals Watergate, Pearl Harbor, and 9-11? Is it being blown out of proportion?

I guess it really depends on which candidate you plan on voting for this fall.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

And how long was Clinton's blowjob front page news? It may not have been the lead story every single day, but it was in the news cycle for the better part of 2 years. I don't recall anyone being beheaded in retribution for it either (although one could argue that decapitation would go a long way towards improving Linda Tripp's looks and personality).