FallingOsh

A more prudent example would be you're standing in a bar and some stranger chucks a beer bottle at your head. Then he chucks another one. a) its a violent act and you take it as such b) laugh it off as good clean fun -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

I didn't realize Dresden and Hiroshima were in Iraq. My geography must suck. I'll pass along your concern for ending WWII. I said nothing about excusing a person's actions. I have a problem with claims that Americans are responsible for people who suicide bomb a market place like that website insinuates. And there's my problem. "The war we started" didn't kill them. The stupid fuck with the chest bomb did. Some civilians were unintentionally killed by coalition troops. Many more were intentionally killed by our enemy. I'm not justifying one because of the other. I'm saying you blame the US for all of those deaths. I blame the people who killed them. It's not even close to that. It's more like we put out several fires but a few houses are still burning. The houses that are still burning are not our fault. There are less houses burning now than there were before. The problem I have is people calling the firefighter an arsonist. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Cause nobody ever died in Iraq before we got there? I think the kurds would disagree. I still don't deny civilian deaths exist and are tragic. I'm just fucking tired of hearing the constant over statement of horrible things America has done. We didn't order the carpet bombing of a city, we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, and we damn sure didn't cause all (and I would venture to say not even most) of the deaths on that site you posted. You'd rather blame us than the idiot strapping a bomb to his bike. If you think Iraq was all peace and love before we got there then pull the blanket back over your eyes and take a nap. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You're doing it for me. I do NOT equate throwing a shoe with ordering the bombing of a city. You have done in this thread. What city did we carpet bomb? The aerial bombing that missed military/political targets is only one aspect. The Iraq Body Count project has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,299 civilians had been killed, primarily by US air and ground forces. So no cities were carpet bombed. Got it. I'm not ignoring the fact that civilians were killed. I just have a problem with you consistently trying to paint the worst possible picture against the US that you can. 7,299 is a lot and 7,299 too many. It does not equate to "hundreds of thousands of innocents killed" as is often claimed. Nor did we ever give an order to carpet bomb a city. That was 7,299 JUST until the end of April 2003! Lots more since then. And bombing was one (and only one) of the actions ordered by our CinC that ended up killing women and children. I agreed that any civilian death is beyond tragic. I'm still arguing your claim that troops were given orders to carpet bomb a city. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You're doing it for me. I do NOT equate throwing a shoe with ordering the bombing of a city. You have done in this thread. What city did we carpet bomb? Here is a tidbit for ya. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Not only does that have nothing to do with orders to carpet bomb a city, but it records every civilian death regardless of who is to blame. Policeman killed by roadside bomb One by roadside bomb Man killed by bomb strapped to bike Those are just 3 in the first ten I read. Were you just chiming in or do you seriously think all of those are America's fault? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Agreed. There have been several instances that have done immense amounts of damage like Abu Ghraib. OTOH, define "properly." I've read reports than many detainees in Gitmo have actually gained weight because they've been fed so well. Personally, it's not a matter of treating prisoners properly. That's a given. I think it's one important thing that seperates us from the enemy. I think the real issue is defining how you want them treated. Steak dinners, cable tv, massages? Or 3 meals a day, a place to sleep, a roof over their head, a right to pray, and no torture? Which one is proper by your standards? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

And that's the fallacy crafted by the Bush administration; more specifically, it disgusts me to say, by its lawyers: that there is this convenient "unclassified" category called "unlawful combatant" to which no protections of law are accorded. Here's the correct legal truth: A person under forcible detention in wartime is either (1) a combatant entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding combatants, (2) a civilian entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention regarding civilians, or (3) a criminal suspect entitled to due process of law. THERE IS NO OTHER CATEGORY - PERIOD. "The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles." Now what? We're not in a war with a nation state. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

So basically you want to categorize everyone picked up as an unlawful combatant.. Guess what.. Just because someone over there rats out some guy down the street.. or in the next villiage... does NOT mean they are acutally one of your scary terrorists.. no matter how much you want him to be one. His treatment is defined in Number 4 not number 3. Re-read my post, take a deep breath, and try again. Someone arrested on the streets is a civilian. Somone who is actively participating in the fight against our troops is not a civilian. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

The part you bolded is discussing civilians. The non-uniformed fighters are unlawful combatants, not civilians. If Joe Blow is arrested off the streets of Baghdad then he would be a civilian. Those actively engaging in a fight against our troops are not afforded the same status. POW status may be awarded but it is not required. The foggy part comes when deciding whether the combatant is a national of a hostile state. They are not really a national of any state, but are the enemy. From the link; "The GCs do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles." Which takes us back to the beginning. Art III only details treatment of civilians. *Before anyone goes ape shit on my post, I've said multiple times that I do not support torture. Just trying to put some point to the GC argument. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You're doing it for me. I do NOT equate throwing a shoe with ordering the bombing of a city. You have done in this thread. What city did we carpet bomb? The aerial bombing that missed military/political targets is only one aspect. The Iraq Body Count project has reported that by the end of the major combat phase up to April 30, 2003, 7,299 civilians had been killed, primarily by US air and ground forces. So no cities were carpet bombed. Got it. I'm not ignoring the fact that civilians were killed. I just have a problem with you consistently trying to paint the worst possible picture against the US that you can. 7,299 is a lot and 7,299 too many. It does not equate to "hundreds of thousands of innocents killed" as is often claimed. Nor did we ever give an order to carpet bomb a city. Back to the shoe ninja... there are protests going on in the streets of Iraq calling for his release. Guess what, democracy is allowing them to peacfully protest. I think it's great they're able to do that and sad if they, or you, don't realize why they now have the right to. This quote from his employer is particularly ammusing. "Al-Baghdadia television demands that the Iraqi authorities immediately release their stringer Muntadhar al-Zaidi, in line with the democracy and freedom of expression that the American authorities promised the Iraqi people on the ousting of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. ... Any measures against Muntadhar will be considered the acts of a dictatorial regime". Right, so fuck you for coming here but let me go because this is a democracy, damnit. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You're doing it for me. I do NOT equate throwing a shoe with ordering the bombing of a city. You have done in this thread. What city did we carpet bomb? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

If they came in, destroyed a psychopathic murdering dictator, helped stand up a democratic government, and then left after footing the bill.... probably thanks. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

That's not even close to what I said. I don't care if they hate Bush. I don't care if you understand them hating Bush. Fine. I said it boggles my mind that people, especially US citizens, would defend someone who threw a shoe at your President. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

He's questioning why you've brought the GC into the argument. SC decisions have nothing to do with the GC. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

He didn't tell America what he feels. He didn't say anything. He took his fucking shoe off and threw it at the President like a child having a hissy fit. If you think behavior like that is appropriate in any situation then there's no reasoning with you. It's absolutely boggles my mind that people would defend assault on the President. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Got a source for that? Not being a total smartass, just honestly interested. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

You think actions like that are appropriate? Seriously? If someone threw a fucking shoe at Ahmadinejad when he was here then you'd be all up in arms about how disrespectful Americans are. The guy threw a temper tantrum and was subsequently tossed into the streets by the secret service. Appropriate is the last word I would use to desribe the situation. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

They're not contrived or hypothetical. Information gathered from traditional interrogation has proven to be more accurate than that given under force. We're not changing tactics because of their propaganda. We're changing them because they don't work. That's what commanders do; find a way to win. I think you're confusing battleground emotions with what happens in prisons. If you're on the ground in a fire fight with the bad guy, then by all means do whatever is necessary to fuck them up. Keeping it humane afterward is one thing that differentiates us from the enemy. In WWII and Vietnam, the most horrific things didn't occur on the battlefield. They happened in concentration camps and the Hanoi Hilton. There is no honor in treating detainees like pin cushions and the information we get is often invalid anyway. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Personally, I think the bigger issue should be defining torture. What do you consider torture vs interrogation? I followed one of your links and found this. “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” So the use of force is not suggested. The part I put in bold is the area left for interpretation. Is sleep deprivation torture since there is no force (assuming that force isn't used to keep them awake)? How about fear; ie. keeping dogs in the room. Solitaire confinement? Playing Michael Bolton music 24 hours a day? The confusion, in my ever so humble opinion, is that the gray area lies in people's personal definition of torture. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Take a walk through any Wal-Mart and see where the products are made. China's emissions are really US emissions that have been outsourced, along with our manufacturing capability and jobs. So now China's emissions are our fault? You really do hate this country, don't you? I think it honestly pleases you to see Americans fail. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

His voting record in the senate places him among the most liberal. It doesn't seem that far left because you're in agreement with him. You think the current right is far right because you're left of center. Nothing wrong with that. Just saying it's all relative. All of the pre-election talk about cutting defense spending, raising taxes for the wealthy, starting a national health care program, defending pro-choice... each one of those is left and combined puts him pretty far away from center. His post election decisions and rhetoric have been more center which makes me happy. Just don't kid yourself thinking Obama ran on a centrist's platform. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

Being true and being literally true can be very different. The Bible is full of parables meant for teaching a specific lesson. I personally don't believe everything is literally true, particularly Revelation. Just my opinion. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

My replys are to prod young republican chickenhawks to put their bodies where their empty patriotic words are. Point proven -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

My reply was intended to be in line with everything you just said. I've grown tired of comments like these in order to deflect or demean someone else's opinion. (some snipped from other threads) Then when someone replies that they do serve, its meant with a response like... well you only support it because of job security. I'm glad she served and I'm even more glad she's proud of it. It's the holier than thou comments that are getting old. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.

not sure why anyone would actually read anything into articles like that - there are equally dozens of articles about GWB, alleging cocaine abuse, alcoholism, guiding the Whitehouse by the Bible, being a drunk, catering to his cronies, gutting the Constitution and generally being STUPID.... but no one paid any attention to those articles. Actually, that sounds like a list of talking points for more than a few in this forum. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life.