Botellines

Of course you say it is a good comment. By bringing in the action of the other bad people you avoid to take full responsability for the actions of the side you are on. I fully agree with Tonto and indeed, it is a good comment, torturing and murdering are despicable no matter who does it. I haven´t ever said otherwise. But just behaving a little bit better than the worst is not convincing anyone that you are the good guys. I hope you are not talking about me. If so, you are just trying to mislead. Despicable things are done by despicable individuals who are under the orders of people. Arent you curious to know if those who give the orders are also despicable? So far there has been several pictures of tortures in two diferent periods of time, it would be naive to pretend that it has only been those times and that it hasn´t ever happened when there was not a camera around. Don´t you think that there is a real possibility that those soldiers are being given permission to mistreat the prisoners by the officers in command? You have a dilema here, you can support your republican agenda by saying that it is just despicable individuals on their own, or your fellow brothers in arms by saying that they have got "orders" from high above rank. Which one do you choose? You may want to remember your words when you treat everybody in fallujah as an insurgent.

clicky CORONADO, Calif. — The U.S. military has launched a criminal investigation into photographs that appear to show Navy SEALs in Iraq sitting on hooded and handcuffed detainees, and photos of what appear to be bloodied prisoners, one with a gun to his head. Some of the photos have date stamps suggesting they were taken in May 2003, which could make them the earliest evidence of possible abuse of prisoners in Iraq. The far more brutal practices photographed in Abu Ghraib prison occurred months later. I guess that there is more than just a couple of bad aples in the basket...

In Spain we had to do military service until just 5 years ago. I am not sure why they stoped it. I do remember that was extremely unfair and almost to the point of unconstitutional, because only guys had to do it, leaving the woman and the guys who had connections in the government with one more year than the rest to advance in their professional career. Also it pretty much worked this way, the first 3 months you had to do boot camp, and the rest 6-8 months you had to work for the military, as military police, driver, admin, whatever for free. I think they paid you like 15$ a month plus public transportation. I kept studying and putting excuses not to go (as most people), now i prefer to support my country by working hard and paying taxes so the really motivated military type guy is well prepared for whatever mission he has to do.

No, you just need to check your priorities when assessing a potential threat. It would help if the money was not in the equation.

You didn´t answer my question, i would apreciate an answer from you or from anyone who supports capital punishment. Is is okay with you the real possibility of taking away the life of an innocent person (aka murder) in order to guarantee the harshest punishment possible for a criminal? Please, do take into consideration that the innocent person put to death, could be you or your family, and that abolishing capital punishment doesn´t mean that the crime will go unpunished.

The way i see it is that if we were always 100% that the guy did it, we could be discussing this subject in a more ethical level and wether we want to give our government that much power. Unfortunately, in any country, not just the U.S, there is too much bias in the judge and in the jury to guarantee a 100% accurate veredict. So weighting the posibility that an innocent gets put to death, against the posibility that a criminal get a life term instead capital punishment, i will go for the last one. Wouldn´t you?

And what would that be? Ever hear of Josef Mengele? He advanced our knowledge of genetics with his research on twins. You are wrong, he did not. Can you point to any significal discovery he made?

You even agrred with me that the U.S lies and has a history of supporting terrorism. So how is stating the absolut truth bad mouthing? All I am saying is that due to the Irak blunder, diplomacy is going to be much harder in Iran. See, at the moment they don´t have much to negotiate with. Put over the table a couple of nukes and the threat to use them or handling them over to AlQaueda if the U.S invade Iran, and then that would be a deterrent for a invasion. You know, people is wondering who is going to be next, Iran or North Korea. To be honest, i don´t feel comfortable at all with Iran having nukes, but have to understand their needs before attempting to negotiate.

LMAO

Ron, are you speaking about Iran or the U.S.? Just my two cents: I think they want WMD, and no matter what kind of deal you make with them, they will try to keep their effort up to get some WMD. I don´t think you should trust them, but not because they has a history of lying (all countries do) or support terrorism (many countries do, including the U.S. Not bashing, just stating facts), but because it is the most sensible thing to do. If you were running a country, you would want the safety of your people, and being labeled as a member of axix of evil by the U.S and Israel so close with an unknown number of WMD, the smartest thing you could do would be getting WMD as well. And what is happening in Iraq doesn´t help at all to see the U.S as a trustworthy country, specially for muslim countries.

It is a very good idea, I didn´t know about those reactors... Do they have any drawback? I see a problem, and the problem is that no matter what they say they most likely want nuclear weapons. After what we have all seen in Irak, no muslim country in his right mind will not be pursuing nuclear capabilities. Irak, had no WMD and he got attacked and invaded for no clear reason. NK, have WMD and is getting diplomatic second chances every other day beyond reason. If Irak had had WMD I very much doubt the U.S would have started that war because it would have been a political suicide.

Exactly, he was shot in the head before he could be made prisoner.

Well, usually prisoners are kept alive, not shoot at the first chance.

In Spain, the terrorist group ETA had till recently the armed wing which put bombs and the political wing in the form of a political party (Herri Batasuna) which not only condoned the terrorist acts but did some propaganda for the cause. They were banned from the political scene until they publicly rejected all forms of terorism. Do you honestly think that those people should be able to participate in the political live of Spain with no problems?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

HMMMMMM!!!!! Trying my hardest not to turn this thread into a gun thread...

Does it make it alright? Poles and Jews were also prisoners in the death camps, as well as many muslims at guantanamo bay. Still they are humans. And by the way, most of them were guilty only of being in the wrong place. Go to your nearest college and sign up for Human Rights 101, it won´t hurt you.

The target was the restaurant in the middle of a residential suburb where some faulty intelligence had located SH and his sons. However the bomb didn´t strike the restaurant but a building block 100 yards away. At the end, it didn´t really matter where the bomb fell because both the restaurant and the buildings were full of civilians and SH was not anywhere near. We differ in what level of collateral damage is acceptable. You say that this is war and that any civilian collateral damage is regretable but okay. I see this as an illegal invasion and my my acceptable level of collateral damage is much lower than yours.

Dude, get your facts straight. Out of those people randomly picked up from the street, many of them were tortured, and some of them died because of the torture. Are you telling me that someone has been executed over criminal charges in Abu Grahib. Don´t make me laugh. (unless you are speaking of Iraquis being executed) None of the links you have provided shows a condemn for torturing or murdering. Are you going to say now that it didn´t happen. [tongue in cheek] But it is on video [/tongue in cheek] And for sure not any of the sentences reflect the severity of the actions. It is you have proven over and over in your posts that you do not take the slightest effort to get your facts right, but nice try though. Tipical response of a computer Whuffo. You don´t learn in college how to surf the net. If in doubt go to your nearest college and ask. Anyway, the links that you hae posted don´t prove your point, they prove my point. I wonder if you chose them randomly...

QuoteAgain you show that you don't understand - there is NO way to guarantee that there will be no casualties outside of the combatants. Quote No, it is you who don´t understand. there is a BIG BIG diference beetwen not being able to guarantee no casualties outside of the combatants and droping 4 bombs in a restaurant full of civilians only because some faulty intelligence report said SH was there. And if you don´t see a clear diference, i guess you will never understand.

Naaahh, i don´t think so, i usually get very mellow and love everybody with LSD.

It is not how military works the concept that i have problems with. If Irak had attacked the U.S. i could try to understand what some people call collateral damage. However, remember that the U.S is there to free the Iraquis and set a democracy (or at least it was last week), not to kill them. To put it in other words The U.S changes unilateraly the government of a country The U.S invades and ocupy a sovereign country Collateral damage or innocent civilians casualties steadily grow day by day. The U.S have the moral high ground. The U.S expects to be praised for saving the world from a non existent threat. It just doesn´t make sense, either you have the moral high ground and don´t kill civilians no matter what, or this is full war, and you are a big bad ocupying force. Take your choice, but be consistent, and of course you cannot have it both ways.

It has happened before. I can post plenty of links where a man shots another over a petty argument. It has happened, and it will happen again. Regarding that poll of yours... Of course no one will admit that there could be a situation when they don´t control their temper. But you don´t believe everything people sais here, right? Go figure, someone threatened to shoot me in this very same forum, yet if you ask him he will probably say he has his temper under control. Okay, i will admit maybe the question it is quite extreme. Few people would shoot someone over a non life threatening argument, but what about to let a petty argument scalate to a life threatening position because you feel safe with your gun, and then be forced to use it? Can you honestly tell me that if you are walking around with your girlfriend and two big bad guys insult her your reaction will be the same if you have a concealed gun than if you don´t? Words only hurt egos, yet some people instead of just walking away or take a defensive stance, they could put themselves in a position where a gun may be eventually drawn.

If what you mean is INTENTIONALLY TARGETED ONLY CIVILIANS i would point out some scandals at Abu Grahib (remember than beetwen 70% and 90% of the prisoners were picked randomly from the streets) If you mean it in the broader sense, what about this link: http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id69.html Surely you don´t think that everybody at the restaurant was a terrorist, right? In any case the bombs landed 100 yards away in a building block killing many civilian. If you drop a bomb where civilians are, you are targetting civilians, it doesn´t matter if there is terrorists or Saddam Hussein and family as well.

That computer background being a bachelor degree in computer science plus CCNP & CCDP Cisco Certifications... God, why are you always questioning my educational background, you must believe yourself very smart . Soldier sentenced to 1 year in Iraq prisoner abuse BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Spec. Jeremy Sivits received the maximum sentence Wednesday for his role in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal as part of a plea deal with prosecutors that leaves him open to testify against other soldiers charged in the mistreatment of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison. The summary court martial. Maximum punishment is 30 days. Officers don’t go to summary court martials, because, one, they can’t be confined in a summary court martial. It’s generally considered for minor disciplinary-type procedures, minor military-type offenses; UA, unauthorized absence, for example, smart-mouth at your commander, et cetera. By posting those links you are further proving my points. Did you even read the content of those links? I bet not, if so you would realize that the last one talks about a trial that will start next year and therefore, DUH, there is no veredict. See, we are trying to have intelligent discussion here, and the least you could do when you join those discussions is first to not attack the poster or at least not make stupid remarks about his/her educational background. How many times have i made you wrong? don´t you get tired? And also, do some research before posting something, it will do wonders for your credibility.