View Full Version : Hamster Wheel (politics ad nauseam)


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Grandpa
22nd Nov 2005, 19:23
According to the information you conveyed to us, same as Saddam using Phosphorous Chemical Weapon against Kurdish fighters and population, Bush used it against Sunni fighters and population in Fallujah.

Give the latter a few years more and he will overpass his ennemy in savagery.



con-pilot
22nd Nov 2005, 20:13
Grandpa that is a pretty sorry comparison, there is nothing the United States has done or will ever do in Iraq to be as barbaric as these so called freedom fighters have done when they cut the heads off of civilians while on live TV.

So come on, lets compare oranges to oranges not oranges to elephants.

As for the W/P use, go to the “Military” forum as see what the folks that know what they are talking about are saying about this being a so called chemical weapon. It reminds me of the outcry by the radical left and the all knowing media during Viet Nam when it was discovered that US forces were using teargas to flush out the VC from caves. Because of the pressure from the press the military stared using napalm and H.E. So rather than capturing the VC they were burned to death or blown up. I’m sure that the VC were very happy to have the US media on their side as they burned to death.

So lets see here, cutting off one’s head or smoke grenade, gosh I just don’t know which I would prefer to happen to me.

Using scantly clad females to torture me or having my head cut off, wow, another tough decision, I just don’t know!

Capt.KAOS
22nd Nov 2005, 21:11
t reminds me of the outcry by the radical left In this case it was the CIA... hardly radical left?

So when Saddam is using "Shake and Bake" it it's a chemical weapon and when the US Army is using it is not?

con-pilot
22nd Nov 2005, 21:24
Err, the CIA was against the use of teargas in Viet Nam. Hum, I must have missed that part in the history books and my memory Capt. K.

Now I’ll admit my memory is not what it used to be, but that still doesn’t sound right.

barit1
22nd Nov 2005, 23:34
The "bonanza" is the media's simplistic difference between the market price of crude, and the cost of production in Iraq.

What they likely have neglected: the resulting increase in crude supply will drive down the market price. Such is the awareness level of students who flunked Econ 101, and then transferred to J-school.

Grandpa
23rd Nov 2005, 06:03
So US army used Napalm in Viet-Nam due to war-protesters.......

Same with French colonial war in Algeria maybe.

It's a surprising way to reject atrocities faults from Administration and Commander in Chief.

And for you the "military" are those who know about use of Mass Destruction Weapons?

I allways used to believe it was the civilian down on earth who knew better about what the ennemy threw on their country......

Capt.KAOS
23rd Nov 2005, 10:57
con-pilot, I meant to say the outcry of the CIA that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, i.c. Willy Pete. So you would compare WP with teargas?

The bombing of Al-Jazeera. Too bizar (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153489/) to be true? Maybe, but both AJ offices in Iraq and Afghanistan were "mistakingly" destroyed by the US Army....

Paterbrat
23rd Nov 2005, 11:38
But Lima or AJ I thought it had already been acknowledged that the war was about oil, was about strategic superiority was about global politics and about reaction to percieved threat as well as about regime change, aversion to declared and actual aggression, environtmental damage, human rights violations and a raft of other subjects not mentioned here. By either side depending upon whose point of view one supports.

No... no surprise at all.

airship
23rd Nov 2005, 15:41
And what if it were true...?! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4459296.stm) Well, it didn't happen did it?! Nevertheless, are those dark days still just ancient history, or "forever to remain in the forefront" of our politician's convoluting minds? Hariri and the Lebanon spring to mind most recently...

I remember the days when terrorists would immediately communicate that the latest outrage had indeed been carried out by their group by use of whatever "coded" phrases. These days, it appears that they wait, sometimes weeks, until they have a reaction from public opinion before signalling their responsibility. All highly unusual...IMHO! :confused: :uhoh:

Paterbrat
24th Nov 2005, 11:49
Just might be that they are feeling a tweak on the collar with the possibility of perhaps a tad more than a cuppa char and a biccie down at the station before your free and friendly attourney arrives. I could of course be completely wrong.

Paterbrat
24th Nov 2005, 14:56
If, LAJ, oil and/or the control of it was merely a suspicion in your mind as one of the driving forces, then you were perhaps being too simplistic, naiive or perhaps benvolent for your own good.

Dave Martin
24th Nov 2005, 19:20
Been a bit quiet here recently....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1648593,00.html

Anyone care to comment on the above?

Either that or the impending hanging of Gary Glitter, but I personally find the gagging of the press/bombing Al Jazeera more interesting.

Capt.KAOS
25th Nov 2005, 08:44
The Man Who Sold The War (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1118-10.htm)

How the US entered a war based on a confession that didn't even passed the polygraph test and how Judith Miller got screwed by a defectant looking for a US visa.

"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war.".....Iran?

The Otter's Pocket
28th Nov 2005, 19:22
Just a little from today...

The families of the first two KNOWN suicide bombers have been in court upto today. They were trying to prove that they had no idea that their brother was in Isreal about to murder people.

It is not for me to criticise the CPS for another right royal cock-up.
Nor is it for me to say that they are lying gits whos only opposition was a group of CPS halfwits and a politically correct judicial system.

However what really gets to me is that the media don't tell the truth.
When they said that the second bombers, device failed to detonate and his body was found 12 days later in the sea.
Why did the media not say...
That these brainless miss-guided idiots were victims of a highly organised evil group. When Omar Sharif's bomb failed to detonate, he was murdered by the leaders of the group for cowardice.

Or would that be too politically incorrect.

Also why don't the leaders of the communities stand up and say that for murder you will go to hell? You don't get to bang a load of virgins.

It may be a little simple but surely this is the level of many of these people.

Trying not to sound like a rant, just dismayed.

Cheerio
29th Nov 2005, 15:16
Just a note about the brother and sister of Omar Sharif who were found not guilty of inciting their brother to commit a terrorist act:

Quote from BBC

Prior to the attack, Sharif wrote an e-mail to his brother in which he said: "Difficult times may lay ahead for you and the family.

"Plan now and get rid of any material you may consider problematic."

In the same e-mail he sent a message to his wife: "We didn't spend a long time together in this world, but I hope through Allah's mercy...we can spend an eternity together."

The following day Sharif's sister, Parveen, wrote an e-mail which said: "Don't worry about Tahira and the kids. Stay focused and determined. You have no time for emotions."

His siblings said they never suspected their brother of being a suicide bomber and thought he had travelled to Syria to study.

Curious Pax
29th Nov 2005, 15:31
It's a tough one Cheerio. In the light of what happened subsequently those messages appear quite damning, but if you consider them on the assumption that you didn't know what was going to happen then they could be interpreted as odd, but not necessarily damning. Going to Syria is not a crime, and may have been a normal thing for this family (don't know their ethnic background, but could be Syrian?).

Obviously the jury decided that the prosecution hadn't given sufficient evidence, and so found them not guilty. Given that we don't (yet) have a thought police then we have to be satisfied with that. I'd rather we stayed with the presumed innocent until proved otherwise legal system. Not perfect, but better than most alternatives.

Nick Riviera
30th Nov 2005, 11:34
It was also revealed after the trial that the sister, working as a supply teacher, is alleged to have crowed about the Twin Towers attack. She was said to have asked: 'Does anyone have any family in New York? Well they are dead.' Also alleged to have said that 600 Jews were killed in the attack and praised the attacks themselves. The school asked the supply company to not send her back to them again. None of this proves her guilt, but shows what a charmer she is.

Paterbrat
30th Nov 2005, 13:08
Well... she comes from a charming family, doesn't she:confused:

Ozzy
1st Dec 2005, 19:20
The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the allegations are an embarrassment to the American military at a time when it is trying to promote transparency in Iraq. Well she would wouldn't she, reporting for the unbiased Baghdad Broadcasting Company as she does...:E

Ozzy

con-pilot
1st Dec 2005, 19:36
Sigh, no that was wee Willy Clinton that fired off cruise missiles and dropped bombs in haphazard fashions.:rolleyes:

Orion Man
2nd Dec 2005, 23:12
Are there still guys around on here defending the Iraq war ? Surely not ?

Another 10 dead US marines in Falluja yesterday. I thought everyone there had their eyeballs scanned before being let back in after the assault some months back. It just goes to show the extent of the problems facing the coalition.

It appears the tide of US and UK public opinion is now firmly against the war and my own opinion is that it is un-winnable. How sad that so many have lost their lives or been crippled for a war that was based on untruths.

Regards

Orion Man

Grandpa
4th Dec 2005, 15:27
They are training hard to defend the next preempti_ve war.....against Iran.

Binoculars
4th Dec 2005, 16:34
I just want to repeat my earlier cri de coeur about the disappearance of the original Pprune threads that arose naturally when GW's fantasy started. It's a pity they are no longer available, because history by definition is always best viewed in retrospect.

I'm sorry, my American friends, many of whose opinions I respect on other things, you have been proven sadly wrong. The attempts to somehow attach the blame to Çlinton are sadly desperate.

Does any one of you honestly think the war in Iraq is any more "winnable" than the one in Vietnam? Do any of you admit you are clutching at straws? You don't have to desert the philosophy of conservatism to admit that it's got it wrong in one particular case, surely?
Not to put too fine a point on it, the Iraqi venture is as sadly misguided as Vietnam was.

con-pilot
4th Dec 2005, 20:18
Well Binos and AL Junk that is your opinion and here is mine;



From the Chicago Sun times:

Dems determined to ignore progress in Iraq

December 4, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, came out with a big statement on Iraq last week. Did you hear about it? Probably not. Everyone was still raving about his Democrat colleague, Rep. Jack Murtha, whose carefully nuanced position on Iraq is: We're all doomed unless we pull out by next Tuesday! (I quote from memory.)

Also, the United States Army is "broken," "worn out" and "living hand to mouth." If the reaction to Murtha's remarks by my military readers is anything to go by, he ought to be grateful they're still bogged down in Iraq and not in the congressional parking lot.

It's just about acceptable in polite society to disagree with Murtha, but only if you do it after a big 20-minute tongue bath about what "a fine man" he is (as Rumsfeld said) or what "a good man" he is (as Cheney called him) or what "a fine man, a good man" he is (as Bush phrased it). Nobody says that about Lieberman, especially on his own side. And, while the media were eager to promote Murtha as the most incisively insightful military expert on the planet, this guy Lieberman's evidently some nobody no one need pay any attention to.

Here's why. His big piece on Iraq was headlined "Our Troops Must Stay."

And who wants to hear that? Not the media and certainly not Lieberman's colleagues in the Defeaticrat Party. It must be awful lonely being Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party these days. Every time he switches on the news there's John Kerry sonorously droning out his latest pretzel of a position: Insofar as I understand it, he's not calling for a firm 100 percent fixed date of withdrawal -- like, say, Feb. 4, 2 p.m.; meet at Baghdad bus station with two pieces of carry-on. Don't worry, it's not like flying coach on TWA, you'd be able to change the date without paying a surcharge. But Kerry drones that we need to "set benchmarks" for the "transfer of authority." Actually, the administration's been doing that for two years -- setting dates for the return of sovereignty, for electing a national assembly, for approving a constitution, etc, and meeting all of them. And all during those same two years Kerry and his fellow Democrats have huffed that these dates are far too premature, the Iraqis aren't in a position to take over, hold an election, whatever. The Defeaticrats were against the benchmarks before they were for them.

These sad hollow men may yet get their way -- which is to say they may succeed in persuading the American people that a remarkable victory in the Middle East is in fact a humiliating defeat. It would be an incredible achievement. Peter Worthington, the Canadian columnist and veteran of World War II and Korea, likes to say that there's no such thing as an unpopular won war. The Democrat-media alliance are determined to make Iraq an exception to that rule. In a week's time, Iraqis will participate in the most open political contest in the history of the Middle East. They're building the freest society in the region, and the only truly federal system. In three-quarters of the country, life has never been better. There's an economic boom in the Shia south and a tourist boom in the Kurdish north, and, while the only thing going boom in the Sunni Triangle are the suicide bombers, there were fewer of those in November than in the previous seven months.

Meanwhile, Iraq's experiment in Arab liberty has had ripple effects beyond its borders, pushing the Syrians most of the way out of Lebanon, and in Syria itself significantly weakening Baby Assad's regime. Saad Eddin Ibrahim, who's spent years as a beleaguered democracy advocate in Egypt, told the Washington Post's Jim Hoagland the other day that, although he'd opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, he had to admit it had "unfrozen the Middle East, just as Napoleon's 1798 expedition did. Elections in Iraq force the theocrats and autocrats to put democracy on the agenda, even if only to fight against us. Look, neither Napoleon nor President Bush could impregnate the region with political change. But they were able to be the midwives."

The Egyptians get it, so do the Iraqis, the Lebanese, the Jordanians and the Syrians. The choice is never between a risky action and the status quo -- i.e., leaving Saddam in power, U.N. sanctions, U.S. forces sitting on his borders. The stability fetishists in the State Department and the European Union fail to understand that there is no status quo: things are always moving in some direction and, if you leave a dictator and his psychotic sons in business, and his Oil-for-Food scam up and running, and his nuclear R&D teams in places, chances are they're moving in his direction.

Toppling Saddam was worth doing in and of itself. Toppling Saddam and trying to "midwife" (in Ibrahim's word) a free society would be worth doing even if it failed. But, as it happens, I don't believe it will fail, not just because of Bush but because enough Iraqis -- Shia, Kurds and even significant numbers of Sunnis -- are determined not to let it fail.

And here's where the scale of the Bush gamble becomes clear. Islam and "the West" have a long history. And, without rehashing the last millennium and a half, the Muslim conquest of Europe and then the Crusades and the fall of Andalusia, if you take out a map of the world and look at the rise of the European empires you notice a curious thing: in conquering the world the imperial powers for the most part simply bypassed the Islamic world. They made Africa and South Asia and Latin America and everywhere else seats of European power, but they left the Middle East alone. And, even when they eventually got their hands on the region, after the First World War, they made no serious attempt to reform the neighborhood. We live with the consequences of that today.

So Bush has chosen to embark on a project every other great power of the last half-millennium has shrunk from: the transformation of the Middle East. You can argue the merits of that, but once it's underway it's preposterous to suggest we need to have it all wrapped up by Jan. 24. The Defeaticrats' loss of proportion is unworthy of a serious political party in the world's only superpower. In next week's election, the Iraqi people will shame them yet again.

Copyright © Mark Steyn, 2005


Shamelessly copied from another web-site.:)

Grandpa
4th Dec 2005, 20:27
If there is one left to believe, you are this one.

con-pilot
4th Dec 2005, 21:48
No Grandpa, its not me alone. There are two sides of all issues, I am just presenting a different side.

At the end you and your group may be right, perhaps my group and I may be right. Or a combination of both.

Only time will tell.

Err, A L Junk,

And P.S. Con, at least Clinton's missiles were fired at the caves harbouring those who committed that dreadful outrage on 9/11.

Clinton was not president on 9/11 old boy.

A L Junk, have you forgotten the baby food factory that was really a baby food factory that Clinton attacked with cruise missiles? Before 9/11.

Besides the fact that Clinton let OBL slip out of our hands.

Dave Martin
4th Dec 2005, 22:17
Con Pilot,

Will time tell? I understand a lot of people still believe the carnage in Vietnam was justified - or at least, only the American casualties weren't.

Just as with Vietnam, US involvement in Iraq looks set to be excused, hyped and seen through rose-tinted glasses in some people's minds for eternity, simply because the war was executed by the guy they liked.

In my mind (and I may be wrong too), this war is already over and lost. If not for the debauched reasons it was started in the first place, then the reality of what the country has become in contrast to what was desired.

Another Iran has been created in the south, chaos and warlordism in the rest, and all the firepower the US can muster has been seen to be utterly impotent against insurgents and "winning hearts and minds". We just learn to have to live with that.

con-pilot
5th Dec 2005, 00:02
Well Dave that is an interesting question. I believe that ultimately time will tell, however as it has been pointed out numerous times history, in the most part, is in the eyes of the victor. Until the PC crowd decides to re-write history or history is rewritten to satisfy the policies or goals of groups and/or individuals to suite their goals or ambitions. In addition history is rewritten to bring out the truth, occasionally.

To support my above statement I would recommend the book “The Unknown Story MAO”. One World 22 recommended this book to me, again I thank him for his recommendation.

I will not debate Viet Nam with you, unless you are a Viet Nam veteran. Which I believe you are not, correct?

Have you, personally, talked to anybody serving in or has served in Iraq during the current war? I don’t mean that you have talked to someone who has talked to someone who talked to someone who heard that so and so’s _________ (insert relationship) was in Iraq. I mean face to face.

I have with three people, two grunts and a Marine Corps Captain, who happens to be my godson. All three, on separate occasions, have said the truth of what is going on in Iraq is NOT getting out. The media, including FOX, is only reporting the negative and none of the positive. Their views are that it is 20% negative and 80% positive life style changes in Iraq, however the 20% negative receives the majority of the press coverage.

So, if you don’t mind, I will listen to men and women serving in Iraq.

And to Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat!

con-pilot
5th Dec 2005, 01:17
Well A L it is getting close for my BBC America comedies to come on so I will be brief.

We just killed the number 3 man of OBL’s organization and have severally crippled it in the last year or so. They are still out there but nowhere as strong or as organized as they were before 9/11.

Our guys know why they are there, sorry that yours don’t.

Sorry, new episode of “Mile High” is coming on. Man I wished I had the short legs and long layovers that they do, if you know what I mean. (Not to mention the really good looking female cabin crew members.)

Chat with you later. Ciao!

(Posted an hour after the time on this post)

Remarkable coincidence, we just received a phone call from my niece who informed us that she just received her orders for Iraq.

God bless her and protect her.

(Watching “Mile High” doesn’t seem that important now.)

West Coast
5th Dec 2005, 04:47
"It's pathetic and reminds me of WC's rantings"


Hmmmm. As you frequently disagree with me, does my opinion become a rant and no longer an opinion if its not in alignment with your beliefs?

Grandpa
5th Dec 2005, 06:40
Yes Con, we disagree about Iraq.

The problem is we have both to reassess our position according to informations we receive.

The Iraqi quagmire gives a lot to think.

The main argument against Bush stand is that it gives a lot of persuasive facts usefull for Al Qayda to gain support inside Arab and Muslim communities.

Even the judicial procedure against Saddam (organised and closely monitored by US "advisers") helps him to build a stature of patriot against colonial occupation.

I hope for your self esteem you will be able to acknowledge a wrong initial judgement, and, please don't use the "warrior's argument":

It has been proved long ago that "War is too serious affair to be managed by military establishment".

Solid Rust Twotter
5th Dec 2005, 06:58
Well, it's good that spineless self serving politicians manage it then....:rolleyes:

Dave Martin
5th Dec 2005, 10:42
Con-pilot,

It isn't just the "PC crowd" who re-write history. Tends to be whoever is in power really. And the re-written history is usually only swallowed by certain people, not all. I hope you aware of that. Sadly, on the topic of Iraq, not much history is being given....I suspect because the history is pretty damning.

I have read the "Unknown Story Mao". Interesting book, and a topic still very much open to question.

I will not debate Viet Nam with you, unless you are a Viet Nam veteran. Which I believe you are not, correct?

You are correct, but again, this is a statement I take issue with. Often it seems on topics here concerning the military I have only been taken seriously when I have admitted to serving in the Infantry. To me this is bollocks.

I know from experience that the world you live in when in the military is far from informed on the greater political or historical implications of what you are committing. Likewise, I wouldn't claim to know exactly what the experiences are of soldiers on the ground in Iraq or Vietnam, but from the numerous books written by soldiers in the later, I have an empirical snapshot, backed up by historical reading. Why would someone serving as an admin clerk in a BOQ in Saigon necessarily have a better idea of what went on in the DMZ just because they were serving members of the military at the time?

If you are going to persue that angle, then I would say the military should have no place commenting on civilian matters - again, an utterly preposterous idea. Has it ever occurred to you that the picture of Iraq as presented to soldiers could be biased, sanitised and distorted?

I have spoken with an army driver who served in Iraq, but I was trained by (as well as my section commander and 2IC) soldiers who had served in Bosnia. Knowing the driver in question before he was sent to Iraq and hearing what he had to say after was interesting....not least of all, because his world view has always been utterly ignorant. Iraq seems to have reinforced that.

Capt.KAOS
5th Dec 2005, 13:19
I will not debate Viet Nam with you, unless you are a Viet Nam veteran. Which I believe you are not, correct? Why?? Do you only debate WW2 with WW2 veterans? GW2 with Iraq Veterans? Is Mark Steyn a GW2 veteran? I'm not sure about that. I'm sure though that he was his compatriot Conrad Black (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/black_conrad/) bestest buddy and always been a passionate supporter of the Iraq occupation.

Why nobody talked about Lieberman (a Republocrat) and everybody about Murtha is so obvious even Steyn should know. Everybody knew about Liebermans view on Iraq, but ueberhawk Murtha's view was a big surprise to everybody. If Murtha says well than it must be really, really bad. As he said, there's probably nobody in Washington who talks so much with the Pentagon as Murtha himself.

As for Murtha being a "good man", a few days after Murtha's first statement there was a feeble attempt to smear him through his son. Obviously it became clear that would boomerang back to the GOP and quickly this tactic was abandonned.

Dave Martin
5th Dec 2005, 13:39
Ironic isn't it that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld can do more than just talk about Iraq....they can invade it.

At the same time, Murtha daring to suggest the reality of the situation they are facing is vilified.

And which one of them exactly has served....(a hint: just one of them).

West Coast
5th Dec 2005, 16:56
"And which one of them exactly has served....(a hint: just one of them)"

Is this some sort of intentionally vague statement (and thus deniable) that only Murtha served?

Hint, it wasn't only one of them.

Dave Martin
5th Dec 2005, 17:08
By most peoples understanding, Bush doesn't exactly count.

West Coast
5th Dec 2005, 17:14
You presume to know what "most people" believe?


http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html

You know, this info is readily available to you.

Dave Martin
5th Dec 2005, 17:55
Ah ha, I stand corrected West Coast. Well done!

con-pilot
6th Dec 2005, 03:06
Oh my, where shall I start?

Mile High Con ? That's garbage matey !!

I have come to the conclusion you are right there A L. However it is entertaining, fake, but entertaining, kind of like “West Wing.”

Now for the biggie.

I will not debate Viet Nam with you, unless you are a Viet Nam veteran. Which I believe you are not, correct?

This is a personal decision. I did NOT serve in the military. I do admire those who did. I will make the following statement about Viet Nam, I will NOT debate my statements.

One, the United States Armed Forces won the war militarily.

Two, the United States lost the overall war politically. This was due for the most part of people like Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather. The fact that the 10 percent of the American people that protested against the Viet Nam war was given 90 percent of the media coverage.

Three, thanks to the media bias against our troops there was very low positive self image to support the men and women who fought in Viet Nam.

Enough about Viet Nam.

Now I am doing all I can to support our men and women serving in Iraq, be it my godson, who is a Marine Captain or my niece serving in the Medical Corps on the front lines (or who will be soon).

Okay, my personal opinion, I would love to say I could care the less about the rest of the world, but we made that mistake before World War II. Foolishly we American thought we could depend on Europe to keep World peace.

We were wrong, never again should we depend on Europe for anything.

And if that doesn't get our friends going, nothing will.:)

West Coast
6th Dec 2005, 03:42
"We were wrong, never again should we depend on Europe for anything"

The first step would be for the Europeans to be able to manage Europe by themselves. Perhaps someday.

Stafford
6th Dec 2005, 04:36
What's a "European" ? :E

I know lots of French, German, British (Well, English, Irish, Welsh, and Scots), Italians etc but I don't think any of them ever describe themselves if asked as "European".

I respect the Americans for the blood shed for Europe by many of their finest, trying to help clear up sordid European politics, Naziism, Genocide, Ethnic cleansing and all the other pestilence that we have visited on ourselves, but please don't forget that US self interest was a driver too.

I enjoy visiting America and quite honestly think the multi racial society there is the future, despite the tensions created by economics .self seeking lawyers and politicians together with a voracious, prurient media. Regrettably, I'm not obese enough to be an American though :E

Capt.KAOS
6th Dec 2005, 08:29
We were wrong, never again should we depend on Europe for anything. Anything? Even money? EU15 direct investment in the US amounted to USD 855.669 billion, or 62.1 percent of total foreign direct investment in the US. Can't live without them... (both ways actually)

Dave Martin
6th Dec 2005, 09:28
Con-Pilot,

Just as well you don't get your news on the Vietnam war from anyone apart from those Americans who served there. Helps you ignore what historians, Vietnamese and a large part of the worlds population has to say about that minor issue.

The loss wasn't the result of Jane Fonda. it was theresult of the Vietnamese actually preferring the ideology of the communists. We might all be right to hate communism, but what it offered was better than what America was supporting.

It amazes me that you still fail to see that after all these years. I guess certain Japanese and Germans from the WWII era hold similar views about their wars.

The low self image of those that served is a result of their realisation the war was a farce. Much the same looks set to happen to the troops in Iraq. It's not the media's fault.

Foolishly we American thought we could depend on Europe to keep World peace.

We were wrong, never again should we depend on Europe for anything.

Europe learnt its lesson it seems. Right now it appears to be doing a much better job at maintaining peace than the US is.

Your Orwelian interpretation of the state of the world is hilarious. War is peace? Love is hate?

XXTSGR
6th Dec 2005, 14:24
Things in Iraq are getter better and better, are they?New offensive

Attack on Dowr

IRIN reports (November 16th): US-led forces and the Iraqi army launched an operation in the city of Dowr, some 150 km north of the capital, Baghdad. According to local witnesses, Iraqi soldiers used torture in some cases to obtain information from residents.

A United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq report noted that, “Massive security operations by the Iraqi police and US Special Forces continue to disregard instructions announced in August 2005 by the Interior Ministry aimed at safeguarding individuals during search-and-detention operations.”

100,000 flee al-Qaim

IRIN reports (November 16th): The number of refugees fleeing the western Iraqi town of al-Qaim and surrounding villages in the wake of US-led military offensives launched earlier this month has reached some 100,000 persons, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS).

According to witnesses, nearly 40 percent of the residents of al-Qaim are living in the nearby city of Rawa, in improvised camps organised by the IRCS.

According to IRCS officials, some displaced families have as many as 13 members sharing single tents. Meanwhile, medical volunteers say that many children and elderly people are suffering from increased instances of diarrhoea and dehydration.

And in YosfiyaÖ

Iraqi Journalist Sabah Ali reports (November 20th): Nasser village looked completely deserted. Most of the houses were burnt out. We were filming, when a young man, covered with dust, appeared from nowhere and began relating what happened on November 5, 2005.

The Iraqi police Special Forces, Al-Hussein Brigades, came at dawn. There were around 20 pick-ups full of them. They were hit on the highway very badly from a place behind the Yosfiya Water Project, east of the village. Tens of them were killed. The battle went on for 3 hours. In the afternoon, the same day, more forces returned back accompanied by the American troops and helicopters. They evacuated their dead, raided the houses, killed and arrested the men, humiliated the families, killed the cows and chickens, destroyed the yards, and set the village on fire.

“They dragged one of the men, more than 70 years, and beat him to death. Two other man, were arrested. Their bodies were found three days later in Baghdad. Both were savagely tortured, their bones, backs, and arms were smashed. They believed that the village was colluding with the resistance.”

Ali Nasser’s house was completely destroyed, burnt to skeleton. “Why were we treated like this? The police brigades broke even the electricity converters, we do not have power for 40 days. Our animals were killed, our women humiliated. They ask the women where did you hide the men, they grabbed the children from their hair and throw them to the ground. Riyadh’s mother was crying and begging them to leave her son; they hit her with the gun’s end, they smashed his head with a brick in front of her eyes, now she is dying. When his body was found it was skinned... Abbass was so old that he could not even walk, how he would be a terrorist!! He was beaten to death on the spot and his body was thrown in the drainage.”




Iraqi detainees tortured

UN official calls for inquiry into Iraq torture

The Guardian reports (November 18th): The UN high commissioner for human rights called for an international investigation into Iraqi detainees who showed signs of torture. US forces found around 170 mainly Sunni Arab prisoners - some of whom had apparently been abused, beaten, starved and tortured - at an interior ministry bunker in the Jadriya district of Baghdad.

A Pentagon report revealed that 13,814 people are being held in US custody in Iraq out of a total of more 80,000 people detained in facilities from Afghanistan to Cuba since the September 11 2001 terror attacks attacks on New York and Washington.

The Guardian reports (November 17th):Since a new Iraqi government was established in the spring, several accounts have emerged of arrests, abuse and extrajudicial killings by paramilitary forces linked to the ministry and dominated by Shia Muslims.

Manfred Novak, the UN special envoy on torture, based in Geneva, yesterday called for an independent inquiry. He has received various allegations of torture and degrading treatment by both US and Iraqi forces in Iraq. “That torture is still practised in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is no secret,” he said.

An Iraqi law student, who would only give his initials, MI, said yesterday he had been among those detained at the interior ministry. He had been arrested in August and released six weeks ago. Interviewed by Reuters at a Sunni party office, the 22-year-old said he had been blindfolded, his hands bound and hung from a ceiling hook. He was whipped with metal cables.

“They called us Sunni dogs and thieves or friends of Saddam Hussein.” He said he had been in a room with 100 others, and that sometimes the captors used drills against people. "They put me in a barrel full of cold water during questioning and gave me electric shocks," he said.

Further documented cases from Human Rights Watch
State denial adds insult to torture victims’ injuries

The Times reports (November 18th): The discovery of a clandestine Interior Ministry prison in Baghdad, holding scores of tortured detainees, came as no surprise to Abu Ali. What shocked him was the minister’s angry insistence yesterday that the claims of abuse and torture were exaggerated and involved only “criminals and terrorists.”

“There are dozens of people I know it happened to because it happened to me,” he said. Abu Jamal, a Sunni bookseller, is certain that the Americans know about the torture inflicted on his son after he was arrested by Interior Ministry commandos. When he eventually tracked down Jamal Hamdani, he was being treated in a US military hospital in Camp Bucca, Umm Qasr.

The 30-year-old was left impotent and paralysed on one side of his body after repeated electrocution of his spine and genitals during two months in detention in a secret prison in Kadhamiya, Baghdad. In addition, an electric drill had been used on his chin.

See also: Torture photos fuel scandal at The Times
US and UK avoided public criticism of police abuses

The Observer reports (November 20th): The new trend in violence is one that Dr Alaa Maki of the Iraqi Islamic Party is familiar with. A month ago his bodyguard, Alaa al-Azawi, was taken from his home with his two brothers by police at midnight. The family were told the men were being taken for investigation. The following day his body was dumped in the street.

Eight days ago, another of Maki’s friends was being treated in the Yarmouk Hospital, Iraq's second- biggest, in the western suburbs of Baghdad. His relatives, Muamir Saad Mahmoud and Ali Mahmoud, went to visit him. Instead they met men in the uniform of Iraq's police waiting for them. Ali was later released in the vast Shia slum of Sadr City after a violent beating. Muamir has not been seen.

And it is not just in Baghdad. The home of Khalid Ahmad Harbood, a resident of the Alkadisia neighbourhood of Madain city, was raided at midnight on 13 October by the Alkarrar brigade, commandos of the Ministry of the Interior. Harbood was tortured so badly over the period of a week that he died and his badly battered body was dumped in Sadr City.

According to human rights organisations in Baghdad, “disappearances” have reached epidemic proportions in recent months. The emergence of a culture of pernicious violence at Iraq's interior ministry blossomed in the face of repeated warnings to US and UK officials over the past year and a half, under an apparently deliberate policy by London and Washington to avoid public criticism of the country’s new institutions.

British-trained police in Iraq ‘killed prisoners with drills’

The Independent reports (November 20th): British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, admits that he knows of “alleged deaths in custody” and other “serious prisoner abuse” at al-Jamiyat police station, which was reopened by Britain after the war.

Iraqis protest detainee abuse

Al-Jazeera reports (November 20th): Hundreds of Iraqis have marched in western Baghdad demanding an end to the torture of detainees. The protesters on Sunday also called for the international community to put pressure on Iraqi and US authorities to ensure that such abuse does not recur.

Iraqis Say Lions Used in Torture

The LA Times reports (November 15th): Two Iraqi businessmen who were arrested in Iraq in July 2003 but never charged with crimes say U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended that they were going to be executed and humiliated them during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.

“They took me behind the cage, they were screaming at me, scaring me and beating me a lot,” Thahe Mohammed Sabbar said in an interview. “One of the soldiers would open the door, and two soldiers would push me in. The lions came running toward me and they pulled me out and shut the door. I completely lost consciousness.”

The two Iraqis are in the United States this week to talk about a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First filed on their behalf against Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.




MPs call for tighter rules on battlefield use of phosphorus

The Guardian reports (November 17th): MPs urged the government to seek tougher international rules against the use of chemical weapons in warfare after the United States belatedly confirmed that its forces in Iraq used white phosphorus to flush out opponents during the 2004 siege of Falluja.




Uproar at Threat to Kill Extremist Sympathisers

Institute for War & Peace Reporting reports (November 15th): A political storm continues to rage over the Iraqi defence ministerís recent threat to kill people helping insurgents and destroy their properties. Sadun al-Dulaimi said the security forces would “demolish the homes of people sheltering terrorists and kill all owners of the houses Ö including women and children”, provoking a wave of Sunni Arab anger and condemnation.

Iraqi Islamic Party politburo member Ala al-Maki said Iraqi leaders may claim they fight terrorism but actually launch attacks on “our Sunni Arab sons and families Ö driving them away from participating in politics”. He and many others have said they do not believe it a coincidence that US and Iraqi forces launch major operations in Sunni areas shortly before elections and referendums, suggesting such actions are meant to limit turnout in the regions.




Conditions “worsening” despite expenditure

Azzaman reports (November 13th): The engineering corps from the U.S. occupation troops in Iraq say they have spent $14.5 million to improve education, electricity supply and sewage facilities in the southern city of Diwaniya. However, residents from Diwaniya said official figures were highly exaggerated. “All this talk of reconstruction does not bear a grain of truth and contradicts the situation on the ground,” said Ammar Jaber. “Conditions are worsening and not improving,” he said.

Another resident, Hayder Abedali said he believed most of the allocations were wasted due to rampant corruption.



Residents from towns other than the provincial center of al-Qadisiya had a darker picture of conditions. “These statements are false and contrary to the situation on the ground,” said Qassem Mansour from al-Hamza town. “There is large-scale deterioration of an already collapsing infrastructure. All those in charge of the situation in the country are to blame,” said Mansour.

In Diwaniya, mounds of garbage dot city center with untreated water inundating the streets.




Iraq Under U.S. Occupation: \"It Was Never As Bad As This\"

Anthony Arnove writes in Zmag (November 16th): Life in occupied Iraq today is so grim that many Iraqis say it was better during the deadly years of United Nations sanctions. In much of the country, there is less electricity than before the March 2003 U.S. invasion – with predictable consequences, including “patients who die in emergency rooms when equipment stops running,” the New York Times reports.

“Nearly half of all Iraqi households still don’t have access to clean water, and only 8 percent of the country, excluding the capital, is connected to sewage networks,” USA Today reports. Hospitals in Iraq are a shambles.

“At Baghdad’s Central Teaching Hospital for Children, gallons of raw sewage wash across the floors,” Jeffrey Gettleman reported in the New York Times. “The drinking water is contaminated. According to doctors, 80 percent of patients leave with infections they did not have when they arrived.”

Dexter Filkins of the New York Times opened a window into the reality of occupation in an October 2005 profile of Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, an aggressive Army captain of the Fourth Infantry Division\'s 1-8 Battalion. After the death of a soldier in the unit, Sassaman declared that his unit’s “new priority would be killing insurgents and punishing anyone who supported them, even people who didn’t.”

As Filkins wrote, “On a mission in January 2004, a group of Sassaman’s soldiers came to the house of an Iraqi man suspected of hijacking trucks. He wasn\'t there, but his wife and two other women answered the door. ‘You have 15 minutes to get your furniture out,’ First Sgt. Ghaleb Mikel said. The women wailed and shouted, but ultimately complied, dragging their bed and couch and television set out the front door. Mikel’s men then fired four antitank missiles into their house, blowing it to pieces and setting it afire.”

U.S. soldiers have also taken to quartering troops in Iraqi homes and schools. “They broke into my house before Ramadan and they are still there,” Dhiya Hamid al-Karbuli recounted to a reporter. “We were not able to tolerate seeing them damage our house in front of our very eyes...I was afraid to ask them to leave.”




Iraqi children losing their innocence in the violence of the war

Knight Ridder reports (November 17th): Khaldoon Waleed, a Baghdad child psychologist, said that a generation of children is growing up with post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD, a result of witnessing life-threatening events, is commonly associated with soldiers, and Waleed said it could cause everything from nightmares to an inability to connect with people.

Toy-sellers say that while traditional favorites such as dolls and race cars do little more than gather dust, realistic toy guns fly off the shelves. In school, childhood art commonly is violent these days, featuring tanks and gun battles and blood and dead bodies.




Poor Iraqis face struggle for survival

Al-Jazeera reports (18 November): Unemployment runs high and bloodshed is keeping investors away from the battered economy, forcing some Iraqis to eke out an existence by sifting through garbage for scraps of food. With no electricity, such families seek refuge from winter cold and blistering summer heat in small huts made of cooking oil cans, bits of drift wood and mud.

Water is gathered from dirty, leaking pipes nearby and carried in plastic jugs on donkeys. “I work with my parents collecting garbage,” said eight-year-old Saad Hassan.




Iraq\'s oil: The spoils of war

The Independent reports (22 November): Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year.


According to the report, Crude Designs, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month\'s election and before legislation is passed, it said.

The report said the use of production sharing agreements was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. “The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law,” the report said.




Iraqi Leaders Call for Pullout Timetable

The Guardian reports (November 22): Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq’s opposition had a “legitimate right” of resistance. The communique – finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday – condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on “calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces .. control the borders and the security situation” and end terror attacks. The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.




Children killed as US troops fire

The Times reports (November 22nd): US Five members of the same Iraqi family, three of them children under the age of 4, were shot dead yesterday when US troops opened fire on their minivan outside a military base, fearing a suicide car bomb attack.

“The soldiers started shooting at us from all over,” Ahmed Kamel al-Sawamara, 22, the driver, said at the hospital where the dead and three wounded were taken. “I slowed down and pulled off the road, but they continued firing. I saw my family killed, one after the other, and then the car caught fire. I dragged their bodies out.”




Police, Civil Servants in Iraq Punished for not Voting

Institute for War & Peace Reporting report (November 18): Dozens of policemen and government employees in Suleimaniyah province have been reprimanded, fired or imprisoned for not voting in the constitutional referendum.

Civil servants and police officers said they had no idea their decisions not to vote in the October 15 poll might cost them their jobs or land them in jail. They cried foul, noting that the punishments violated democratic principles and their civil rights.

In Kelar Province, about 35 officers in the Garmian police department were interrogated – and some jailed for five to six days – because they did not participate in the ballot. “I did not believe in the constitution so I didn’t vote,” said one officer who\'d been questioned. “How can a human being be punished for his opinions and beliefs?”

West Coast
6th Dec 2005, 15:27
"theresult of the Vietnamese actually preferring the ideology of the communists"

Do you have any empirical data to support this? Sorry but I feel the need to challenge this after your latest false statement.


"Europe learnt its lesson it seems. Right now it appears to be doing a much better job at maintaining peace than the US is"

YGBFSM. Europe has shown itself utterly incompetent at keeping peace within Europe, let alone positively doing the same outside.
How many times have allied nations far from Europe had to come and bail Europe out? Why was it an American President had to be the one to take a stand and do something about genocide within Europe? Europe had no moral or practical leadership.


"I'm not obese enough to be an American though"

Euro's are catching up rapidly.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2001/0108/diet.html


"Anything? Even money? EU15 direct investment in the US amounted to USD 855.669 billion, or 62.1 percent of total foreign direct investment in the US"

Always the Chinese available as suitors rather than your ilk.

Ozzy
6th Dec 2005, 16:45
I feel ashamed to be an inhabitant of a country that helped precipitate this genocide. That's good then.:rolleyes:

Ozzy

Grandpa
6th Dec 2005, 17:00
She denied torture by US troops before flying to Europe.

Now, tell me why Bush is fighting hard against Mc Cain law to forbid it?

My opinion is we will not have to wait long until Condi is taken lying......................

con-pilot
6th Dec 2005, 18:57
Karl Marx wrote that Germany would start three wars involving all of Europe and most of the rest of the world. Then he added.

Germany would lose the first two.:uhoh:















:E

Grandpa
7th Dec 2005, 12:59
What was told by Nostradamus?

Dave Martin
7th Dec 2005, 14:06
West Coast,

Do you have any empirical data to support this? Sorry but I feel the need to challenge this after your latest false statement.

If the worst I have done was commit such a howler as to be unaware of Donald Rumsfelds military service, then I feel pretty comfortable, westy. I apologise for my mistake, I stand corrected. I was in error.

:ok:

Vietnam, Laos: two of the most bombed countries in the history of warfare at the time.

Yet they win? How? The NVA/VC certainly didn't achieve decisive victories on the battlefield, hold better weaponry, or command more uninterupted resources did they? Facing a massive opposing force for which they had no match, the socialist/communists of both countries continued to increase their population's support base (surely the essence of democracy, yes?) - even after decades of war.

The population held a preference towards one side, right into the very heart of the South. Do you dispute that? Something along the lines of a wish for self determination - somthing only one side offered. How else do you explain it?

Or is it really the fault of the evil left-wing media that is rife in the US? (despite the one sided coverage and "red" hyseria that prevailed at the time).
Perhaps the likes of Jane Fonda ARE the cause - having almost single-handedly brought down the entire US war machine and its supporting political ideaology?
Perhaps the war was actually being won, and if our troop numbers had been increased yet further we would have attained that elusive victory? Or at least a slight sing of a victory occuring.
Maybe not enough damage had been inflicted on the north and countryside?
Perhaps if the north and the south had been bombed more, Vietnamese would have come to love the regime, signed up with the oh-so-willing ARVN and the Diem regime would have persisted (despite US acknolegdements it was hated)?

The only thing that kept South Vietnam afloat for so long was extensive bankrolling and support from the US. The South Vietnamese regime was corrupt to the core, almost everywhere apart from Saigon itself. The Vietnamese made their preference clear by chosing to fight for one side and not the other.

West Coast
7th Dec 2005, 14:38
So do you have any data to back up your claim then?

No perhaps?

BTW, of the 3 you mentioned as not having served, two actually had. Lots of readily available data shows this to be correct. Some may question how Bush exited the guard, but plenty to prove he did serve.

You missed your mark by 2/3rds, that draws question as your credibility and accuracy.

Dave Martin
7th Dec 2005, 15:58
I feel I'm having to justify the earth being round. Not a supporter of intelligent design by any chance, West Coast?

Con-Pilot stated the following:

1. "The US won the war militarily" AGREED - how could the north possibly have matched US firepower (this being less than 20 years after the US first used the atomic bomb). Still raises more questions about how the South lost though doesn't it?

2. "The United States lost the overall war politically. This was due for the most part of people like Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather." MMMMMM - not so sure about this one. Amusing yes, but doesn't really hold up. See my previous post.

3. "Media bias against troops"
NOPE, it may have existed late in the war, but that coincided with the war already being a lost cause. And this certainly contrasts with the general media coverage of the day. Parts of America might have held their troops in low esteem (Mai Lai and war footage strangely not helping that), but they were still scared as hell of communism. If anyone is to blame for troops being held in low regard, it is the ones who sent them there, not the media. No need to go shooting the messenger now. Besides, negative public perception is a hell of a lot less than the Vietnamese on both sides had to endure, and something all serving soldiers deal with.

So we still have no explanation so far that stands up for why the US lost. If you can come up with any others I would be interested to hear them - this is what hampster and wheel is all about. The most obvious of course is that the policies and rationale of the southern regime were unsupported anywhere but within a minority circle of humanity, and as a result the numbers and resources could not be mobilised. Put another way, the Vietnamese did not support it.

This does seem to be backed up empirically (one only has to read the reports of the ARVN unwillingness to fight, not to mention the collapse after US support was withdrawn) and tends to be a common sense conclusion (not one often held by any losing side of course). I wish I could provide you with details of telephone call-ins, internet opinion polls and free and fair elections during 1960s Vietnam....but sadly they don't exist.

Instead the history books will have to provide the answers you need -

"Claims of corruption were merely political rhetoric, however. Hồ Chí Minh and his communist policies were popular, and Diệm was not. President Eisenhower himself commented that given a democratic election, a socialist government would no doubt win. The United States did not want South Vietnam to be ruled by a Communist government, and so the U.S. continued to provide Diệm with support, in spite of his weak rule and unpopularity."

The irony of an anti-communist struggle surely isn't lost on you I hope, West Coast.

But I guess you are right, and can ignore all this - since I was incorrect on the technicalities of Cheney and Rumsfeld's military (combat?) record any quotation or analysis of history I make is clearly devoid of credibility. How convenient

At least I can admit when I am wrong West Coast, which for you, and a few like you, seems a bridge too far - then again, I suppose after three decades and several million lives, yours is a tougher admission to make.

West Coast
7th Dec 2005, 22:03
DM

I simply wanted (and still do) to know if you could back up your claim Vietnamese actually preferring the ideology of the communists. If its opinion, then so be it. If you know it somehow to be an absolute truth then prove it and I'll admit I was wrong.


"I wish I could provide you with details of telephone call-ins, internet opinion polls and free and fair elections during 1960s Vietnam....but sadly they don't exist"

In both North and South Vietnam? You tend to focus on the later.


"but that coincided with the war already being a lost cause"

When did it become a lost cause? By your admission the US won the war militarily. I gues there is no real wrong answer to this.

"So we still have no explanation so far that stands up for why the US lost"

We don't? Had nothing to do with a military with its hands tied?
I'm not talking nuking 'em either. A properly managed war could and should have been fought. It wasn't and thus we lost.

con-pilot
8th Dec 2005, 01:42
Yeah A L J it is like the time the military stated in Viet Nam after the Tet offensive that we had severely crippled the VC and the North Viet Nam Army.

Folks like you and the media didn’t believe the US Military.

Sad really, because it was a huge defeat for the communist. But hey, don’t let the truth get in way of a good headline.





I know, I know I was not going to debate Viet Nam, but there are some things I just can’t leave alone. I will now go to my corner and mumble to myself.:ugh:

Grandpa
8th Dec 2005, 06:18
YOU WON the Viet-Nam war!

All the stuff you can read on the media about Viet-Nam as an independant state is pure lie.

This nice folk of yours N'Guyen Kao Ky is still parading wearing his flying jacket............and maybe purchasing an aircraft carrier to play his master's voice ( ............wuth your money Con.)

All these GIs who deserted, refused to obey, and even fragged their officers are still in jail whith all the students and youth who demonstrated in campus, cities and barracks against the war.

Enjoy your life: war is a fair game, doesn't coast anything (money, lives, sufferings ), Agent Orange has got the HDA stamp and now GIs may fly to Baghdad for RAR.

ORAC
8th Dec 2005, 10:19
The Guardian: Torture evidence inadmissible in UK courts, Lords rule

Evidence that may have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in British courts, the House of Lords ruled today. A panel of seven Law Lords voted unanimously to allow an appeal by eight detainees who are being held without charge on suspicion of being involved in terrorism, against a controversial Court of Appeal judgment passed in August 2004.

The appeal court voted last year that if evidence was obtained under torture by agents of another country with no involvement by the UK, it was usable and there was no obligation by the government to inquire about its origins. But today's ruling means such evidence is inadmissible under British law. It also means the home secretary must re-examine all cases where evidence obtained by torture has been used against suspects.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice who headed the panel, said English law had regarded "torture and its fruits" with abhorrence for more than 500 years. "The principles of the common law, standing alone, in my opinion compel the exclusion of third-party torture evidence as unreliable, unfair, offensive to ordinary standards of humanity and decency and incompatible with the principles which should animate a tribunal seeking to administer justice," he said........

Dave Martin
8th Dec 2005, 10:31
West Coast,

The ideology was of a united and independent Vietnam. Are you saying that wasn't attractive to the Vietnamese? That they didn't actually fight against the French, then the Americans and later Chinese and Cambodian attacks for this very reason?

No, I admitted the battle was won in a military sense - the Vietnamese could not beat the US on the battlefield in a classic sense. No one would dispute that. The US could probably have destroyed any country it wanted to in the day. That doesn't win wars though does it?

By most people's definitions a succesful conflict would be when your troops can leave having installed a friendly regime, with support of the nations inhabitants. Do you think the US was any closer to that in 75 than it was in 65? That those 2million or so Vietnamese lives lost were worthy sacrifices to that nobel cause.

It's all very well turning up in a country and bombing the crap out of it. But as you are finding in Iraq, that doesn't mean you have won or can hold ground (moral or otherwise).

Do tell me, just what would the US have been able to do if its hands weren't tied? And what kind of limitations are you referring to exactly?

PanPanYourself
8th Dec 2005, 12:39
Yet another man of intellect and honour tries to wake up the ignorant masses:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/books/12/08/pinter.nobel.ap/index.html



83% of those holding PhDs in the U.S. voted against Bush...

Trends show as IQ/education increases support for Bush decreases...

THIS SHOULD TELL YOU PEOPLE SOMETHING!!!!

This alone should be enough to end this debate & thread once and for all, but of course it won't... People will insist on being stupid.

flame away

West Coast
8th Dec 2005, 14:37
DM

Just because the South was defeated militarily doesn't support the statement you made.

I don't buy your thought process that the South lost ergo the majority wanted the communist government to win.

All I'm asking is to provide some evidence for your statement other than the North won therefore it must be.

Did the majority of the French want Hitler? He ruled their country after a military battle.

So again, I ask for absolute evidence to the absolute statement you made.

Grandpa
8th Dec 2005, 19:13
I pay respect to the House of Lords, UK isn't going to skid back to dark age.

Ozzy
8th Dec 2005, 19:38
But didn't the French start the Vietnam war?:E:E:E

Ozzy

Dave Martin
8th Dec 2005, 21:56
West Coast,

Interesting - I would have said Adolf Hitlers occupation of France was closer to the US involvement in Vietnam.

Funny you seem to look at it the other way.

I'll dig out supporting evidence for you, but I am really shocked I even need to. There would be few people outside of your circle in the US who would agree that the US involvement in Vietnam was anything but a massive blot on your history books.

I would say the popularity of the victory would be the default answer in this case. So, as much as you are looking forward to justification of my theory, I'm very much looking forward to your explaination.

Ozzy,

Yep, you are damn right. France's involvement in Vietnam was very similar to the US. Which side do you fall on - was Frances bad and America's good?

West Coast
8th Dec 2005, 22:35
"I'll dig out supporting evidence for you"

Well thank you, thank you very much. Will it be in a timely manner?

"a massive blot on your history books"

My circle, you know what the people in my circle believe? I agree with you. Vietnam is a blot in more than our history books, but on our psyche as well. While we agree to that, the reasoning and path to it likely differ.

"I would say the popularity of the victory would be the default answer in this case"

So when many threw flowers at the Germans soldiers to appease them, they were actually doing it because they wanted them there? No, your default analysis falls short of the burden of evidence to make me a believer in your revisionary history lesson.

3 slips and a gully
9th Dec 2005, 02:57
winning hearts and minds on a highway in Iraq (http://www.resist.com.au/killinginiraq.wmv )

PanPanYourself
9th Dec 2005, 06:21
Ok, I wish I hadn't seen that because now I'm pissed off and its gonna haunt me all day. :mad:

Fcuking evil bastards, I hope whoever shot that video gets his balls cut off and bleeds to death, and subsequently burns in hell for all eternity. :mad:

I've seen other videos like this, some involving dancing and laughing while killing. :mad:

Of course most of the braindead American public will never see any of this. Not that they would give a rat fcuk mind you. "Support the troops", yeah fcuking right.:mad: