Are all soldiers like the Nazis?

[RickyH]

Yeah, sure. So when invaded fuck the geneva convention, although you'll argue that it's so cruel of americans to break the geneva convention.

i disagree with violence more than you do. you also support nazi tactics. so, essentially you're a nazi according to your terms.

 

[iceaura]

For the record WP was used in the WOT against the al queda and the taliban. The method was called shake and bake by many cannoneers

In Iraq, as in other places the US has used that kind of technique, there were no Al Qaida and no Taliban.

And of course the commanders who ordered that have been courtmartialed, right? All those bad apples are in jail now, we trust.

Why wasn't the taliban responsible for 9/11 then

They were not involved - none of the financing, manpower, training, planning, or execution involved even a single known individual member of the Taliban. No one in the Taliban is known to have had any knowledge of the operation beforehand.

Why a worldwide campaign of genocide? Are you suggesting that all muslims are terrorists and warrant a genocide?

You are. You are attemptiong to eliminate "threat", and you have no way of distinguishing the "threatening" Muslims from the others.

I think he's confusing you guys with the behaviour of the few Blackwater contractors who were not subject to law. He doesn't understand US soldiers have been bending over backwards not to create new enemies among the civilian population as it is counterproductive to their aims.

No, I'm not.

Ricky is claiming to be a policeman in Iraq. He's a soldier in an occupying army.

Objections to the counterproductive nature of the way the US military occupation has been treating the Iraqi civilians have been repeated and repeated and repeated, over and over and over, for years now, by the critics of the Iraq invasion. It's been a major theme of these critics since before W even launched the invasion and occupation of Iraq - it was anticipated, by anyone who had been following the behavior of the US military elsewhere, the effects of the sanctions and the ideology of their enforcement, and the implications of the new administration's ideology for the near future.

I don't believe there to be enough evidence to say there is a secret torture prison.

The network of torture prisons is no secret - it's been discussed, with examples and evidence and documentation and some reasonable attempts at numerical and other analysis, for years now. There were some photos from one of them on the front pages of the major US newspapers, even, a couple of years ago.

Not in american. How about in arabic countries? Do you think they're any more right to torture americans with the intentions of killing them in every single case?

So you are comparing the treatment of a few foreigners by the local gang leaders somewhere, with the official actions and policies of an invading army in someone else's country?

You are justifying the behaviors of the US army by comparing it favorably to a local gang of psychopaths? And you might be wrong, in the favor? My gosh.

Lessee: if the Chinese invaded Chicago, would they be justified in setting up a local Bagram style interrogation center - with hooks in the ceiling and shackle points installed in the floors, the proper electrical and water and temperature control infrastructure, etc - for questioning the citizens of Chicago, based on a comparison with the way the Chicago mob treated a couple of Chinese heroin importers who crashed their turf?

How far are you willing to push that ridiculous argument?

Trivia question: which came first in Iraq, the Gitmo torture program or the terrorist beheadings?

 

[RickyH]

In Iraq, as in other places the US has used that kind of technique, there were no Al Qaida and no Taliban.

Your proof? I only know of this recently happening in iraq and afghanistan. Did you obtain any material that the us government might deem classified, or is it something you're making up. How would we know, without proof.

They were not involved - none of the financing, manpower, training, planning, or execution involved even a single known individual member of the Taliban. No one in the Taliban is known to have had any knowledge of the operation beforehand.
You are. You are attemptiong to eliminate "threat", and you have no way of distinguishing the "threatening" Muslims from the others.
No, I'm not.

I asked for evidence, not the same long winded speach.

Ricky is claiming to be a policeman in Iraq. He's a soldier in an occupying army.

Did I make that claim? Am I even in an occupied country? Perhaps I just showed you the security agreement verifying that the us military is indeed doing nothing more than what the police are doing and following iraqi laws. You wouldn't know though, because I assume you didn't read it, or even research it.

The network of torture prisons is no secret - it's been discussed, with examples and evidence and documentation and some reasonable attempts at numerical and other analysis, for years now. There were some photos from one of them on the front pages of the major US newspapers, even, a couple of years ago.

I bet you have evidence too? a link to the newspaper article, a few testimonies that have matching stories.

So you are comparing the treatment of a few foreigners by the local gang leaders somewhere, with the official actions and policies of an invading army in someone else's country?

You are justifying the behaviors of the US army by comparing it favorably to a local gang of psychopaths? And you might be wrong, in the favor? My gosh.

Lessee: if the Chinese invaded Chicago, would they be justified in setting up a local Bagram style interrogation center - with hooks in the ceiling and shackle points installed in the floors, the proper electrical and water and temperature control infrastructure, etc - for questioning the citizens of Chicago, based on a comparison with the way the Chicago mob treated a couple of Chinese heroin importers who crashed their turf?

How far are you willing to push that ridiculous argument?

Trivia question: which came first in Iraq, the Gitmo torture program or the terrorist beheadings?

The argument that torture is wrong in any means? I'd push that pretty far. Definitely further then your reading teacher pushed you to learn.

 

[iceaura]

In Iraq, as in other places the US has used that kind of technique, there were no Al Qaida and no Taliban.
”
Your proof? I only know of this recently happening in iraq and afghanistan.

And I mentioned Iraq. So we're square.

I asked for evidence, not the same long winded speach.

Evidence of what? There is no evidence of Taliban involvement. What do you expect?

Perhaps I just showed you the security agreement verifying that the us military is indeed doing nothing more than what the police are doing and following iraqi laws.

Take your nose out of the documents, which say no such thing anyway, and look at the US military occupying Iraq.

I bet you have evidence too? a link to the newspaper article, a few testimonies that have matching stories.

Apparently we have US soldiers who missed the entire Abu Ghraib story, never mind Gitmo and Bagram and Bucca and Diego Garcia and so forth and so on.

I once doubted that the poll showing 85% of US soldiers in Iraq believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. I no longer do.

The latest would be yesterday, as ABC reported on Donald Rumsfeld's visit to a CIA "interrogation" center that was using an old KGB site in LIthuania. While he was there, he toured the local museum of KGB abuses - and praised the USA for ridding Lithuania of such evils. You couldn't write better for the Onion.

btw: the trivia question - which came first, the Iraqi beheadings or the Gitmo abuses, can be further refined: Which came first, the Iraqi beheadings or the Abu Ghraib torture program?

 

[RickyH]

And I mentioned Iraq. So we're square.
Evidence of what? There is no evidence of Taliban involvement. What do you expect?
Take your nose out of the documents, which say no such thing anyway, and look at the US military occupying Iraq.
Apparently we have US soldiers who missed the entire Abu Ghraib story, never mind Gitmo and Bagram and Bucca and Diego Garcia and so forth and so on.

You statement suggested we used them in countries that weren't involved in the WOT. Now that you've withdrawn that statement, I suppose we are square.

and i think you missed the part where i mentioned "secret floating torture prisons" because you weren't reading. everyone knows about these tortures, because they weren't secret. they were tortured, and the people who did it got charged and faced UCMJ

I once doubted that the poll showing 85% of US soldiers in Iraq believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. I no longer do.

I think you'd believe saddam was involved in 9/11 if the houston chronicle told he was.

The latest would be yesterday, as ABC reported on Donald Rumsfeld's visit to a CIA "interrogation" center that was using an old KGB site in LIthuania. While he was there, he toured the local museum of KGB abuses - and praised the USA for ridding Lithuania of such evils. You couldn't write better for the Onion.

So the CIA tortured people. But no evidence on secret military prisons correct?

 

[iceaura]

You statement suggested we used them in countries that weren't involved in the WOT. Now that you've withdrawn that statement

My statement was that we have used them in countries in which there were no Al Qaida or Taliban to use them against. You agreed that we used them in the invasion of Iraq.

So I didn't have to go back to Vietnam, etc.

I think you'd believe saddam was involved in 9/11 if the houston chronicle told he was.

? Is that why 85% of the soldiers in Iraq thought he was?

So the CIA tortured people. But no evidence on secret military prisons correct?

I said they weren't secret. Bagram, Bucca, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghraib (photos all over the news), Gitmo (photos in the news), and so forth, are not secret. The torture programs in operation in those places have been documented and investigated to an extent and openly discussed for years.

and i think you missed the part where i mentioned "secret floating torture prisons" because you weren't reading. everyone knows about these tortures, because they weren't secret. they were tortured, and the people who did it got charged and faced UCMJ

The only people so far charged in the US torture interrogation setup have been low-rank people whose guilt was impossible to conceal.

 

[RickyH]

Well this will be easy.

I said in the War on Terrorism. Which implies both iraq and afghanistan. I also didn't say in the invasion of Iraq. I never even said invasion. There were reports of this happening in 2005 in iraq. Then several reports of the taliban using WP against us.

The policy to not use WP was created in I believe 1995. You want to tell me what came 1st, 1995 or vietnam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

Incendiary bombs were used extensively by the German, British and US air forces against civilian populations and targets of military significance in civilian areas (London, Hamburg, Dresden, Area bombing etc). Late in the war, some of these bombs used white phosphorus (about 1-200 grams) in place of magnesium as the igniter for their flammable mixtures. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians was banned (by signatory countries) in the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. The USA signed Protocols I and II on March 24, 1995 (and the amended article II on May 24, 1999) and later Protocols III, IV, and V, on January 21, 2009.

No, It's why you haven't shown me any evidence this entire time we've talked. You've seen it all on TV which makes me think you only watch tv, and read the paper. but i guess that's all you got.


I've been to buca, and bagram and ghraib more than once, and for more than a day or two. here's the thing, your whole arguement has absolutely nothing to do with what i mentioned. nothing, nothing, nothing at all. which goes back to the whole you didn't understand what me and sam were talking about before you posted - you cannot read correctly argument.



So what is your point anyways? To establish that there is military prisons, but to confirm that I was right(by making it look like i was wrong) when i said secret military prisons?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Er what part of the term 'Imperialistic' in my post did you misread? I know what the Brits did and most of it ain't pretty.

Might want to check your sources. Nomadic people relying on sheep and wool. Artisans and artists strong sense of oral history and ancient traditions in music and poetry.

And I doubt they worry about who you worry about.

Hmm so over a century exactly how many invasions by foreign powers is that......? For how long have the Afgans had foriegn troops on their soil?

I wonder if the US had been invaded so often and for such periods how much time and resource it would have to dedicate to issues such as civil rights.... and then compare that to a nation the size of Afghanistan.

Oh I've never said the Afghans behave like victims but I certainly think they have been subjected to a lot of attempted bullying.

But then someone always tries to dismiss a valid argument by adding the loaded term 'liberal'.

You mentioned the Russians as if it were the most important engagement in Afghanistan when the British had tried and failed long before.

All Afghans are not nomads so its probably best if you check YOUR facts. Afghan refers to a variety of tribes. You speak of sheep and wool? What about the opium trade? You seem to think of Afghans as some innocent people who sit around tending sheep all day and playing music all night. Its a romanticized notion to be sure. It reminds me of those who think of South East Asians as sweet smiling people capable of nothing else but being meek and mild. Tell me which ones were fighting the British and the russians? Or presently the US and Nato? The artisans or the sheep herders? Which one was Moussaud?

Whom they worry about is not my concern.

So you think there isn't any civil rights in Afghanistan BECAUSE of past invasions? Well that is Bullocks! They have a tradition that presently isn't conducive to the Western ideal of 'civil rights'. How was Europe able to go through so many wars and still develop the notion of civil rights? I think it has to do with our traditions not how often we were invaded by our close neighbors or how often there was blood shed within our borders. If what you say were true then Europe would not have progressed passed the marauding Vikings. Those who lived and worked in the country BEFORE the Taliban took over will tell you that that the status of women outside of the city didn't live much differently than when the Taliban had taken over and imposed themselves. They have always been a patriarchal culture of different tribal groups some more conservative than others, most of them patriarchal who regularly negotiated and fought each other for territory and wealth. Left to their own devices you wouldn't find 'democracy' and 'civil rights' creeping its way in anytime soon as these ideals are not necessarily a natural evolution of their religious culture and traditions. As a matter of fact your whole idea of 'civil rights' and 'democracy' can be deemed as a form of 'intellectual and social imperialism'. If they ever decide they want to build a 'civil society' with laws etc that regulate all citizens from every tribe throughout the country they will find their way there. The truth is that the geography and tribal nature of the country isn't yet conducive to that. During the 60's and 70's there was a more liberal culture in Kabul (and only in Kabul), a culture of female persons in positions of influence but they lost that with the entrance of the Taliban who didn't fight them for control but negotiated their way there.

Anyone who has dealt with an Afghan knows that they aren't easily 'bullied'. Its a male dominated high testosterone culture. They used to skin russian soldiers and place the skin on elevated rocks so that other russian soldiers could see what happened to their mate! And yet you still think they can be bullied!! That's the mistake Obama and NATO are making. Afghans are tough and hardy, not a bunch of demure sheep herders.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

You are. You are attemptiong to eliminate "threat", and you have no way of distinguishing the "threatening" Muslims from the others.

Ricky is claiming to be a policeman in Iraq. He's a soldier in an occupying army.


Objections to the counterproductive nature of the way the US military occupation has been treating the Iraqi civilians have been repeated and repeated and repeated, over and over and over, for years now, by the critics of the Iraq invasion. It's been a major theme of these critics since before W even launched the invasion and occupation of Iraq - it was anticipated, by anyone who had been following the behavior of the US military elsewhere, the effects of the sanctions and the ideology of their enforcement, and the implications of the new administration's ideology for the near future.

You have a reading comprehension problem. The 'threat' that would and should be dealt with and eliminated is the Jihad threat, the terrorist threat/muslim extremism. There have always been ways of dealing with these kind of threats without resorting to conventional warfare. Its what Mossad, MI5, MI6 and other intelligence agencies do on a regular basis. They have recently caught four men in Italy whom they have connected to the Mumbai bombings it didn't take a drone to do it. You seem to be saying that if there is a problem with Italian gangsters one shouldn't attempt to attack the mob because it could be seen as an attack on Italians. Well that's tough! Muslim extremism exists within the muslim community and it needs to be addressed. If they cannot deal with it then it will be done from the outside.

Why is Ricky part of an occupied army when Karzai's old government as well as the new has welcomed the presence of US and NATO forces?

Like I said I don't think we should engage in this war but it has nothing to do with the Afghan situation nor with the civilian population. Even if civilians were not in harms way I think this move is a mistake because Afghanistan cannot be 'won'. I worry about our resources and our men and if its in the best interest to our society. The efforts to eradicate islamic extremism in the West would continue whether you had troops there or not.

 

[sniffy]

You mentioned the Russians as if it were the most important engagement in Afghanistan when the British had tried and failed long before.

Some people here can't think beyond two weeks ago let alone the last two centuries. Twenty years is about all some can handle historically before their eyes and ears glaze over.

All Afghans are not nomads so its probably best if you check YOUR facts. Afghan refers to a variety of tribes. You speak of sheep and wool? What about the opium trade?

I don't need to check my facts. They are facts. What about the opium trade? A whole heap of imperialsitic history mixed up in that one. Certainly not started by the Afghans although some have certainly profited from it.

You seem to think of Afghans as some innocent people who sit around tending sheep all day and playing music all night. Its a romanticized notion to be sure.

Do I? Or is that what some Afghans did and still do?

Which ones exactly were fighting the British, the russians, US and Nato, the artisans or the sheep herders?

Many of them I expect. I mean I would stop spinning and take up arms if folks kept invading my country. Wouldn't you?

Whom they worry about is not my concern.

You mentioned worrying.

So you think there isn't any civil rights in Afghanistan BECAUSE of past invasions? I think that's a childish notion. They have a tradition that isn't conducive to the Western ideas of 'civil rights'.

And you are saying that Europe has? What tradition is that but a recent one. It's no co-incidence that the USA was colonised by expats.

How was Europe able to go through so many wars and still develop the notion of civil rights? I think it has to do with our traditions not how often we were invaded by our close neighbors or how often there was blood shed within our borders. If what you say were true then Europe would not have progressed passed the marauding Vikings.

Oh it was all so natural and bloodless this civil rights business was it? So tell us about our 'traditions' of civil rights then.

Those who lived and worked in the country BEFORE the Taliban took over will tell you that that the status of women outside of the city didn't live much differently than when the Taliban had taken over.

You assume I haven't spoken to such people do you?

They have always been a patriarchal, a culture of different tribal groups some more conservative than others, most of them patriarchal who negotiated and fought each other for territory and wealth. Left to their own devices you wouldn't find 'democracy' and 'civil rights' creeping its way in anytime soon as these ideals are not necessarily a natural evolution of their culture and traditions.

Ah and the West, Europe in particular, has never had a patriarchal culture huh?

As a matter of fact your whole idea of 'civil society' and 'democracy' can be deemed as a form of 'intellectual and social imperialism'.

No shit Sherlock! Imperialism comes in many forms doesn't it? Quite often in the form of invading armies. Or bankers. Or 'development' workers.

Funny that.

Anyone who has dealt with an Afghan knows that they aren't easily 'bullied'. Its a male dominated high testosterone culture.

Not like ours was ever then? Did I say was....?

Hmm. Bankers don't you just love them?

They used to skin russian soldiers and place the skin on elevated rocks so that other russian soldiers could see what happened to their mate! And yet you still think they can be bullied!!

Skinning? Yep torture and maiming is a pretty effective scare tactic isn't it?

Anyway did I mention bullying? I think I mentioned intervention and invasion.

That's the mistake Obama and NATO are making. Afghans are tough and hardy, not a bunch of demure sheep herders

Have you ever had to herd sheep for a living? I'm guessing the answer is 'no'.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Some people here can't think beyond two weeks ago let alone the last two centuries. Twenty years is about all some can handle historically before their eyes and ears glaze over.

I don't need to check my facts. They are facts. What about the opium trade? A whole heap of imperialsitic history mixed up in that one. Certainly not started by the Afghans although some have certainly profited from it.

Do I? Or is that what some Afghans did and still do?

Many of them I expect. I mean I would stop spinning and take up arms if folks kept invading my country. Wouldn't you?

And you are saying that Europe has? What tradition is that but a recent one. It's no co-incidence that the USA was colonised by expats.

Oh it was all so natural and bloodless this civil rights business was it? So tell us about our 'traditions' of civil rights then.

You assume I haven't spoken to such people do you?

Ah and the West, Europe in particular, has never had a patriarchal culture huh?

No shit Sherlock! Imperialism comes in many forms doesn't it? Quite often in the form of invading armies. Or bankers. Or 'development' workers.

Funny that.
Not like ours was ever then? Did I say was....?

Hmm. Bankers don't you just love them?


Skinning? Yep torture and maiming is a pretty effective scare tactic isn't it?

Anyway did I mention bullying? I think I mentioned intervention and invasion..

No they are not facts. What you have done is pigeon hole a bunch of different peoples into a sweet package of sheep art and music. People who have been there have some interesting things to say about the Afghans but no one has simplified them into sheep herders. What some Afghans do is not what all Afghans do. Its like saying that Khmers are nothing but a bunch of rice growers and Americans all work at the mall. The opium trade is something the Afghans have done for a very very long time, before Mr. Livingstone presumed to show up!

Afghans are very happy to fight each other when they are not fighting someone from outside. There prowess at times of war has to do with their seasoned nature not simple 'outrage' at being invaded. If this were true they would have fought with the Taliban instead of showing willingness to negotiate with them and switching sides (they switch sides often!).

Well maybe you see the Greco-roman traditions as being recent but I don't. It began with them and continued to shape every facet of our intellectual culture and tradition. It spread like mold! And yes the US is an offshoot of that very same tradition. There isn't any society as progressive for women as the west. None. Not even in the most secular parts of Asia.

Sniffy: Oh it was all so natural and bloodless this civil rights business was it? So tell us about our 'traditions' of civil rights then.

Don't play daft and pretend you cannot read! You blamed the lack of civil rights on western invasions, the west itself has been invaded and yet still managed to formulate the ideal of civil rights. No where did I suggest that it was bloodless, if I had I wouldn't have mentioned the marauding vikings. Civil rights was something that began from within, it wasn't imposed. You are still pretending that all cultures will somehow navigate themselves naturally towards 'civil rights' given enough peace time. Its bullshit. I live in Cambodia and can tell you right now that its bullshit.

Yes I do assume you haven't spoken to 'such people' as what you are saying is a lot of empty nonsense. You show no insight whatsoever into the culture and people that inhabit that particular part of the world. You don't see them as self-contained. You see them as being swayed by the West as if they are were so small and weak and we are the big strong bullies. Its black and white thinking and has nothing to do with reality.

The West has had a patriarchal society but never one as rigid as what comes out of their traditions. Throughout various stages in Western history women have always played a role. In the 1970's women were still stuck in the house, unable to be viewed by outside men, veiled when out and outside the realm of power including power over their own lives.

Your idea of imperialism is besides the point specifically because you seem to think that if one side didn't utilize power then no one else would. Better the devil you know. If you think the world would look sweeter with a strong Asian or Islamic dominant imperialist outlook then I can only pity you.

You have never lived in a hard, high testosterone society...EVER...

Sure. Skinning is an effective tactic but you would be outraged if it was done by a western soldier.

So again Sniffy why is it an invasion when the acting government of Afghanistan has welcomed Nato and US forces?

I'll ignore red herrings like references to 'bankers'.

 

[sniffy]

No they are not facts. What you have done is pigeon hole a bunch of different peoples into a sweet package of sheep art and music. People who have been there have some interesting things to say about the Afghans but no one has simplified them into sheep herders. What some Afghans do is not what all Afghans do. Its like saying that Khmers are nothing but a bunch of rice growers and Americans all work at the mall. The opium trade is something the Afghans have done for a very very long time, before Mr. Livingstone presumed to show up!

so have all Afghans been involved in the opium trade or just some of them? Cos you know I'm the one lumping Afgans into a package.....

Have you heard of the opium wars luce? Nowt to do with Mr Livingstone. Quite a bit to do with markets and emerging economies and power. Imperialistic ones at that.

Afghans are very happy to fight each other when they are not fighting someone from outside. There prowess at times of war has to do with their seasoned nature not simple 'outrage' at being invaded. If this were true they would have fought with the Taliban instead of showing willingness to negotiate with them and switching sides (they switch sides often!).

Men are happy to fight each other when they haven't got a BMW to play with. What's new in the world?

Well maybe you see the Greco-roman traditions as being recent but I don't. It began with them and continued to creep into our traditions like mold! And yes the US is an offshoot of that very same tradition.

Oh yes the greeks. We all love the greeks don't we? The greeks weren't in any way sexist were they? Or slave owners? Hmm. Lets just lump all the greeks into the grape eating, wine swigging lovers of philosophy, eh? And the Romans? Never were warlike or aggresive those sweet little pacifists!

Sounds to me like you've been brainwashed by some greek.

Oh it was all so natural and bloodless this civil rights business was it? So tell us about our 'traditions' of civil rights then.

Iceaura?? Where the hell did that come from? I'm still wating for you Luce to tell us all about our civil rights record.

Don't play daft and pretend you cannot read! You blamed the lack of civil rights on western invasions, the west itself has been invaded and yet still managed to formulate the ideal of civil rights.

The West is not a small land-locked country surrounded by imperialists! The 'West' is not one country. It has taken many, many centuries for any idealistic notion of equality to even be entertained. 'The West' was a slave owning, witch hunting, heretic burning utopia until....well, when exactly?

No where did I suggest that it was bloodless, if I had I wouldn't have mentioned the marauding vikings. Civil rights was something that began from within, it wasn't imposed. You are still pretending that all cultures will somehow navigate themselves naturally towards 'civil rights' given enough peace time. Its bullshit. I live in Cambodia and can tell you right now that its bullshit.

And the vikings were all for civil rights were they? Wake up! I'm not pretending anything.

Anyway why don't you move out of nasty old cambodia to the lovely sunny, calm, idealistic west? You can come and live next door to me.

Yes I do assume you haven't spoken to 'such people' as what you are saying is a lot of empty nonsense. You show no insight whatsoever into the culture and people that inhabit that particular part of the world. You don't see them as self-contained. You see them as being swayed by the West as if they are were so small and weak and we are the big strong bullies. Its black and white thinking and has nothing to do with reality.

I show as much insight as you do. I know how bribary works to 'smooth' international relations....I know how 'not negotiating with terrorists works' too. Unlike yourself I'm not idealistic about the west specifically. I'm not idealistic about any place in particular.

The West has had a patriarchal society but never one as rigid as what comes out of their traditions. Throughout various stages in Western history women have always played a role. In the 1970's women were still stuck in the house, unable to be viewed by outside men, veiled when out and outside the realm of power including power over their own lives.

Snap off those rose tinted glasses.

Women couldn't have a bank account without permission from daddy or hubby in the 1970s. Despite being able to 'vote'. They couldn't get credit either but they could work all hours. Funny that. See any parallels anywhere? now wind backwards a few years.

Your idea of imperialism is besides the point specifically because you seem to think that if one side didn't utilize power then no one else would. Better the devil you know. If you think the world would look sweeter with a strong Asian or Islamic dominant imperialist outlook then I can only pity you.

Is that what I said? Or are you trying to put words in my mouth? What does funding from the US produce in the hands of hard line Islamicists? More hard line Islamicists with guns. Go figure.

You have never lived in a hard, high testosterone society...EVER...

Really? You may need to check your facts on that one Bubba.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

No more than all Afghans are herding sheep. I was suggesting there is more going on than simple 'sheepherders'.

What does the Opium wars which had to do with the Britain and china have to do with Afghanistan? The Taliban are having their own 'opium war'.

No matter how you want to look at it Sniffy we are philosophically formed from the Greeks, to pretend otherwise is simply being silly. But as usual these small points you are trying to make does little but digress from the topic at hand.

Why is it an invasion occupation when the past and newly formed government have welcomed US and NATO soldiers? I mean Karzai isn't really interested in having more troops come into the country as an escalation would place him in a an even more precarious position than he is in right now but he certainly hasn't asked them to leave. He needs them. This newly formed semi coalition government will not be able to control tribal opposition and his government is in jeopardy and considered corrupt.

Their government needs us to fight their anti-government forces. Either way the US and NATO will make a hasty exit as its already a quagmire. So please answer the question I posed and stop meandering around pebbles.

One doesn't need to put words in your mouth after all you did write this nonsensical garbled mess:

"What does funding from the US produce in the hands of hard line Islamicists? More hard line Islamicists with guns. Go figure."

You pull this from out of the sky with not even a reference or something to give it any context. I won't entertain it as you are only using a debating style meant to scatter and stray conversation and deconstruct from the main point that is being made. Its the pitter patter around essentials.


I don't know where you were from but but women DID have band accounts in the 70's and they also were rewarded credit. Women have a much longer history of influence politically, socially and culturally. Period. If you don't know the history of women throughout Europe and the States I would suggest you give it a search.

I do return to the West. I go to Europe and the States. I prefer Europe.

 

[iceaura]

The policy to not use WP was created in I believe 1995.

You are in error. The prohibition of WP use against the people in cities and other populated areas - such as Fallujah in 2004 - has been firmly established since at least this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons, in 1980, if not (as most reasonable people interpret things) since the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The year 2005 was the year the US Defense Department was finally cornered in its lying about its use of WP munitions against populated targets, and admitted for the first time that its previous denials of their use in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, repeated over many months and in response to numerous inquiries and rumors, were deceptions and untruths.

So what is your point anyways? To establish that there is military prisons, but to confirm that I was right(by making it look like i was wrong) when i said secret military prisons?

I merely repeat, with examples and so forth, my original point: that the US has established numerous military torture prisons, and the fact is widely known. I said they were not secrets, and I supplied you with examples of their public discussion over the past many years.

And that you are in error if you claim, as you appear to, that the US military personnel known to have established and operated these military torture prisons ahve been prosecuted under military law.

Are you in accord with these observations of reality, so that the issue is settled?

Why is Ricky part of an occupied army when Karzai's old government as well as the new has welcomed the presence of US and NATO forces?
- - - -
So again Sniffy why is it an invasion when the acting government of Afghanistan has welcomed Nato and US forces?

How does anything Karzai says change the obvious fact that the US military has invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would guess that every military occupation in history has been welcomed by the government it installed.

 

[Echo3Romeo]

You are in error. The prohibition of WP use against the people in cities and other populated areas - such as Fallujah in 2004 - has been firmly established since at least this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons, in 1980, if not (as most reasonable people interpret things) since the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

You're wrong about a few things. First, every WP munition in the US arsenal is, by definition, for smoke generation. Protocol III of the CCWC categorically excludes smoke rounds from being classified as "incendiary weapons". Second, even if Protocol III did include marking and illumination rounds, the US hasn't signed it.

As for Geneva, you're not even reading the right set of laws anymore. Geneva pertains to the treatment of EPWs and noncombatants. There are many other treaties that pertain to legality of individual weapon systems. You'd want to start with the Hague Conventions first, as the oldest, and work your way forward from there.

In the reality of things, WP is just another conventional tool in our box. Sometimes, it's pretty useful. The so-called "shake and bake" missions employ the effects of WP to force personnel out of small fortifications, like trench lines and fighting holes and what not. Once the target personnel are driven into the open, the second salvo is comprised of either unitary high explosive or DPICM rounds (cluster munitions) to kill them. The bake comes before the shake. It's devastatingly effective, and entirely legal. What is the problem here?

 

[iceaura]

First, every WP munition in the US arsenal is, by definition, for smoke generation. Protocol III of the CCWC categorically excludes smoke rounds from being classified as "incendiary weapons".

The use of WP against people, as an incendiary weapon and without regard to any "smoke" production - an obvious and now officially admitted fact of US military operations in Iraq (and formerly in Vietnam etc) - is not made to have never happened by the convenience of "definitions".

In the reality of things, WP is just another conventional tool in our box. Sometimes, it's pretty useful. The so-called "shake and bake" missions employ the effects of WP to force personnel out of small fortifications, like trench lines and fighting holes and what not.

And no one has stood trial for that "pretty useful" tactic, am I right?

It's devastatingly effective, and entirely legal. What is the problem here?

Its legality is in dispute, and would be better established by trial in court. The ethical bankruptcy of its employers has been firmly established. The problem? Perhaps you might address that inquiry to to the DOD, which lied about this use of WP munitions with great diligence and persistence even for many months after the first eyewitness accounts filtered through the US military's news management in Iraq.

Odd that the DOD would deny so persistently such a normal, legal tactic of that war, eh?

Geneva pertains to the treatment of EPWs and noncombatants.

Such as the ones in Fallujah, or any of twenty other Iraqi cities?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Iceaura: How does anything Karzai says change the obvious fact that the US military has invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?
I would guess that every military occupation in history has been welcomed by the government it installed.


Because you continue to call this an occupation and invasion without taking into account that there is a new government that requires US and NATO help in order to survive the onslaught of anti government forces, in other words we are now there 'by permission'. Is it that you would wish to see an immediate withdrawal of all troops no matter the consequences? How would you have handled the security problem of the Taliban using Afghanistan to train terrorists who attack people in the West and other parts of the world? Or is it that the lives of people in the West are a secondary consideration?

If the US didn't install a government the country would have been left with a vacuum. Afghan people didn't choose nor vote for the Taliban but that's what they got. They had an opportunity to vote since the new government and process has been installed and people risked their own lives just to take part in that vote. There were those who had lost ears and fingers by anti government insurgents just because they went out to vote. Though there were allegations of corruption in the last election doesn't mean that the people hadn't taken an important step by engaging in the elections. Even during US electoral disputes we didn't feel the need to drop entire institutions. Is it that you think the Afghans were better off before? Would you like to see the US pull all financial and military support which includes training Afghans in security protocols? I am not adverse to full financial and military withdrawal as it would benefit to our troops and not drain our resources but it wouldn't serve the Afghans well

 

[RickyH]

You are in error. The prohibition of WP use against the people in cities and other populated areas - such as Fallujah in 2004 - has been firmly established since at least this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons, in 1980, if not (as most reasonable people interpret things) since the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

The year 2005 was the year the US Defense Department was finally cornered in its lying about its use of WP munitions against populated targets, and admitted for the first time that its previous denials of their use in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, repeated over many months and in response to numerous inquiries and rumors, were deceptions and untruths.
I merely repeat, with examples and so forth, my original point: that the US has established numerous military torture prisons, and the fact is widely known. I said they were not secrets, and I supplied you with examples of their public discussion over the past many years.

And that you are in error if you claim, as you appear to, that the US military personnel known to have established and operated these military torture prisons ahve been prosecuted under military law.

Are you in accord with these observations of reality, so that the issue is settled?
How does anything Karzai says change the obvious fact that the US military has invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan?

I would guess that every military occupation in history has been welcomed by the government it installed.

echo said it best on wp

Those prisons aren't torture prisons you fool and they were never established to torture people. It's a huge deal if you torture a prisoner. Your military career, and potentially your life as you may know it would be over if you get caught up in it. Time has shown this again, and again. Just because the brass seems to dodge the bullet, if they were even involved doesn't mean they won't be if there is enough evidence to show that they are. For the record, a captain and anything below not to include sergeant major of the army isn't exactly high ranking people or even close. The captain probably got off the charges because he didn't have anything to do with it. These prisons are meant to detain members believed to be terrorists for tactical questioning, to hold securely to be escorted to gtmo. If the military wanted to keep this institutions open to torture people you definitely wouldn't be reading about it in the news. They also wouldn't disclose to location of the prisons due to the fact that when buca was caught up in the picture/torture scandel a few years back they were attacked heavily as retrobution.

It'd be in the best interests of the military to keep the prisons both out of america and out of hostile areas if they were to torture people, beyond what they've done at gtmo. Does that not seem obvious to you?

It seems like only the CIA are imfamous for using a prison in a foriegn nation to torture people extensively. This even you have said, and this sadly is a fact. However, the military does not; excluding gtmo. If there is torturing in a prison, it's usually short lived, and handled accordingly. I don't think you could do anything more than speculate against it. I would love to see evidence that they opened prisons solely to torture people though.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf

No EPW or RP may be punished more than once for the
same act or sentenced to any penalties except those authorized
herein.
(5) In no case will disciplinary punishments be inhumane, brutal,
or dangerous to the person’s health. The length of a single disciplinary
punishment will not exceed 30 days. Confinement served while
awaiting the hearing of a disciplinary offense or the award of disciplinary
punishment will be deducted from punishment awarded. No
more than 30 days punishment may be prescribed even if a person is
answerable for several acts at the same time. This is true whether
such acts are related or not. The period between pronouncing an
award of disciplinary punishment and commencing punishment will
not exceed 30 days.
(6) When EPW or RP are awarded a further disciplinary punishment,
a period of at least 3 days will elapse between punishments if
the length of one of the punishments is 10 days or more.
(7) EPW or RP being disciplined or judicially punished will not
be subjected to more severe treatment than that authorized for the
same offense by members of the U.S. Armed Forces of equal grade.
(8) EPW or RP sentenced by a courts-martial or awarded discip
l i n a r y p u n i s h m e n t w i l l n o t b e t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m o t h e r
detainees after their punishment.


The inhumane treatment of EPW, CI, RP is prohibited and is
not justified by the stress of combat or with deep provocation.
Inhumane treatment is a serious and punishable violation under
international law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
b. All prisoners will receive humane treatment without regard to
race, nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other criteria.
The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment,
mutilation, the taking of hostages, sensory deprivation, collective
punishments, execution without trial by proper authority, and all
cruel and degrading treatment.
c. All persons will be respected as human beings. They will be
protected against all acts of violence to include rape, forced prostitution,
assault and theft, insults, public curiosity, bodily injury, and
reprisals of any kind. They will not be subjected to medical or
scientific experiments. This list is not exclusive. EPW/RP are to be
protected from all threats or acts of violence.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Randy Newman's 'Political Science'

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono babe
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGO42gvCSPI

 

[Echo3Romeo]

The use of WP against people, as an incendiary weapon and without regard to any "smoke" production - an obvious and now officially admitted fact of US military operations in Iraq (and formerly in Vietnam etc) - is not made to have never happened by the convenience of "definitions".

So what? The treaty is weakly worded and ambiguous, and the US hasn't even signed that part of it. The illegality of WP is not "firmly established" here.

I would usually agree with you about the need for jurisprudence, but in this case I don't think the issue is really that big a deal. I could give you a laundry list of weapon systems that inflicted far more destruction to life and property during Operation Phantom Fury than some 155mm smoke rounds. I don't understand the moral outrage over WP as this OMG SO HORRIBLE thing, so it's hard for me to get very excited about it.

Odd that the DOD would deny so persistently such a normal, legal tactic of that war, eh?

Not necessarily. Perhaps the Pentagon suspected the PR shitstorm that resulted from its confirmed use, and wanted to avoid it. Their decision to deny it ended up being a poor one, from a PR perspective, if that's really what their rationale was. In any case, their denial is hardly indicative of any illegality.