I was answering your question about why we had released some prisoners. We didn't know if they were up to something, so we had to interrogate them. You didn't say you were talking about abuse, you were wondering why the 450 released were held in the first place. That was the answer: they had to be interrogated.

That's why they are doing an investigation, so we don't have to rely on nightly guesses from niteowl about what was going on.

I don't have any problem with punishing the guilty soldiers or anyone who might have aided them or even ordered them to do what they did. I don't think it's cause to damn the whole country by calling us worse than Nazis, however. You're the one who made the Nazi comment first, which is cause to wonder if you just hate America, and somewhat of flamebait while we're on the subject. Don't dish out what you can't take back.

Having to go all the way to Scotland to get your news about capitol hill again, eh Spankling? I wonder who wrote this so we kind find out more details:

FOREIGN STAFF

Oh. Let me just look up some other articles by this "Mister Staff".

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I got yer "Mr. Staff" right here sparky.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Basically what I am asking: do you ever get tired of posting fake news stories?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Basically what I'm asking, do you ever get tired of shooting every messanger that doesn't deliver the straight Republican party line?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

So basically you have no problem with abuse of prisoners as long as it's called "interrogation"?

No, there is an investigation because the US military got busted. I highly doubt that if the photos were never released and John Q. Public never knew anything about it, that the military would stand up and say, "Oh by the way, we've been abusing prisoners for months now and we want to make a full confession...investigate...set things right".

I didn't say (there's that phrase again) that we were worse than the Nazis. I said "second coming". Damning the whole country...Makk you are beginning to sound more and more like those right-wing mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. What's next? Are some soldiers gonna die over there now because of my previous posts? And an FYI...I can take it. Question is...can you, without resorting to troll-like behavior? I doubt it, but it is nice to dream.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

What party line is involved in pointing out that quotes are taken out of context? What party are you talking about? I didn't know the Republicans were undivided on the Iraq issue, if that's what you're talking about.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That was the answer: they had to be interrogated.

---

So basically you have no problem with abuse of prisoners as long as it's called "interrogation"?

---

No. I think you're practicing partisan apologetics, frankly. I did not say the statement implied anything. It says that we are immediately threatened quite directly. I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge that.

This is where the "personal attack issue" comes in because at this point I don't see how you could honestly hold that interpretation.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

I apply your answers to new questions because I'd still like to hear what your reasoning is behind your continual downplaying of what our soldiers did over there. Maybe you should get real.

When you start comparing Americans to Nazis, there's no point in arguing semantics. Whether you said "it's the second coming of the Nazis" or "we are worse than Nazis," it's equally inflamatory. Why don't you take a trip to the Holocaust Museum and get a little dose of perspective. "It's just a little comparisson to Nazis! Jeez!"

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

No. I think you're practicing partisan apologetics, frankly. I did not say the statement implied anything. It says that we are immediately threatened quite directly. I'm sorry you refuse to acknowledge that.

The only thing that I am apologetic for is your inability to read the English language. He said that OF the terror states, the threat Iraq poses is the MOST immediate, period. Just because you want that to be him saying "Iraq is an immediate threat", doesn't make it so.

Ok, for a while I thought maybe you could only barely read, and you really thought I was answering different questions. I'm not downplaying anything, I'm just answering the questions. The abuse of the prisoners is exactly what it is. Why are you up-playing it? Why does it mean we are Nazis now? Why don't you do a ten-page double spaced papers on "Why the Nazis were so Bad" and get it back to me by the end of the weekend.

What do you want? An apology?

No, you asked why I was "trolling" with my comment about your hatred, and I pointed out that you made a comment about American soldiers being like Nazis, to which I responded. If you can't see how that is inflammatory, maybe you need to learn a little more about the Nazis.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Hi.

---
Ich Bin Ein StripCreator

Ooooooh nooooooo! Don't let Thread Nazi see me! He'll be mean to me!!

---
PLEASE DO NOT BE PREJUDICING!! SEX IS OK AS LONG AS WOMAN OR SMALL BOY, BUT NO GOAT!!

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings Makk. I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Need a hug?

Hi Thread_Nazi, welcome to the thread. You know what to do.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

You're the one who accused me of trolling (in the FGH forum no less), and I just pointed out that what I said which elicited that remark from you was in response to your remark about Nazis. I didn't come out of the blue and make a remark about your feelings about America. And I didn't say my feelings were hurt, but if you can't take an inflammatory remark, don't dish them out.

I will assume your wishing the thread to be closed is your concession of defeat on this matter. I answered all of your questions, and you're the one who posted segments of my answers to different questions (which you even admit to doing) and the one who brought up the Nazi comparrison. Nazi nazi nazi. If only the insurgent in Iraq were wearing swastikas and targetting jews, you'd get behind the military effort.

Oh wait.

Well at least they didn't have swastikas on when they were chopping his head off! Whew! ;)

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I will never, ever support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If that makes me unamerican in your eyes, oh well. It'll be tough knowing that you think bad of me, but I think I'll pull through.

That was a joke. Duh. And I will make no concession of defeat, because I still think you completely downplay the abuse of prisoners. Why else would you compare it to what Saddam did?

My offer to give you a hug still stands though, Makk. Seriously.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

I didn't say it makes you unamerican. I said you comparing us to Nazis because of some rogue prison guards makes your biases evident.

You never supported the war in Iraq, so the abuse scandal is just another thing for you to moan about. You can't be expected to put it in any kind of perspective, because you are only going to use it to reinforce your opinion.

If you're against the war, fine, but don't pretend like before you didn't care, and now suddenly because of the abuses you are damning the war.

I never said I thought bad of you, I just would like some honesty about your opinion. You seem like you are itching to condemn the U.S. at the drop of a hat, and you confirm that by saying that you "would never ever support the occupation".

That was a joke. Duh.

Yeah calling Americans Nazis and then using the Thread Nazi user name is pretty hilarious. Good one! ;) LOL!

I didn't bring up the comparisson, boorite did. Like I said, the abuses are what they are. Boorite posted quotes suggesting that the abuse was WORSE than Saddam's abuse. That is up-playing and worth commenting on.

In all of my responses to you I didn't try to justify the abuse, except in your fabricated responses.

I think you're imagining someone you want to argue against because you're citing points of view I've never expressed. Why don't you just type up what you want your opponent to say, since you've exhausted all attempts to cut in half my sentences to make me say what you want me to say.

I'm sorry you seem to have interpreted my assessment of your posts with hostility. If you want to have a normal conversation I am always game. If you want to admit that the Nazi comparisson was gross hyperbole that would be a good starting point, but if you maintain that position there's no way you can expect to have a normal discussion with me. Unless you want to go through point by point and compare our side versus the insurgents in terms of their Nazi-esque qualities.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Mak mak mak mak mak. Using more words that don't make sense doesn't make a point and doesn't win an argument. Having a viable point of view might help.

Try it out.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

What other kind of perspective is there though? If abusing prisoners is an interrogation tactic, don't you find that kind of wrong? Plus, it spits right in the face of what we're supposed to be doing over there: Freeing the Iraqi people. That's my point.

I was against this invasion from the get go, for one main reason: That this country should've focused ALL energy and resources on nabbing Al-Qaida. Yes, we're in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc chasing them down...but we should've went balls to the wall, full on, in trying get them, not pissing around in Iraq. If there was concrete evidence fron the start that Saddam was a threat to our safety, then maybe it would've been justified. The War On Terror was spurred by 9-11 and since Al-Qaida was behind the attacks, wouldn't that make sense to go after them first?

Everything that has happened in Iraq since the beginning just reinforces in me the idea that we shouldn't have gone over there in the first place. It would be nice to see some good news come out of Iraq for once.

I didn't post under the Thread Nazi name though...

quote:

---

I didn't bring up the comparisson, boorite did. Like I said, the abuses are what they are. Boorite posted quotes suggesting that the abuse was WORSE than Saddam's abuse. That is up-playing and worth commenting on.

In all of my responses to you I didn't try to justify the abuse, except in your fabricated responses.

I think you're imagining someone you want to argue against because you're citing points of view I've never expressed. Why don't you just type up what you want your opponent to say, since you've exhausted all attempts to cut in half my sentences to make me say what you want me to say.

---

Interesting reading...

A memo sugesting they only fear getting tried for war crimes, no committing them.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/

Greedy bastards...
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/politics/8726376.htm

quote:

---

"Sometimes we would go with empty trailers; we would go both ways," said one driver who goes by the nickname Swerve and declined to be named for fear of retribution. "We'd turn around and go back with empty trailers."

An independent expert on trucking economics put the cost of a 300-mile one-way run at a minimum of $1,050. Researcher Mark Berwick at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute at North Dakota State University used a computer model, the fuel costs that Halliburton charged the Army and the truckers' salaries to come up with that figure.

---

I think you're assuming it was policy to violate the Geneva Conventions for the interrogation of the POWs. You're right, if it was, that's defeats the purpose of setting up "law and order". With all due respect, just because you dislike the administration, that doesn't mean that yes it was official policy for POWs in Iraq. If it was, and it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, then the appropriate heads should roll, period. It doesn't make the soldiers who believed they were abiding by law and order wrong though (not the abusing soldiers, the rest of them), but it would give them cause to feel betrayed by their leaders.

Regardless of your cynicism I'd prefer to wait until the investigation is over, and I still think it speaks volumes of America as a nation that we'd seek justice for this in the middle of wartime.

No, that's not justification of the abuse, I'm just saying 5 or 6 idiot prison guards don't taint all of America.

You perspective is valid, though mine is different. I think turning Iraq into a productive member of the Middle East would in the long-term help to change the situations in the region which provide Al-Qaeda a base. Neither of us know the end-result of all the variables, so I can agree to disagree here.

And I don't think we've now "made things worse". I think we are now fighing the very elements that would want to make Iraq a stronghold of terror. We're not stomping down the common man, we're responding to acts of terror, and we are fighting for stability. Piss on this notion if you want, but look at our rules of engagement, and look at the insurgents' rules of engagement, and make an honest comparrison.

Where else could we go? Unless a country is openly hostile, playing by their rules is the only option. For instance we can't go into the Phillipines and take out known terrorists, because it's against the constitution of the Phillipines. Like you said, we can't trash law and order to protect law and order. We can be patient and train their military in accordance with their laws, though.

I interpret "balls to the wall" as all out violence. Against what in where, if this is what you mean?

A lot of the Al-Qaeda hunting is done under the FBI. Invading Iraq doesn't really drain the FBI. More troops won't help you find someone if you don't know where they are.

My perspective is, Saddam was operating outside the peace of the international community, so 1) if he didn't make an effort to come back into the fold, "all is fair" in terms of how we deal with him and 2) Iraq might as well have been a lawless shelter for terrorists acting with the same interests as Saddam. I don't really want to get drawn out into another debate about at what point a nation rises to the level of Iraq. If you think Iraq under Saddam only had the best intentions against the U.S. and our allies, I will leave it at me saying I disagree.

I agree that the bad news has overshadowed the good, and that more good news would be a good thing.

My apologies then.

I didn't bring up the context of Saddam's torture though, boorite did. I wasn't justifying the abuses, I was poo-pooing the notion that it was actually worse than Saddam's torture. Saying it weakens our moral high ground is a sane argument that I could, though I disagree with, believe to be an opinion which a sane person could hold.

I don't know how "being exposed in a sexual way" is different than being naked but ok, yes, they could take being forced to be naked or having object forcibly inserting into their anuses taken more seriously than Spankling takes it on a nightly basis.

My point is that the comparrison just isn't valid. No, I'm not saying that means the abuse is A-ok, but there no point in comparing it to Saddam's actions. That would be like Arabs punching an American in the crotch and saying it's as bad as a prisoner being sodomized with a glow stick. No, it's probably not that bad, but it doesn't make it ok. It doesn't then justify the actions of the prison guards, it's apples and oranges.

Yeah, it does, and that might be where even acts of intimidation which are sanctioned under the Geneva Conventions are portrated in a sick way. They lose any ability to claim that they were trying to force information direly needed out of these people when they are grinning and posing while they do it. In fact I think there's a worthwhile argument that even photographing the prisoners and broadcasting this is in violation of the Geneva Conventions (visa vie the shame felt by other Arabs not even detained, or the shame felt if you even think that you are identified). It's all wrong, and it all needs to be punished, and it's not why I think we should be Iraq, and I hope everyone involved gets sentenced to 20 years hard labor.

It shouldn't tear down the reputation of honest soldiers, that is the insinuation I take issue with, that you suggest all soldiers are monsters now. That is how I read your remarks and maybe it was mistaken.

You're missing a chance to take a shot at me, because earlier I said I don't care if they bend the rules against known Al-Qaeda as long as they aren't classified as POWs. I will say that if they are known Al-Qaeda, and we need info from them, and we're not violating the Geneva Conventions, I don't take issue with harsher treatments. I make that distinction, though I believe you could hold a valid argument that that is not the most correct course of action to take.

My thought is a POW who is only a suspected insurgent should be treated as if he may be innocent (which is what any of us would expect is we were wrongly captured by a foreign enemy). A known Al-Qaeda with information which might save American lives and the understood intent to kill as many Americans as possible shouldn't be afforded his pride, in my opinion.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

I think you're assuming it was policy to violate the Geneva Conventions for the interrogation of the POWs. You're right, if it was, that's defeats the purpose of setting up "law and order". With all due respect, just because you dislike the administration, that doesn't mean that yes it was official policy for POWs in Iraq. If it was, and it was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, then the appropriate heads should roll, period. It doesn't make the soldiers who believed they were abiding by law and order wrong though (not the abusing soldiers, the rest of them), but it would give them cause to feel betrayed by their leaders.

Regardless of your cynicism I'd prefer to wait until the investigation is over, and I still think it speaks volumes of America as a nation that we'd seek justice for this in the middle of wartime.

No, that's not justification of the abuse, I'm just saying 5 or 6 idiot prison guards don't taint all of America.

---

The fact that we consider oursevles accountable to the international community is the only reason we'd have to save face. Show me another nation as accountable as we are.

That's why they are considered POWs and not enemy combatants, unless they are coming in from another country.

But where were the violent insurgents when Saddam had control of their country? Why weren't the uprising then?

Just because the attention of the media is focused in Iraq doesn't mean all other law enforcement and military operations have shut down.

It's the motives of Saddam Hussein that make it too dangerous for him to be in charge of a country. That's the only proof I need.

It could have been a coordinating ground for terrorists. That doesn't mean they attack within Iraq, as demonstrated by Afghanistan. It would be state-sponsored terror, not terrotist action within Iraq.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Coalition troops win immunity from litigation for atrocities. It's affirming to see that our side plays by rules our enemies won't. Oh, wait, our side won't either. k.

It must be a constant source of chagrin to the American anti-war movement that their most popular representative in Europe is Michael Moore. The Observer has a few interesting questions for the fat cunt.

Ha ha.

That's just making them immune from Iraqi justice, not American justice. We're not going to try Saddam Hussein, we're going to let the Iraqis do it. They wouldn't want us to try their war criminals anymore than we'd want them to try ours.

I don't really mind Michael Moore so much as his unwitting supporters. I get the feeling that when he's schmoozed by Hollywood, they're saying "you're saying what we all assume we should be saying, but won't". Michael Moore to me is like Rush Limbaugh. If you don't like him, don't pay attention to him.

It's no wonder why France loves him, though, since he completely ripped of their "Bush staged 9-11" conspiracy theory.

I've had a problem with Michael Moore since he cashed in on the Columbine tragedy. He didn't just may political hay about it, he cashed in on the name Columbine. Him cashing in on 9-11 is pretty revolting also.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Not bad mak - you're almost getting the idea. He's an entertainer. not the news.

As if Bush et al haven't running empty trucks up and down Iraq for tax payer money.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet