Guant?namo Bay prison camp is 5 years old today

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

i'd say in extreme circumstances you must go ... smart.

i dont get all crazy about guantanamo and the "war of terror" from bush only because it sickens me.
it's just doesn't work
it's a bad solution

[Drew]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men don't torture the evil guys."   Edmund Burke

fixt

Shouldn't your name be at the end of the quote now?

[Skeletor]

Shouldn't your name be at the end of the quote now?

Good point! Guess I'm just too modest

[Izzy]

But also in extreme circumstances you must go to the extreme.

If the ends justiy the means wouldn't it just be easier to choose which ethnic group in Iraq is dominant and then 'evacuate (yes that old euphamism) the rest?

I hope you see how quickly a situation unravels when common sense and basic human decency is sacrificed.

Just because they are muslim doesnt make them aliens. They are human beings and i think there is such a degree of underlying rascism on this board and in the world in general people will say things they wouldn't dream of saying if white people were involved.

Is torturing suspects in your regular criminal cases valid? So why is it okay when those suspects are ''foriegn''?

[Sin Cut]

I'm just saying that if I'd be fighting a war and lives could be saved by gaining information by torturing some high ranking enemy officer, I could live with it.

Then, what great secrets does just a field soldier know.

[Izzy]

I'm just saying that if I'd be fighting a war and lives could be saved by gaining information by torturing some high ranking enemy officer, I could live with it.

Then, what great secrets does just a field soldier know.

But what are we fighting for?

I'd say decency and freedom.

How can u win that through terror?

[Prometheus]

I'm just saying that if I'd be fighting a war and lives could be saved by gaining information by torturing some high ranking enemy officer, I could live with it.

Then, what great secrets does just a field soldier know.

But what are we fighting for?

I'd say decency and freedom.

How can u win that through terror?

Izzy u have to admit though that u cant always turn the cheek when it comes to being attacked............ and dont swing this to Iraq as thats not a war on terror

[Sakib]

i wonder how many people in guantanamo are actually guilty

[Sin Cut]

I'm just saying that if I'd be fighting a war and lives could be saved by gaining information by torturing some high ranking enemy officer, I could live with it.

Then, what great secrets does just a field soldier know.

But what are we fighting for?

I'd say decency and freedom.

How can u win that through terror?

I'd say independence. And have you ever heard a war about decency 

Let's pick our guns n' rifles and storm Hustler!

[polluxlm]

I'm just saying that if I'd be fighting a war and lives could be saved by gaining information by torturing some high ranking enemy officer, I could live with it.

Then, what great secrets does just a field soldier know.

But what are we fighting for?

I'd say decency and freedom.

How can u win that through terror?

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

And there is no such thing as a 'clean' war.

[Izzy]

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

Partially but the main goal is securing resources - by occupying Iraq America now owns the oilfields and doesnt have to worry as much about OPEC's influence on the US economy

[polluxlm]

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

Partially but the main goal is securing resources - by occupying Iraq America know owns the oilfields and doesnt have to worry as much about OPEC's influence on the US economy

Like I said, it's about the cash.

[TAP]

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

Partially but the main goal is securing resources - by occupying Iraq America know owns the oilfields and doesnt have to worry as much about OPEC's influence on the US economy

It's a lot more complicated than that, the Iraq war has clearly had a negative effect on the US economy and gas prices have soared here, much higher than when Saddam owned the oilfields. It is certainly about oil, recycling oil dollars through the multinationals and arms industry while keeping the region at the right combination of ally/instability so that those countries never really develop independent wealth and prosperity for the benefit of their populace. It was easier during the cold war, but much harder to control now that "radical islam" is the demon, the intention of the Iraq war may have been "securing resources" for the benefit of the US economy but it failed on that front as well as every other front.

[Izzy]

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

Partially but the main goal is securing resources - by occupying Iraq America know owns the oilfields and doesnt have to worry as much about OPEC's influence on the US economy

It's a lot more complicated than that, the Iraq war has clearly had a negative effect on the US economy and gas prices have soared here, much higher than when Saddam owned the oilfields. It is certainly about oil, recycling oil dollars through the multinationals and arms industry while keeping the region at the right combination of ally/instability so that those countries never really develop independent wealth and prosperity for the benefit of their populace. It was easier during the cold war, but much harder to control now that "radical islam" is the demon, the intention of the Iraq war may have been "securing resources" for the benefit of the US economy but it failed on that front as well as every other front.

Well obviously its backfired...

But a plan to grab oil that fails is still a plan to grab oil....

[polluxlm]

We must also not forget that the 'Iraq Plan' wasn't just one group with one goal. There were alot of factors resonsible for starting this war. The arms industry who only see profit, the president who see votes and idealism, the government who sees career, the people who see justice, and so on.

Too many factions with too many different motivations is what made this utter mess.

[SLCPUNK]

Like I said, it's about the cash.

Yup.

They are already introducing a bill in front of Iraqi government that will do just that: line up all the big oil companies to get their piece of that great real estate.

[TAP]

Let's not fool ourselves. We're fighting for money.

Partially but the main goal is securing resources - by occupying Iraq America know owns the oilfields and doesnt have to worry as much about OPEC's influence on the US economy

It's a lot more complicated than that, the Iraq war has clearly had a negative effect on the US economy and gas prices have soared here, much higher than when Saddam owned the oilfields. It is certainly about oil, recycling oil dollars through the multinationals and arms industry while keeping the region at the right combination of ally/instability so that those countries never really develop independent wealth and prosperity for the benefit of their populace. It was easier during the cold war, but much harder to control now that "radical islam" is the demon, the intention of the Iraq war may have been "securing resources" for the benefit of the US economy but it failed on that front as well as every other front.

Well obviously its backfired...

But a plan to grab oil that fails is still a plan to grab oil....

Not obvious. It was never an oil grab in the sense of annexing a country and stealing the oil so that Americans could fill up their SUVs for 10c/gallon. It's not at all clear that the oil grab part of it has even failed, as evidenced by SLC's post above, the oil companies are probably doing just fine. The failure part (from a US govt point of view) is that Bush's legacy will almost certainly be negative despite all the political capital gained because 9/11. I guess they were hoping for a grateful puppet Iraqi government to hold up for a few years until Bush and his oil company cronies were long gone from the political scene.