An ode to liberals

[Booker Floyd]

Izzy you really are clueless.? How on god's earth can you label US Soldiers as calloused and cold, lacking all emotions because they took nude pictures of Iraqis.? Calloused and could would be the Islamic terrorists who target and behead innocent civilians.?

If youre going to talk about fundamentally flawed logic, pretending that the behavior of U.S. soldiers is somehow relative to the behavior of terrorists would be a decent example.

An intelligent an objective person might argue that US troops "tortured" Iraqi POWs because of the outrage and for the revenge of comrades killed by these bastards.

?

Absolute absurdity.? Perhaps you dont consider the U.S. government, military, and judiciary as objective entities, but theyve denounced the actions on every conceivable level.? And we havent even seen the worst of the photos.

"The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here." - Sen. Lindsey Graham

"It was pretty disgusting, not what you'd expect from Americans" - Sen. Norm Coleman

"I don't know how the hell these people got into our army" - Sen. Ben Campbell

Just a few Republican reactions...

And thats not even addressing the inherently dishonest approach you take to this discussion by putting "torture" in quotations and minimizing its seriousness with your "Its just a few naked pictures" attitude.  From U.S. Major Tagubas report:

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture. 
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
A male MP guard raping a female detainee.
Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
Threatening detainees with a loaded 9mm pistol.
Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
Threatening male detainees with rape.
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

That you defend this sadism and its place in our countrys military is actually sickening.  Its not even necessary to address this further.

Fortunately no person in any sort of power or influence shares your outrageous views, I mean you're. out there

Your hypocrisy will never end

[Guns N RockMusic]

Booker if you had a clue you'd realize that 99% of those events listed are standard practice in any intelligence gathering when the enemy doesn't want to cooperate.  If you can't see the difference between taking a nude picture and cutting off someone's head then there's nothing I can do to help you.  I'm not condoning the behavior of those hill jack reservists, in fact I'm condeming it.  However you'll never see Izzy pointing fingers at the Islamic extremists and their real torture.  In fact, he does the opposite and defennds the practices of those extremists. 

However I have to state that not all your claims have been proven and are even rebutted by the Pentagon.  Please show me proof of a US soldier raping a female Iraqi prisoner.  Furthermore, show me the video of those soldiers raping that detainee in the name of Alah and sending it to the media to rally behind the American cause,

Some of you are really stretching for validation here.  I understand you are against the war and even resent those who have the courage to actually make a difference in the world, i do.  However, to equate US soldiers with Islamic fundamentalists and if you want to argue that perception is accepted and valued in the mainstream international commuinty you truly are lost.

[SLCPUNK]

However, to equate US soldiers with Islamic fundamentalists and if you want to argue that perception is accepted and valued in the mainstream international commuinty you truly are lost.

Those who are lost are the ones who use the terrorist's actions to set the standard for our soldiers.

You may be willing to set the bar that low for yourself, and it shows. But America was always about setting the high standard and that is what we preached and lived.

Pointing the finger out is not taking responsibility for what wrong we have committed. Lowering our standards is a copout and an excuse to avoid accountability. Making matters worse is what it does for our image that we desperately need to restore.

Basically, even though you are not aware of it, YOU allow the terrorists to set the bar for decency, for us to judge ourselves upon. That is pretty fucked up if you ask me. America is/was about setting the standard and leading the way. Not  breaking laws and then pointing fingers at other atrocities to make light of our own.

[SLCPUNK]

I think your protesting on a gnr message board doesn't demoralize the tropps.  I think that when someone like Sheehan pulls what she pulled and it becomes a story all over the world...I think that could have a negative impact on the troops.  The bigger problem with so much protesting and so many blatant attacks on the president is not so much the message it sends to the troops as it is the message it sends to the enemy.  I think the enemy loves it when Americans protest the war.  So if the enemy loves the protest (which is logical don't you think) then I don't want to be associated with it in any way.  I think you have to be a loser to some degree to knowingly do something you know helps the enemy.  It is fundamental.  I don't want to do anything during war time that could either demoralize our troops or give encouragement to our enemies.  Very simple concept.

You did not answer my question, I'd like to hear an answer. So here it is again.

Let me ask you something Charity: These troops are getting shot at, having limbs blown off, killed and seeing their buddies killed. Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale? You can't hardly be serious.

In other words, do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?

[Booker Floyd]

Booker if you had a clue you'd realize that 99% of those events listed are standard practice in any intelligence gathering when the enemy doesn't want to cooperate.

1. This sounds suspiciously like youre defending that behavior, which of course contradicts this statement:

I'm not condoning the behavior of those hill jack reservists, in fact I'm condeming it.

But have it both ways if you like. ?

2. If you can back that claim up with evidence, Id be glad to see it. ?Id also like to see that these soldiers were even authorized, legally or illegally, to "interrogate" detainess.

3. Major Tagubas report determined that these were "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" and hardly standard practice by any means.

If you can't see the difference between taking a nude picture and cutting off someone's head then there's nothing I can do to help you.

What does the behavior of our soldiers in treating detainees (not convicted terrorists/criminals) have to do with what terrorists do? ?Thats the fundamental flaw in logic I pointed out previously: Acting as if our conduct is somehow conditional upon that of terrorists. ?Not to mention that any argument excusing despicable conduct because its better than cutting heads off is just intellectually embarassing. ?That you hold the standard of the American military to that of terrorists who sever heads is, again, sickening.

I'm not condoning the behavior of those hill jack reservists, in fact I'm condeming it.

 ?



"Heck of a job youre doing, 'Music."

However I have to state that not all your claims have been proven and are even rebutted by the Pentagon.

Really? ?Youre welcomed to back that up. ?In the meantime, Major General Antonio Tagubas report, in conjunction with pictures deemed so horrible that the Pentagon refuses to release them (but confirms their existence), seems reliable.

Some of you are really stretching for validation here.? I understand you are against the war and even resent those who have the courage to actually make a difference in the world, i do.

Two more ridiculous premises:

1. That ones position on the war has any relevance to their position on this abuse.
2. That resentment for war policy or these actions and its perpetrators equates to resentment toward our honorable troops. ?

Youre really at the bottom of the barrel...

?

However, to equate US soldiers with Islamic fundamentalists and if you want to argue that perception is accepted and valued in the mainstream international commuinty you truly are lost.

I spoke too soon. ?

It is you that keeps tying the actions of these soldiers to terrorists.

[Skeba]

And if u want to see someone with absolutely no clue what they are talking about check posts by Charity Case

...and up until this point the thread went on just fine.

This is turning into another Iraq thread, and I you can continue the discussion there.

[Charity Case]

Let me ask you something Charity: These troops are getting shot at, having limbs blown off, killed and seeing their buddies killed. Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale? You can't hardly be serious.

In other words, do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?

I think it depends on how the exercising of the freedom of speech is carried out.  It is fact that the exercising of freedom of speech (in this case antiwar protests) demoralized the troops in Vietnam.  How many times have you seen Vietnam vets say that the war protesting homeside was demoralizing?  Fucking hippes.   

Do I think the war protesting has reach that point in the US for this war, no, not yet anyway.  If the Sheehan thing had taken off and if there had been more morons like her, it could have gotten to that point.  As I stated, I'm more concerned with the war protesting taking place in Washington.  I think it sends a bad message to the enemy.  I know if I was fighting an enemy who had lowering support from their own leaders, it would give me encouragement.  It worked in Vietnam for the enemy.  I would aregue that war protesting does NOTHINg good for the troops.  There is no good on the war front that could possibly come from war protsting stateside.  We need to stay and finish this job, and I think anyone with a clue agrees.  That being given, we send the wrong signals to everyone when we protest the war or our leaders fight over exit strategies.  Bush has the right approach.  We don't need to be laying our game plan on the table for everyone to see.  Only the liberals think this is bad strategy.

[Booker Floyd]

Do I think the war protesting has reach that point in the US for this war, no, not yet anyway.? If the Sheehan thing had taken off and if there had been more morons like her, it could have gotten to that point.?

It got the ball rolling, and it doesnt seem to be slowing down much.

Is it not worse for somebody who thinks a war is wrong to "support" the policy as it claims the lives of soldiers?? If the policy is wrong, is it not up to the people of this democracy to try and change it?

I would aregue that war protesting does NOTHINg good for the troops.

 

It shapes public opinion and pressures politicians to bring them home so theyre less likely to be killed for reasons that arent worth it to many Americans.? So surely you can understand why some would disagree with you.?

We need to stay and finish this job, and I think anyone with a clue agrees.

Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.? Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

[SLCPUNK]

I think it depends on how the exercising of the freedom of speech is carried out.  It is fact that the exercising of freedom of speech (in this case antiwar protests) demoralized the troops in Vietnam.  How many times have you seen Vietnam vets say that the war protesting homeside was demoralizing?  Fucking hippes.   :

Blah blah blah

You still did not answer my question! Which pretty much sums it up, you avoided it like the plague. Answer the question.

Not to mention you are using that convenient memory loss of yours again. I remember Pilferk pointing out the (correctly) difference between the protesters during the Vietnam mess and the anti war group now. Point being that during Vietnam they often protested towards the troops, where now they do not. So please, I ask you not to lie and pretend that you don't remember this being pointed out to you. To compare the two is inaccurate, and dishonest since you have already been schooled more than once on the faulty comparison.

I'm asking you to answer my question and quit avoiding it. I am well aware that you think protesting "aids the enemy". I want an answer to my question.

[Charity Case]

I honest;y thought I answered your question.  I meant to anyway.  Why the hostility?  Your gonna blow a valve like that man.  I thought I answered your question.  You asked:

"Do you really think some people here protesting the war (on the other side of the world) is going to get back to them and diminish their morale?  In other words, do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?"

I answered:

"I think it depends on how the exercising of the freedom of speech is carried out.  It is fact that the exercising of freedom of speech (in this case antiwar protests) demoralized the troops in Vietnam.  How many times have you seen Vietnam vets say that the war protesting homeside was demoralizing?   

Do I think the war protesting has reach that point in the US for this war, no, not yet anyway.  If the Sheehan thing had taken off and if there had been more morons like her, it could have gotten to that point."

What more of an answer do you need?  You asked nicely and I tried to reply.  They you said "blah blah blah" and called me a liar.  Typical.  And just so you know...just because pilferk says so, doesn't make it so.  He is stating his opinions ans we all are.  I think war protesting during the actual conflict, in the way a Sheehan or Moore or Murtha has protested, is fucking weak.  I doubt very much there will be anything you can say to change my opinion, just as I know there is no way to change yours.  You are firmly planted on the side of yellow dog liberalism.  Not much anyone here is going to do to change that. 

[pilferk]

And just so you know...just because pilferk says so, doesn't make it so.? He is stating his opinions ans we all are.?

Actually, pilferk provided some documented proof and evidence that the Iraqi war protests were nothing like the Viet Nam war protests.  He provided a bunch of evidence that contradicts your opinions (such as opinion surveys conducted amongst the troops).  He also asked you to provide proof of your assertion that it DID effect the troops...which you never did provide and instead backpedaled and restated it was an opinion (which, apparently from your last post, you've now backed off from).

What's it been...about 6 weeks?

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg402576#msg402576

[SLCPUNK]

I honest;y thought I answered your question.  I meant to anyway.  Why the hostility? 

do you think that people exercising their freedom of speech brings a soldier down more than the first hand experience of war itself?"


Nobody is getting hostile. I just get tired of you avoiding my question, it isn't hard.

I'm am asking you if you honestly believe that those who protest the war bring the soldiers morale down more than the bombs and bullets they face every day. I can not see how anybody against the war can be worse then the violence they face daily and I want you to address that.

THAT IS THE QUESTION. I know that you are against the protesters and like to forget facts provided to you by us about that. But that is not my question. I am not asking you if you think the protesters are "aiding the enemy."

[pilferk]

And, just to add a bit of fuel to the fire...3 guesses who said the following:

But only a fool would think that protesting a war doesn't have a negative affect on the troops

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401590#msg401590

Enough said.  You protesting the war emboldens the enemy.  It is fact.  I would be ashamed if I were you, but thankfully I am pleased with a bit more sense.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401642#msg401642

[Booker Floyd]

I honest;y thought I answered your question.?

How about mine?  My posts are being avoided a lot lately between you, Shades and D, and Im offended.  Could you address my last post? 

Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.  Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

[shades]

Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet.
Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees.
Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing.
Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time.
Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear.
Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate while being photographed and videotaped.
Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them.
Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture.?
A detainee forced to stand on boxes
Writing "I am a Rapeist" [sic] on the leg of a detainee alleged to have raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked.
Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female soldier pose for a picture.
 
Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees and MPs posing with cheerful looks.
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees.
 
Pouring cold water on naked detainees.
Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair.
Threatening male detainees with rape.
Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell.
 
Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting and severely injuring a detainee.

too fuckin bad,
(SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE)

maybe if they would have been wearing the uniform of an established government army, and not out killing innocent women and children, and beheading Americans, or setting up roadside bombs that killed and mamed anyone within blast range they WOULD be getting treated like human beings afforded rights under the Geneva convention.
But their not
So the fact that they get exposed to things not much worse than a college hazing really doesnt matter to me.

[Booker Floyd]

too fuckin bad,
(SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE)

maybe if they would have been wearing the uniform of an established government army, and not out killing innocent women and children, and beheading Americans, or setting up roadside bombs that killed and mamed anyone within blast range they WOULD be getting treated like human beings afforded rights under the Geneva convention.
But their not
So the fact that they get exposed to things not much worse than a college hazing really doesnt matter to me.

That attitude, besides being simple-minded and sociopathic, undermines the fundamental principles of our country and military.  Thats not how our country operates (or is supposed to operate) and the governments response confirms as much.

The Taguba report estimates that 60% of the prisoners were "not a threat to society" and that the screening process was so inadequate that innocent civilians were often detained indefinitely.  So you should reevaluate your opinion, because youre embarassingly uninformed. 

[Booker Floyd]

This is sort of related to the topic...

First, things arent looking too great for former presidential hopeful Bill Frist:

Frist votes aid HCA's business interests

Review of 10 years in Senate shows pattern of favoring firm

But Frist need not feel lonely.  Hes not the only Republican senator in hot water:

Burns did about-face after cash from lobbyist

By JENNIFER McKEE Missoulian State Bureau

HELENA - U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., changed his stance on a 2001 bill after receiving a $5,000 donation from a lobbyist's client who opposed the legislation, records show.

The client hired Jack Abramoff as a lobbyist to defeat the kind of bill Burns voted against. Prior to receiving the payment, Burns did not oppose an identical bill that unanimously passed the Senate in 2000, Senate documents show.

Burns, who is up for re-election next year, told the Missoulian State Bureau on Friday that the campaign contribution had nothing to do with his vote, but said it happened so long ago, he couldn't remember why he opposed the 2001 measure. Burns said he may have initially not opposed the legislation's unanimous passage because it was politically more expedient not to stand in the way of a popular bill.

?Any time you put a hold on a bill, you expend political capital,? Burns said.

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post both have reported that Burns is among four lawmakers caught up in a U.S. Justice Department investigation into Abramoff and his lobbying activities. The papers cited anonymous sources. Burns representatives have said the Justice Department has never contacted the senator.

The 2001 bill dealt with labor and immigration controls in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands, a constellation of 14 islands between Hawaii and the Philippines that is controlled by the United States. The measure grew out of reports that many workers in the islands' garment industry were Chinese immigrants earning less than the U.S. minimum wage.

Because the islands are a U.S. territory, their products could be imported into the United States with a ?Made in USA? label.

In 2000, records show, the U.S. Senate took up a bill that would have broadened federal oversight of immigration and labor rules on the islands. The bill came before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which Burns served. The bill passed out of committee, records show.

However, because of the way the vote was recorded, it's impossible to tell how any individual senators, including Burns, voted.

On the floor, the bill faced no resistance, passing by unanimous consent. The Senate did not actually vote on the bill. Rather, senators agreed to pass it unanimously without taking a vote. Any one senator, including Burns, could have opposed the unanimous passage.

Burns said Friday that because there was not an actual vote on the bill, it's impossible to say that he definitely supported the measure.

?Not always can it be assumed that a piece of legislation that passes on unanimous consent can you definitely say, ?That's a yes vote,' ? said Burns.

The bill then went to the House, where it died in committee.

Senators proposed an identical bill in 2001.

That year, the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association hired Abramoff as a lobbyist, records show. Saipan is one of the larger islands in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands.

Abramoff's lobby registration shows the association hired him to ?prevent enactment of legislation to impose federal control over local labor and immigration rules.?

The same document lists Shawn Vassell, Burns' former state staff director, as a lobbyist on the issue. Vassell worked for Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm.

The association paid Abramoff $460,000 that year to defeat the bill, records show.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands also hired Abramoff in 2001 to defeat the bill, paying him $1.1 million. Vassell was also listed as a lobbyist on the issue.

On April 20, 2001, a Saipan man named Eloy Inos donated $5,000 to Friends of the Big Sky, Burns' political action committee, federal campaign finance records show. Inos listed his employer as Tan Holdings.

Tan Holdings owns, among other things, garment manufacturing facilities on the Marianas Islands. It is a member of the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association, according to the company's Web site.

On May 23, 2001, the bill again came before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for a vote. In an unusual move, Burns requested that each member's vote be recorded next to their names - a so-called ?roll call? vote. Oftentimes, such votes are recorded by voice only. On a voice vote, there is no record of how each member voted and it is impossible to tell from a transcript of the meeting how an individual senator voted.

Burns' roll call request meant that his vote would be a traceable part of the public record.

This time, Burns reversed course and voted against the bill. He was one of four committee members to do so.

The vote came one month and three days after Burns received the $5,000 donation.

Burns said he doesn't remember why he requested a roll call vote.

?I haven't a clue why,? he said. ?You're talking four or five years ago.?

The bill then passed out of committee, but the full Senate never acted on the measure, records show. The bill has never become law.

?Burns actually voted for the bill before he voted against it,? said Matt McKenna, a spokesman for the Montana Democratic Party. ?The only thing that happened in between is he got paid.?

The Montana Democratic Party already has run two television ads linking Burns to Abramoff in anticipation of his 2006 re-election campaign.

The Senate Indian Affairs Committee has also been investigating Abramoff for months on whether he swindled Indian tribal clients out of millions of dollars.

In 2003, Burns helped one of Abramoff's tribal clients, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe in Michigan, obtain a $3 million congressional grant to build a school. Because of its Indian gambling, the tribe is one of the richest in the U.S.

The Montana senator has denied any wrongdoing. Burns, who headed a Senate subcommittee overseeing the grants, said he pushed for the grant to the Saginaw Chippewa tribe at the urging of Michigan's two U.S. senators, both Democrats.

Burns received $136,500, more than any other lawmaker, from Abramoff's tribal clients from 2001 and 2004, a Bloomberg News database showed.

[Charity Case]

And, just to add a bit of fuel to the fire...3 guesses who said the following:

But only a fool would think that protesting a war doesn't have a negative affect on the troops

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401590#msg401590

Enough said.? You protesting the war emboldens the enemy.? It is fact.? I would be ashamed if I were you, but thankfully I am pleased with a bit more sense.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=22706.msg401642#msg401642

What is your point?  I am not backing down from those statement.  I have said that protesting the war emboldens the enemy.  I agree with that statement as much today as the day I wrote it.  And I think protesting the war has a negative impact on the troops if it is taken to the extreme that Sheehan and Moore have taken it.  Do I think you guys protesting on this board is harmful..hardly.  If you took the streets and acted like sheehan, then I think you would be hurting morale.  One this is for sure it wouldn't be helping them in anyway.  They need to stay now.  So anything but our undivided support is weak. 

slc, your questions is basically which is worse for the soldiers...war protesting in the States or getting shot at in Iraq?  Right?  If that is your question then the answer is obvious.  One can get you killed quick.  That doesn't mean the other isn't harmful.  My opinion is and was that protesting the war is not good for morale.

Booker, I am not avoiding your posts...I am just in discussion with slc and pilferk to a degree.  I can't get into to many discussions because it takes up too much time.  Sorry, it is not intentional.

[Booker Floyd]

Booker, I am not avoiding your posts...I am just in discussion with slc and pilferk to a degree.? I can't get into to many discussions because it takes up too much time.? Sorry, it is not intentional.

...Glad that you at least acknowledged it (thats more than a few others can say).  And you know where to find the question when you get the time, but Ill post it again for convenience:

Jack Murtha has 37 years of honorable military service, including Korea and Vietnam, visits Iraq, and regularly speaks to military leaders and Iraqi veterans.  Can you tell me what "clue" you have that he doesnt?

[SLCPUNK]

maybe if they would have been wearing the uniform of an established government army, and not out killing innocent women and children, and beheading Americans, or setting up roadside bombs that killed and mamed anyone within blast range they WOULD be getting treated like human beings afforded rights under the Geneva convention.
But their not
So the fact that they get exposed to things not much worse than a college hazing really doesnt matter to me.

That is about as UNAMERICAN as you can get.