The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Will]

Well, hello, it's not the first time we talked about that. The topic came up a couple of months ago, when people criticized SLC for watching that channel. My statement stands on its own indeed, I think both are propaganda: Fox = we're the good guys and we're gonna kick your ass, everything's going great in Iraq, it was the right war vs. Al Jazeera = look at those Americans, they came to "our" country and started that shit, tortured our people, killed innocents, etc. they're the bad guys. They're each at the end of the spectrum.
I don't think Fox is journalism (anyone who went to Journalism school and who worked there or saw their work would tell you that), I think it's a crap channel, a propaganda tool. If you like it and think it's way better and more unbiased than Al Jazeera, well, good for you.

[jgfnsr]

Well, hello, it's not the first time we talked about that. The topic came up a couple of months ago, when people criticized SLC for watching that channel. My statement stands on its own indeed, I think both are propaganda: Fox = we're the good guys and we're gonna kick your ass, everything's going great in Iraq, it was the right war vs. Al Jazeera = look at those Americans, they came to "our" country and started that shit, tortured our people, killed innocents, etc. they're the bad guys. They're each at the end of the spectrum.
I don't think Fox is journalism (anyone who went to Journalism school and who worked there or saw their work would tell you that), I think it's a crap channel, a propaganda tool. If you like it and think it's way better and more unbiased than Al Jazeera, well, good for you.

You're absolutely right, Will, Fox and Al Jazeera do come from opposite ends of the spectrum.

At least you recognize this.  The reason SLCPUNK gets flack is because he doesn't.  The guy can't say enough about the faults of his own country, past and present, but watches one documentary about Al-Jazeera and he's sold.

SLCPUNK's affinity for Al-Jazeera is understandable though.  Nothing's easier than preaching to the converted...

[SLCPUNK]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050116/ap_on_re_us/prisoner_abuse_graner

FORT HOOD, Texas - Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr., who grinned in photos of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated but told jurors, "I didn't enjoy what I did there," was sentenced Saturday to 10 years behind bars in the first court-martial stemming from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Graner, labeled the leader of a band of rogue guards at the Baghdad prison in late 2003, could have received 15 years.


Asked if he felt remorse after the sentence was handed down, Graner said, "There's a war on. Bad things happen."


Graner will be dishonorably discharged when his sentence is completed. He also was demoted to private and ordered to forfeit all pay and benefits.


A day after convicting him, the jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men deliberated about two hours to determine Graner's sentence. He could have received 15 years.


Graner, who had been free prior to trial, was taken into custody after the sentence was read. He gave his mother, Irma, a big hug and his father, Charles Sr., a firm handshake before the jury foreman read the sentence.


"He's scared to death," Irma Graner said later.


Graner was accused of stacking naked prisoners in a human pyramid and later ordering them to masturbate while other soldiers took photographs. He also allegedly punched one man in the head hard enough to knock him out, and struck an injured prisoner with a collapsible metal stick.


Defense lawyer Guy Womack said his client and the six other Abu Ghraib guards charged with abuses were being scapegoated, but added that he thought the jury did its job well.


"I firmly believe there should have been reasonable doubt, but we respect their decision," he said outside the courthouse. He added that he had feared Graner could have received a harsher sentence than the 10-year term.


Prosecutors Maj. Michael Holley and Capt. Chris Graveline would not speak to reporters, but they said in a joint statement, "We think it is important that the world was able to observe this court-martial."


Under military court rules, Graner's case will be automatically appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He also could request clemency from his commanding general.


Graner did not testify during his trial, but during the sentencing phase Saturday he took the witness stand to repeat the defense claim that the jury clearly rejected: that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners to make them easier to interrogate.


Womack asked him why he was smiling in the infamous photos, some of which were shown while Graner spoke.


"I'm smiling now, and that's a nervous smile," Graner said.


Graner described himself as a by-the-book prison guard corrupted by superiors who ordered him to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate detainees.


He said he initially resisted pressure to mistreat prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib.

   Graner said a lieutenant in his unit told him: "If (military intelligence) asks you to do this, it needs to be done. They're in charge, follow their orders."

He said he now knows that those orders were unlawful, but "at the time my understanding is that they were (lawful), or I wouldn't have done them," he said.

Graner, a 36-year-old reservist from Uniontown, Pa., spoke for nearly three hours as an "unsworn statement," meaning he was not subject to cross-examination by prosecutors. He did not testify during his trial.

He concluded by saying: "I didn't enjoy what I did there. ... A lot of it was wrong, a lot of it was criminal."

Holley, the co-prosecutor, said in his final statement that Graner was a disgrace to the military and urged the 10 jurors to send him to prison for the maximum sentence.

"The time for Specialist Graner to be responsible for his actions is finally here," Holley said.

Graner faced 10 counts under five separate charges: Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty. He was found guilty on all counts, except that one assault count was downgraded to battery.

Four soldiers have pleaded guilty in the case. Two other guards from the 372nd Military Police Company, a reserve unit from Cresaptown, Md., are awaiting trial, along with Pfc. Lynndie England, a clerk at Abu Ghraib who last fall gave birth to a baby believed to be fathered by Graner.

Throughout Graner's 4 1/2-day trial, prosecutors depicted him as a sadist who took great pleasure in seeing detainees suffer.

"It was for sport, for laughs," prosecutor Graveline told jurors in his closing argument Friday. "What we have here is plain abuse. There is no justification."

Iraqi detainee Hussein Mutar, in videotaped testimony shown as the sentencing phase began Friday evening, said he had supported the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) until he was abused.

"The Americans came to free the Iraqi people from Saddam," Mutar said. "I didn't expect this to happen. This instance changed the entire picture of the American people (for me)."

Irma Graner, testifying in the sentencing phase, described her son as a kind and gentle man who faithfully served his country.

"He is not the monster he's made out to be," she said quietly. "In my eyes he'll always be a hero."

The shocking photos of reservists abusing and sexually humiliating prisoners were first broadcast on CBS's "60 Minutes II" in April.

A month later, President Bush (news - web sites) urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make sure that any guilty U.S. soldiers be punished for "shameful and appalling acts."


 

[SLCPUNK]

And our biggest opponent in the war are people like you that want failure at all costs to prove that Bush is evil and that you were right.

Well look who came around? 

A comment like this is absurd and makes it tough for me to read or reply to the rest of your crap.

[SLCPUNK]

[Rain]

I can't believe this. The lack of logic ... America stood against UN and entered Iraq because Iraq had wmds ... two years later, americans found nothing ... even the President newly re-elected said so ... but that's ok it's still ok for America to have entered Iraq, it wasn't a mistake at all ... 
And sorry NT I still can't get the notion of preventive war ... it's ok when it's us attacking a so called "terrorist" country but if a country decided to lead a preventive war on us, is it still a good thing ?

And attacking SLC about patriotism is so retard ... you've been (not only NT) using this for two years in here now. Patriotism when it's seen as a positive thing (in Europe, at least in France, that's rarely the case) is when you want the best for your country, SLC voted and speak up his mind when he wants to, giving another view of what america can be. More or less 50 % of americans are against the war because they think it's a shame for their country. How is that being unpatriotic ?

[GnRNightrain]

And our biggest opponent in the war are people like you that want failure at all costs to prove that Bush is evil and that you were right.

Well look who came around??

A comment like this is absurd and makes it tough for me to read or reply to the rest of your crap.

I think its a pretty accurate statement.  Dont worry, I never expected a good response from you.  You always say the same predictable BS.

[GnRNightrain]

And attacking SLC about patriotism is so retard ... you've been (not only NT) using this for two years in here now. Patriotism when it's seen as a positive thing (in Europe, at least in France, that's rarely the case) is when you want the best for your country,

There is one thing with being against the war, there is another thing with hoping we lose the war so Bush fails and SLCs views are vindicated.? IMO, from reading his posts he wants the latter.? Ive never heard him praise any success in the war, nor praise anything that Bush or the US has done in the past 2 years.? That doesnt seem like someone that wants best for this country.

And sorry NT I still can't get the notion of preventive war ... it's ok when it's us attacking a so called "terrorist" country but if a country decided to lead a preventive war on us, is it still a good thing ?

War is never a good thing.  Im not sure that you read those articles I posted because they explain it very well.  THose are the things that any rationale nation would go through in determining whether to go to preventive war.  You never have 100% information when you make these decisions.  That is the flaw of the entire WMD argument.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

GNRNight
the thing is that it's not about WINNING the war. there is no winner.

it's about the reasons of the war. and lets just stay on that fact : where are the wmds ?
that WAS the fuckin reason ....

[SLCPUNK]

And attacking SLC about patriotism is so retard ... you've been (not only NT) using this for two years in here now. Patriotism when it's seen as a positive thing (in Europe, at least in France, that's rarely the case) is when you want the best for your country,

There is one thing with being against the war, there is another thing with hoping we lose the war so Bush fails and SLCs views are vindicated.? IMO, from reading his posts he wants the latter.? Ive never heard him praise any success in the war, nor praise anything that Bush or the US has done in the past 2 years.? That doesnt seem like someone that wants best for this country.

And sorry NT I still can't get the notion of preventive war ... it's ok when it's us attacking a so called "terrorist" country but if a country decided to lead a preventive war on us, is it still a good thing ?

War is never a good thing.? Im not sure that you read those articles I posted because they explain it very well.? THose are the things that any rationale nation would go through in determining whether to go to preventive war.? You never have 100% information when you make these decisions.? That is the flaw of the entire WMD argument.

I have stated numerous times that I don't wish us to "lose" the war. You know that.

My comments anger you and that is your way of attacking me. It is the same propaganda talk "the Dude" uses. You take what I say, then turn it into  "You don't support your country" or "you wish the USA loses", trying to put me on the defensive (my character and my patriotism) instead of dealing with the subject matter.

The Dude I expect this from, but from you NT I am disappointed. You are too smart to fall victim to this kind of strategy.

I think I have made myself clear on where I stand. And it is indeed true there is no "winner" per se. Nothing has been won out of all this. All I see is loss on ALL SIDES.

 And like the man said: stay on that fact....where are the WMD?

[Mattman]

I don't know if the Nazis ever mentioned a "Polish menace"...they pretty much said they just wanted to add it to their empire.  So the difference here is that while the Bush Bunch had to lie and find an excuse to go to Iraq, Hitler & Co. didn't even bother with that step.

Wow, I hate to say this, but now that I read that over, it means that Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war - he said all along what his real plans were.  With Bush you're always second-guessing.  That's funny coming from a guy who prides himself on "straight talk".

[GnRNightrain]

Wow, I hate to say this, but now that I read that over, it means that Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war - he said all along what his real plans were.? With Bush you're always second-guessing.? That's funny coming from a guy who prides himself on "straight talk".

Comparisons between Bush and Hitler never amaze me on this board.

Did Poland invade its neighbor ten years earlier?? Did they violate 17 UN resolutions?? Did they violate one that led to the war?? Did intelligence from numerous different countries (on both sides of the war debate) say that Poland had WMDs?  Did the leader of Poland kill hundreds of thousands of his own people?  Was Poland giving money and supporting the second biggest muslim terrorist network?  Did Hitler get a unanimous vote at the UN to say that they thought Iraq had WMDs and that he must comply with inspections or else face the consequences?  Did Poland not comply with the inspections?

Bush has always been straight forward, you just dont like what he has to say.

[Will]

Comparisons between Bush and Hitler never amaze me on this board.

I don't like these comparisons either. But then again, the same people usually compare the intervention in Iraq to WWII. That never ceases to amaze me either.

[Eazy E]

Wow, I hate to say this, but now that I read that over, it means that Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war - he said all along what his real plans were. ?With Bush you're always second-guessing. ?That's funny coming from a guy who prides himself on "straight talk".

Comparisons between Bush and Hitler never amaze me on this board.

Did Poland invade its neighbor ten years earlier? ?Did they violate 17 UN resolutions? ?Did they violate one that led to the war? ?Did intelligence from numerous different countries (on both sides of the war debate) say that Poland had WMDs? Did the leader of Poland kill hundreds of thousands of his own people? Was Poland giving money and supporting the second biggest muslim terrorist network? Did Hitler get a unanimous vote at the UN to say that they thought Iraq had WMDs and that he must comply with inspections or else face the consequences? Did Poland not comply with the inspections?

Bush has always been straight forward, you just dont like what he has to say.

 
God Bless a man that is straight forward. ?Personally, I love what he has to say:

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." ?Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

"They misunderestimated me." ?Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" ?Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

"There's an old saying in Tennessee ? I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee ? that says, fool me once, shame on ? shame on you. ?Fool me ? you can't get fooled again." ?Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ?Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


Mattman said Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war... and Bush's reason was WMDs, which you covered in a few of your questions/ramblings... and unless you've heard different, there aren't any WMDs. ?Oh and you used the UN to support that, what did the UN think about invading Iraq? ?

[GnRNightrain]

Mattman said Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war... and Bush's reason was WMDs, which you covered in a few of your questions/ramblings... and unless you've heard different, there aren't any WMDs. ?Oh and you used the UN to support that, what did the UN think about invading Iraq? ?

No shit they havent found any weapons.  You guys act like that is the ultimate vindication that Bush went to war for money.  The fact is that there are many factors that went into his decision, the evidence overwhelmingly showed he had WMDs, and that leaders often have to make decisions on less than 100% data.  Yet you guys think that because there was no WMDs found that Bush had an underlying motive for this war.  There is no evidence of this.  The British report and the 911 report said otherwise, and all evidence says otherwise.  As much as you want Bush to be in this for the money he isnt.  Perhaps he made a wrong decision in your eyes.  I think that is a perfectly reasonable position, however, claiming that the lack of WMDs shows Bush's true motivation is absolutely ridiculous.

[Rain]

Mattman said Hitler was more honest than Bush about going to war... and Bush's reason was WMDs, which you covered in a few of your questions/ramblings... and unless you've heard different, there aren't any WMDs. ?Oh and you used the UN to support that, what did the UN think about invading Iraq? ?

No shit they havent found any weapons.? You guys act like that is the ultimate vindication that Bush went to war for money.? The fact is that there are many factors that went into his decision, the evidence overwhelmingly showed he had WMDs, and that leaders often have to make decisions on less than 100% data.? Yet you guys think that because there was no WMDs found that Bush had an underlying motive for this war.? There is no evidence of this.? The British report and the 911 report said otherwise, and all evidence says otherwise.? As much as you want Bush to be in this for the money he isnt.? Perhaps he made a wrong decision in your eyes.? I think that is a perfectly reasonable position, however, claiming that the lack of WMDs shows Bush's true motivation is absolutely ridiculous.

Well I least we can say that his motives for entering the war were inacurate ... his mistake : not letting the UN send inspectors again ... but inspectors are not to be trusted aren't they ? But the facts proved they did their job properly.

[SLCPUNK]

A mistake, a tragedy of this nature should have heads rolling.

If you are going to war, you better be DAMN SURE that your intelligence is correct. President said "We are certain they have WMD". Where does the buck stop? It was the Prez who decided to send us over to war, was it not?

If you go in an shaky info, then be prepared to fire everybody responsible for the screwup, including the Prez.

It was his primary reason to go to war, and it was WRONG. There are no weapons...he fucked up!

Capturing Saddam does not outweigh the rest of the bad things that come with it.

[Eazy E]

I just noticed a "timeline" of quotes from various people in the Bush Administration and Tony Blair that Rolling Stone posted on their website, here's the link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6840288?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." -- Bush, February 8, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." -- Bush, May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming." -- Powell, May 4, 2003

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere (Laughter and applause)... Nope, no weapons over there. (Laughter and applause.) Maybe under here. (Laughter.) " -- Bush, March 24, 2004


I don't know what's more disgusting, that Bush went to war for no reason, or that the American people managed to re-elect him. 

[Will]

51% of countryside people (+ members from the board ). The rest of the country (the people connected with reality), those who live in big cities and on the coasts voted for Kerry.

[jgfnsr]

51% of countryside people (+ members from the board ). The rest of the country (the people connected with reality), those who live in big cities and on the coasts voted for Kerry.

"The people connected with reality" huh?  Condescending motherfucker.

Ya know, I think those who were and are so opposed to Bush...

- those who live in the big cities 

- those who live on the east and west coast 

- terrorists and terrorist-states 

were one of the main reasons the rest of of us voted for the guy.